New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[Rolflyn]

If the fighter's character is built as a diplomatic character, sure, awesomesauce. I had diplomatic fighter characters, my system supports them. But if the fighter used Cha as his dump stat, allowing the fighter to shine during the negotiations is a bit unfair to the player who actually built a diplomatic character (who is, OTOH, not optimized for combat).

In a game without personal interaction skills, you don't "build a diplomatic character" so neither of these applies. You cannot build a diplomatic fighter, you can create a fighter and play him diplomatically. You will not find it unfair that you created a diplomatic character that was outshined, because you couldn't create him in the first place.

I agree that removing skills after characters were built would be unfair. But I assure you that was not the case. Everyone was told ahead of time, built their characters, and had a blast.

We found it fun to apply our own creativity to the situations instead of rolling diplomacy and search checks. To solve a sphinx's riddle with our own brain power rather than with an INT check. Your group may feel differently.

I have never had so many compliments on a one-shot. If there was one player that didn't enjoy himself, he did not speak up. If he is stewing somewhere talking behind my back to someone else, I can't do anything about that.

 

[MacMathan]

In a game without personal interaction skills, you don't "build a diplomatic character" so neither of these applies. You cannot build a diplomatic fighter, you can create a fighter and play him diplomatically. You will not find it unfair that you created a diplomatic character that was outshined, because you couldn't create him in the first place.

I agree that removing skills after characters were built would be unfair. But I assure you that was not the case. Everyone was told ahead of time, built their characters, and had a blast.

We found it fun to apply our own creativity to the situations instead of rolling diplomacy and search checks. To solve a sphinx's riddle with our own brain power rather than with an INT check. Your group may feel differently.

I have never had so many compliments on a one-shot. If there was one player that didn't enjoy himself, he did not speak up. If he is stewing somewhere talking behind my back to someone else, I can't do anything about that.

Which brings us full circle to what the article was about in the first place. What should the default option for the balance between player skill/knowledge vs character skill/knowledge be?

I don't envy Mearls the position of deciding as there is someone somewhere that has had a great time playing one way or another even at the extremes.

That said throwing these ideas out there and getting input from your player base is a good move if you want to satisfy as many different tastes as possible. Now it can be debated if trying to do so is good for the game or not but that would be a different post.

 

[howandwhy99]

For player vs. character challenges, instead of a socially oriented, diplomacy PC why don't we think about a spatially oriented PC.

In the case of challenging the players, the DM draws a spatial map and hides it behind a screen. He describes it to the players who optionally draw their own map as they go or simply go by memory. The player created map isn't perfect, but it gets the job done and with counting paces or some other form of measurement they can create a more or less accurate reproduction. This doesn't mean the DM's map won't change, but he or she only changes it according to other rules (by which I mean a code here).

In the case of challenging the character, the DM more or less hand waves the spatial orienteering. The players want to move from where they are to the next place. But perhaps we want the player chosen PC ability to navigate space to matter? So we make an Orienteering or Dungeoneering roll with a target number set by the DM. If the roll is made, they arrive at the next location. If not, they arrive somewhere the players were not planning to go.

I don't think either is a better method. It's gamer preference. When do we want the patterned puzzle game with all the pre-drawn fiddly bits and when do we want simplicity by rolling or handwaving to the next storytelling scene.

I get freeform handwaving is a separate option for some, even so much as to not be considered a game. So if it isn't part of your game play, just consider the other two.

 

[Rolflyn]

Which brings us full circle to what the article was about in the first place. What should the default option for the balance between player skill/knowledge vs character skill/knowledge be?

I don't really care what the default is as long as it is easy to go the other way. But I suspect that another war will be fought regardless of which they go with.

 

[Balesir]

I don't really care what the default is as long as it is easy to go the other way. But I suspect that another war will be fought regardless of which they go with.

It already is easy to go either way; there are several systems out there that cover each of them. Why the fixation on one particular system having to do either both or (at least) the one you like? I see this view espoused by fans of all editions and styles; I don't want to single you or any single "school" out, but I really don't get the "I happen to like this style and we who like this style must claim and win D&D for our own!" deal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It already is easy to go either way; there are several systems out there that cover each of them. Why the fixation on one particular system having to do either both or (at least) the one you like? I see this view espoused by fans of all editions and styles; I don't want to single you or any single "school" out, but I really don't get the "I happen to like this style and we who like this style must claim and win D&D for our own!" deal.

