Sammael
Adventurer
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Player vs. Character)
I still haven't read it, so no comments yet.
I still haven't read it, so no comments yet.
New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character
- Thread starter Sammael
- Start date
delericho
Legend
Ah, the age-old debate. As Mearls says, there's no one true answer to this one - perhaps this is an area where the game should be modular?
(I know that I get really annoyed if I'm playing a game where I'm the bard, I invest my few skills heavily in Diplomacy and the like... and then see the DM completely ignore those skills in favour of 'roleplay' - which too often is code for "my favourites prosper".)
The problem with going for the "immersion approach" Mearls describes is that the players will probably ask a lot of exhaustive questions about the statue... and every statue they encounter. They'll also proceed to miss almost every secret you place in a 'non-classic' location, since they probably won't even register the clues.
One final thing to consider: back in the 1st Ed. DMG, there is a discussion about the elven ability to detect secret doors simply by passing close to them. There, Gygax indicates that elf PCs should only get to roll if the player specifically remembers. That was an important distinction that was missing from the 2nd Ed. rules, but it's actually really important.
So maybe that's the middle ground: the stats on the sheet indicate what your characters can do... but you only get the benefit of those if the player thinks to ask. Challenge both the player and the character.
(I know that I get really annoyed if I'm playing a game where I'm the bard, I invest my few skills heavily in Diplomacy and the like... and then see the DM completely ignore those skills in favour of 'roleplay' - which too often is code for "my favourites prosper".)
The problem with going for the "immersion approach" Mearls describes is that the players will probably ask a lot of exhaustive questions about the statue... and every statue they encounter. They'll also proceed to miss almost every secret you place in a 'non-classic' location, since they probably won't even register the clues.
One final thing to consider: back in the 1st Ed. DMG, there is a discussion about the elven ability to detect secret doors simply by passing close to them. There, Gygax indicates that elf PCs should only get to roll if the player specifically remembers. That was an important distinction that was missing from the 2nd Ed. rules, but it's actually really important.
So maybe that's the middle ground: the stats on the sheet indicate what your characters can do... but you only get the benefit of those if the player thinks to ask. Challenge both the player and the character.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
Interesting. I think it arguably useful to separate the adventure specific stuff from the world stuff. Most of us know the weaknesses and strengths of most of the basic D&D monsters. Knowledge skills mean that not-so-experienced players have a chance there. And if a DM insisted that we separate player knowledge from character knowledge, and then threw trolls against us, without knowledge skills that let us know their weaknesses, I would find the resulting battle immensely frustrating. I think I might spend the entire battle wondering if it would be metagaming to bring out Melf's Acid Arrow.
As for adventure things... I think he has a good point about it being DM specific. Doing it player-wise would be a pain under any DM who expected pixel-perfect searching, and would take certain skills on the DM's part; you've got to provide the right information, with too little information or just something the players don't put together having the potential to stop the game. (Or worse, bad information; nothing is more frustrating then a DM giving out clues based on real world information that confuses the players because it's wrong.)
As for adventure things... I think he has a good point about it being DM specific. Doing it player-wise would be a pain under any DM who expected pixel-perfect searching, and would take certain skills on the DM's part; you've got to provide the right information, with too little information or just something the players don't put together having the potential to stop the game. (Or worse, bad information; nothing is more frustrating then a DM giving out clues based on real world information that confuses the players because it's wrong.)
vagabundo
Adventurer
I'd like to think that their is a balance somewhere between the two approaches. And I don't think any version of DND has found the sweet spot - or the sweet spot that would enhance most games.
I've often despaired at the roll approach to everything from my group:
"You see a statue of a Thiefling, his arms raised to the heavens"
"I roll perception"
"BUT TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!"
"ehhh, Perceiving?!?"
"ARGHGHGHG" <Bolt of lightening from the sky smites the character>
I've often despaired at the roll approach to everything from my group:
"You see a statue of a Thiefling, his arms raised to the heavens"
"I roll perception"
"BUT TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!"
"ehhh, Perceiving?!?"
"ARGHGHGHG" <Bolt of lightening from the sky smites the character>
Subtlepanic
First Post
I had a discussion with an old-school D&D gamer a while back, who told me that the best advice you could ever give a player is "remember to look up".
Man, I never played games like that, even back in the early eighties.
Man, I never played games like that, even back in the early eighties.
Frostmarrow
First Post
How about skill "visas"? If you have visa in a certain skill you are allowed to make in depth question about the subject matter.
If the RAW allows for two models of handling skills you have on the one hand a familiar system of skillpoints and die rolls. On the other hand you can have a system that allow certain characters to interview the DM about specific things.
For example: My character could have 14 ranks of Arcane Knowledge on my character sheet. However, in this particular game the group has opted for the visa approach and in that model I have Arcane Knowledge Visa. This gives me the right, if you will, to ask questions about matters of the arcane. My friend has Search Visa so he actively search for treasure. Now, If I try to search I can still find things that are pretty obvious such as hidden under a bed, however even if I did state that I'm looking for hidden mechanisms in a lock the DM would rule that I really don't know what I'm looking for. By the same token my friend could ask questions about magic but shouldn't count on knowing a lot about it.
