Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[S'mon]

Without codified rules, the game will quickly devolve into "Who's the most charismatic player?"

This phobia of charismatic players seems to have become a strong meme on ENW recently. I don't remember ever seeing it years ago. Has there been a cultural shift that makes people more suspicious of charisma?

 

[pemerton]

The problem that I have with the Poetry Contest example is this: What happens the next time?

<snip>

If you've opened the door that "Doesn't really matter what your sheet says your character is, roleplying trumps that" then what if later on, there's a magical competition based on figuring out some arcane puzzle. Let's say the player of the Fighter, in addition to being poetic, also happens to be quite smart.

<snip>

The question then is, do you let him auto-succeed? If you do, then you've further reinforced that it really doesn't matter what character you decide to play, it only matters what BS background you can pull out of thin air to support your superior intellectual/persuasive/poetic/etc.. abilities.

<snip>

If you don't let it auto-succeed, then you've gone against your previous ruling.

HeroQuest gives good advice on this sort of issue. It's not an abstract problem. It's a table problem, and so can be solved at the table - adjudicate in such a way as to not overshadow another player's PC.

IMNSHO you should always and consistently let roleplaying trump what's on the PC sheet.

Mostly agreed, but I think the overshadowing issue is a real one.

We tend to do things similarly to [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] upthread - in cases of potential overshadowing, let the players act as "committee" for the player of the appropriate PC.

 

[pemerton]

What if the D&D game rules say bend the rules for narrative effect and for the maximum game fun?

I'm not sure what you've got in mind, but my default response is - those are bad rules. (As I posted upthread, I don't think this is what p 42 says.)

Is chess an rpg?

No. It has no fictional positioning.

 

[Quickleaf]

If you've opened the door that "Doesn't really matter what your sheet says your character is, roleplying trumps that" then what if later on, there's a magical competition based on figuring out some arcane puzzle. Let's say the player of the Fighter, in addition to being poetic, also happens to be quite smart. He figures out the puzzle himself, and thus says that he should be able to win the competition, even though his stats pale in comparison to 20 INT Wizard at the table whose player isn't quite as bright.

I've read similar lines of reasoning by several D&D developers. It's as as if we're assuming that players are willing to throw role-playing out the window in order to "win the game". IME players enjoy having roles with defined boundaries. The charismatic fighter and the genius fighter ate very rarely going to overlap. Limits are part of what make RPGs fun, and we should give players more credit for regulating themselves.

Simply put: Just because you on know trolls are killed with acid or fire doesn't mean your character knows, and role-playing the not knowing can be a lot of fun.

If we design games assuming that players are trying to get away with being the best at everything, to gain every possible advantage in spite of the story and other players, we lose the spirit of what makes RPGs enjoyable.

 

[LurkAway]

I've read similar lines of reasoning by several D&D developers. It's as as if we're assuming that players are willing to throw role-playing out the window in order to "win the game". IME players enjoy having roles with defined boundaries.

That's also been my experience.

I remember a very intelligent player who preferred to roleplay average inteligence fighters. When the party was faced with a puzzle, he tended to sit back, looking slightly bored, or roleplayed his PC to act more impulsively. He didn't try to intellectually engage in the puzzle because he was into his role. And he was not some sort of ultra-immersionist actor type by any stretch of the imagination. Then in another RPG, he roleplayed a professor-type and he would definitely engage more in thinking challenges.

Like S'mon said, we weren't trying to "win". We weren't trying to steal the limelight, we weren't feeling competitive with each other, we were just sharing a fun story.

Because we weren't trying to "win" and outdo each other, I would not feel threatened if the player had suddenly launched into poetry recital -- it wouldn't occur to me to assume that he was trying to "win" the skill challenge. The only thing that would surprise me is the fictional positioning, was the fighter some sort of closet poet? The player might then roleplay a sheepish expression and admit that he sometimes memorizes poems and phrases in order to seem more intelligent, or whatever. If the player was a poet and chose to roleplay a dunce fighter with no poetic skills, or a fighter-who-wants-to-be-a-poet, or a full-out bard, I would respect any of those choices.

 

[tuxgeo]

No, you're playing a role with the talents you possess. But certainly it is mostly self-insertion, the player is expected to be success-oriented so there is a strong player-PC identification and correspondence. The PC is an alter-ego, not a playing piece, and someone with whom the player strongly identifies. Those of us who GM a lot may create PCs with whom we identify less strongly, a bit of the GM habit creeps in, but IME that's rare. Most players' PCs are "Me - but cooler!" - and IMO that's fine.

[Emphasis added.]
I don't see how anyone could quantify the part about Most players' PCs' being the player, but cooler.
Certainly, Wizards has data about what kinds of PCs are being built; but they have no way to correlate that with the natures of the players who play those characters.

Could this be a matter of differing playing styles?