I think with D&D the issue is it has traditionally been the go-to-game and to get everyone at the table it needs to have broad appeal. IMO D&D ends up in some trouble when it focuses too much on one play style. Personally I don't want the next edition to be designed around my prefered style of play. I'd prefer it be something that people from all kinds of styles will enjoy. That way I can get more people in my gaming circle to the table.

 

[Sammael]

Anyway, after commenting on others' posts, I guess it would only be fair to write my own preferences in play.

I enjoy skill-based systems. My own d20 rendition is entirely skill-based (even for combat). I firmly believe that there should be rules or guidelines for most actions in the game, and that the DM shouldn't have to make too many decisions on the fly, because that leads to inconsistency (unless written down, at which point the system is no longer rules light) and favoritism (this is usually the case; very few DMs can be objective and impartial all the time).

At the same time, I love player creativity and enjoy handing direction over to the players. My system uses Fate Points that allow the players to not only avoid certain death but also modify the environment, pull off incredible stunts, and win against impossible odds. Stuff that makes the game really, really fun.

One of the first things I tell people who come to play in my games is that I want them to describe their characters' intentions first and then translate them into game mechanics (with or without my help, depending on the situation). After we determine the mechanical outcome, either the player or I will narrate the actual scene.

I will never, ever penalize the players for failing to describe their actions in detail, as long as they make their intentions clear. I will always award good descriptions and clever ideas - both with a bonus to the die roll made during the game, as well as with bonus XP at the end of the session.

Having said all that, the dice are there to be rolled (unless the player states he is taking 10 or 20), and what is ultimately being tested is character skill, not player skill. I have no idea how to pick a lock, disarm a trap, intimidate an orc, or cast a fireball, but my character does. And, Wheaton's Law notwithstanding - even the best method actor players in the world will metagame every once in a while.

And BTW, method actors are just one of the many player archetypes out there - and each and every player type - the powergamer, the specialist, the method actor, the tactician, and so on - has the right to have fun at the table as long as their own fun is not at the expense of others, they all have equal rights.

 

[Rolflyn]

It already is easy to go either way; there are several systems out there that cover each of them. Why the fixation on one particular system having to do either both or (at least) the one you like? I see this view espoused by fans of all editions and styles; I don't want to single you or any single "school" out, but I really don't get the "I happen to like this style and we who like this style must claim and win D&D for our own!" deal.

Are you saying that having D&D support multiple styles (including those we don't prefer) is claiming it for our own? I don't see it that way, I see it as having a game that can be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

And my post you quoted even said I don't care what the default is, so it could default to yours, and I would be happy. Does D&D really need to be exclusionary for you to enjoy it?

 

[Rolflyn]

Having said all that, the dice are there to be rolled (unless the player states he is taking 10 or 20), and what is ultimately being tested is character skill, not player skill.

This is where we differ. I find it more fun to have player skill tested. More fun to figure out a riddle myself than roll a skill check. More entertaining to check the statue for secret compartments than just roll a check for the entire room. More enjoyable to come up with a good argument for the titan to aid us than roll some dice and add a modifier.

My dice are on the table largely to resolve combat and an occasional jump or lock pick. Stuff we can't resolve via "what are you doing?" During exploration, negotiations, etc. the dice are just in the way. Back before interpersonal and searching skills were added, we've played entire D&D games without a dice roll and enjoyed them immensely. It took removing the skills from a "modern" version to make us realize how much we like the other way.

If you enjoy rolling dice to find secret doors and don't mind missing them when you roll poorly, more power to you. I hope D&D supports both of our styles going forward.

 

[Sammael]

As I said before, I have no problem with that if the style is shared by all the people around the table. OTOH, my personal experience is that no two players are alike and they have widely different preferences, which means that there must be a common denominator to balance the experience somewhat.

I guess this also depends on the players' personal gaming history, the way the group was formed, and so on. I once proposed that we try out one of the diceless systems (e.g. Amber), and one of my players (a licensed psychologist) replied that the dice are what makes RPG a "game" and that if we didn't use the dice, the whole experience would stop being a game and turn into a psychodrama of sorts - something that he had no interest whatsoever in. I don't agree with that sentiment in its entirety, I just posted it to illustrate how widely different player opinions and styles can be.