In this way we make sure all players share the spot-light. The best part is that you can combine the two! I can have Search 14 and Arcane Knowledge Visa if the campaign is more about magical research than looting. The cost for Visa should be equivalent to a maxed out skill, if you buy ranks with points.
Thoughts?
If the RAW allows for two models of handling skills you have on the one hand a familiar system of skillpoints and die rolls. On the other hand you can have a system that allow certain characters to interview the DM about specific things.
For example: My character could have 14 ranks of Arcane Knowledge on my character sheet. However, in this particular game the group has opted for the visa approach and in that model I have Arcane Knowledge Visa. This gives me the right, if you will, to ask questions about matters of the arcane. My friend has Search Visa so he actively search for treasure. Now, If I try to search I can still find things that are pretty obvious such as hidden under a bed, however even if I did state that I'm looking for hidden mechanisms in a lock the DM would rule that I really don't know what I'm looking for. By the same token my friend could ask questions about magic but shouldn't count on knowing a lot about it.
In this way we make sure all players share the spot-light. The best part is that you can combine the two! I can have Search 14 and Arcane Knowledge Visa if the campaign is more about magical research than looting. The cost for Visa should be equivalent to a maxed out skill, if you buy ranks with points.
Thoughts?
G
Guest 85555
Guest
I have been torn on this one for a long time. I can see the value in both approaches. But I have to say, I ran a 2E game recently (after years of 3E) and I noticed a huge increase in role playing and interaction with the setting. It was a Ravenloft campaign.
I've run Ravenloft since the early 90s, and rand several 3E ravenloft campaigns when the new edition came out. However I did notice my 3E campaigns never quite felt the same. Don't get me wrong, I love 3E. I just found in the games I was running it didn't work as well for Ravenloft somehow.
Certainly much of this depends on the players and the GM. I think what happens sometimes is people lean on those social skill rolls like Diplomacy, Bluff or other types of skills like Detect. One can certainly role play and make a Diplomacy roll. But in practice there seems to be a muffling effect.
Once again don't get me wrong. Like I said I am torn on this issue, and in the game system I designed I ended up with tons of social skills and detect-like skills.
This is probably the first Mearls article so far I've enjoyed. This is an important question in game design, and more importantly, it is an honest difference between 1e/2e and 3e/4e.
I've run Ravenloft since the early 90s, and rand several 3E ravenloft campaigns when the new edition came out. However I did notice my 3E campaigns never quite felt the same. Don't get me wrong, I love 3E. I just found in the games I was running it didn't work as well for Ravenloft somehow.
Certainly much of this depends on the players and the GM. I think what happens sometimes is people lean on those social skill rolls like Diplomacy, Bluff or other types of skills like Detect. One can certainly role play and make a Diplomacy roll. But in practice there seems to be a muffling effect.
Once again don't get me wrong. Like I said I am torn on this issue, and in the game system I designed I ended up with tons of social skills and detect-like skills.
This is probably the first Mearls article so far I've enjoyed. This is an important question in game design, and more importantly, it is an honest difference between 1e/2e and 3e/4e.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I have and added a poll on EN World here -
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...nds-lore-player-vs-character-poll-thread.html
For things like Perception I prefer skill checks (or even better using passive perception). I don't even mind if my players tell me they 'search everything'. Then I do a little calculation and tell them how long it would take, which may or may not cause them to be more specific.
Hiding secret compartments in particularly devious ways and requiring players to have exactly the right idea is not something I consider fun:
"Poking the statue's right eye at the same time as its left nostril while twisting the ringfinger of its right hand counter-clockwise will open a secret panel behind the fifth row of the third bookcase on the wall left from the entrance of the room two doors down the corridor."
In the worst case you have something REALLY BAD (TM) happening if they pcs do anything differently. Like, say, in the Tomb of Horrors
Nah, I really don't care for this at all. It's just an elaborate variant of "Mother, may I."
Hiding secret compartments in particularly devious ways and requiring players to have exactly the right idea is not something I consider fun:
"Poking the statue's right eye at the same time as its left nostril while twisting the ringfinger of its right hand counter-clockwise will open a secret panel behind the fifth row of the third bookcase on the wall left from the entrance of the room two doors down the corridor."
In the worst case you have something REALLY BAD (TM) happening if they pcs do anything differently. Like, say, in the Tomb of Horrors
Nah, I really don't care for this at all. It's just an elaborate variant of "Mother, may I."
G
Guest 85555
Guest
For things like Perception I prefer skill checks (or even better using passive perception). I don't even mind if my players tell me they 'search everything'. Then I do a little calculation and tell them how long it would take, which may or may not cause them to be more specific.
Hiding secret compartments in particularly devious ways and requiring players to have exactly the right idea is not something I consider fun:
"Poking the statue's right eye at the same time as its left nostril while twisting the ringfinger of its right hand counter-clockwise will open a secret panel behind the fifth row of the third bookcase on the wall left from the entrance of the room two doors down the corridor."
In the worst case you have something REALLY BAD (TM) happening if they pcs do anything differently. Like, say, in the Tomb of Horrors
Nah, I really don't care for this at all. It's just an elaborate variant of "Mother, may I."
I think if the secret compartments are totally arbitrary with no visible clues, then it is an issue, but if there are clues and it is a challenging but beatable situation, then I have tons of fun. One thing dice rolls can't replicate is the thrill of puzzle solving.
Similar Threads