 

[S'mon]

[Emphasis added.]
I don't see how anyone could quantify the part about Most players' PCs' being the player, but cooler.
Certainly, Wizards has data about what kinds of PCs are being built; but they have no way to correlate that with the natures of the players who play those characters.

Could this be a matter of differing playing styles?

I don't think whether a PC is a Tiefling Warlock, Human Fighter or Shardmind Psion has much bearing on how they are played or whether they are a stand-in for the player.

 

[S'mon]

I remember a very intelligent player who preferred to roleplay average inteligence fighters. When the party was faced with a puzzle, he tended to sit back, looking slightly bored, or roleplayed his PC to act more impulsively. He didn't try to intellectually engage in the puzzle because he was into his role.

Heh, that sounds a lot like me. When I play an INT 8 PC, I get a bit resentful if the GM expects me to engage with his puzzle using my own brain. Doesn't help that while I'm smart enough IRL, I don't like doing puzzles at the best of times, never mind when I'm playing a PC whose solution to every problem is "hit it again". And I like playing those PCs.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not trying to be flipant or anything here, but then what's the point of the character sheet in the first place if RP always trumps it? Why not just resolve combat that way too? I mean, if IRL I actually know a lot of martial arts, and could properly disarm and kill an opponent, why not let my 8 STR Wizard simple kill the BBEG on an OA then?

The way I handle it is to have checks (rolls) whenever there's a conflict of interest between characters in the game world. (I consider a dungeon or wilderness hex to be a "character".) If there isn't a conflict then there's no need to roll.

If you describe some kind of arm lock on the BBEG I'm going to have you make a check. If you succeed, he can't get out of it without breaking his arm, so I'm not going to make a check to see if he can get out. Unless he does want to break his arm, then I'd have him make a check, and he might end up with a broken arm and still in a lock. (Assuming that's how this arm lock works!)

If you describe your character saying something to convince the BBEG of something, and what you say - based on how I'm playing the role of the BBEG - convinces him, there's no conflict and no need for a check. Similarly, if you say something that he would never agree to, there's no need for a check (unless you have some kind of magical talent that allows this - "These are not the droids you're looking for" - that would require a check). If I think the BBEG would consider your argument - I don't know how he'd react - then I call for a check.

In play I've found that the character sheet is important but so are the specific actions the player chooses for his character.

 

[LurkAway]

Anyway, I hope this post goes a bit further in explaining why I think that good rules don't need to be broken (but can benefit from supplementation), and also why I think that 4e is not the fictional-positioning-killer that it is sometimes painted as (including by implication, I think, in Monte's column).

What if the D&D game rules say bend the rules for narrative effect and for the maximum game fun?

I'm not sure what you've got in mind, but my default response is - those are bad rules. (As I posted upthread, I don't think this is what p 42 says.)

What if I read a preview of a new werewolf rule and I think that rule is stupid because it does not take the game world seriously and it primarily exists for tactical combat purposes.

You wrote that page 42 exists to supplement the existing rules, not break/ignore them. So I imagine some "out of bounds" roleplaying that attempts to encompass the rule.

DM: Your foe, Larry, hits you with his Fist of Stooges!
Player for Curly: (player thinking out of bounds) I don't want my Curly to kick Moe again! I want to control my Werewolf instincts.
DM: OK, Make a Will check to not kick Moe.
Player for Curly: Damn, I fail.
DM: You kick Moe, again.
Player for Curly: "Moe, you idiot, stop standing next to me when Larry is punching me. Or just wait until Stage 4 when I become a proper werewolf and lose the silly knee-jerk reaction in human form!"
Player for Moe: I still can't believe this is happening. I'm not moving away. The next time that Larry punches Curly, I'm going to disbelieve Curly's Kick as an illusion!

...OR...

DM: You kick Moe, again.
Player for Curly: (player thinking out of bounds) Why?
DM: Um, your feral instincts cause you to lash out in wild rage at Moe
Player for Curly: (player thinking out of bounds) Why don't I lash out at Larry who attacked me?
DM: Um, because your feral rage makes you irrational
Player for Curly: (player thinking out of bounds) If I'm so irrational, why do I consistently attack an adjacent ally and not any random adjacent creature?
DM: Um...
Player for Curly: (player thinking out of bounds) I will embrace my inner Werewolf! I attack Bob with my fingers and teeth!
Player for Bob: (player thinking in bounds) Ow! Why did you do that?? The rules for Stage 4 of the Werewolf Curse only state that...

In your game, you give wonderful examples of your 4E gameplay that allow lots of 'out of bounds' roleplaying, but I always end up finding some tidbit about 4E that undermines my budding confidence. Do you see why I feel that "out of bounds" roleplaying keeps hitting a disconnect when the system rules don't account for it? I still think that Monte has a good point.