New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[Crazy Jerome]

I think in the end we don't need to dial things all the way back to pure DM fiat, but instead we need to find some compromise between the two. A system that allows your character to be better then yourself on paper, but at the same time promotes a bit of interaction with the imaginary world.

How do you balance those two things though?

Any number of ways, the exploration of which I guess is the point of the article.

The way i was advocating in my prior post, but into more general terms, is something like this:

A. There are nice things about having rolls and also nice things about having some fiat. To get both in the same design, one way is to divide when they apply. The character and the player need to matter.

B. The problem with fiat is that you get dick DMs--either because they don't know what they are doing, or because they just don't give a rip. Can't do anything about the ones that don't give a rip, but the way to help the salvageable ones is to teach them how to manage the fiat. One way to do that is to give them some structure for the fiat to work within.

C. The problem with rolls/numbers/mechanics/etc. is that you focus on those. You'd like to somehow limit that influence while still having it handy for when it really matters.

D. You could divide along functional lines. For example, diplomacy could be nearly all fiat and combat nearly all rolls. However, that has been tried, and unless the particular mix happens to appeal to you, is probably not a good fit for D&D. Any given mix is unlikely to have wide spread appeal to those otherwise willing to play D&D. You can also make each one matter somewhat, but the problem here all too frequently is that cautious players end up playing both to the max, the DM escalates, and off we go.

E. So the divide needs to happen some other way. One way is when the divide occurs varies, depending on the situation. Two things determine when it matters--when and what the player initiates and what his character sheet says his compentency is. Only in this particular slant, the emphasis slides from fiat to roll and back again depending upon your characters' competence and the thing you chose to do. This puts the choice largely in the hands of the player during play, at least more so than other options (e.g. DM's hands with pure fiat, or character build, etc.)

Now one big bug (or feature for some people) to that slant is that the "flags" of what you are interested in have some interesting tweaks. This is true of any game, but it becomes much more obvious here. Namely, the prospect that your skill levels informs your interest changes dramatically with relative challenge. You get:

1. No appreciable skill - don't care to interact with this--unchanged from other systems.

2. Low skill - can do it if necessary or if need to push. Flag as don't want to do it much, but can "step up" occasionally. Flag is avoidance, but more conditional than many systems.

3. Average skill - things you want to do a lot. Flag is stronger than many other systems, at this skill level. Requires some player effort with strong chance of success.

4. Varying degrees of High skill - things your character may do a lot, but you as a player spend little time or effort upon. The character does these effortlessly. From a flag perspective, you don't want to be bothered with the mechanics or challenge of this task much as a player--though you are probably highly interested in it thematically or such. This is also true of many systems as a practical matter, but not usually this stark compared to the being average.

You'll note that the need for fiat changes radically in each step. In fact, in the last one, the player has the option to commit resources to, in effect, exercise player fiat: With this task, I'm so talented that on normal stuff, I simply get what I want. It only matters when the DM has introduced something tougher than normal.

 

[Scribble]

Lots of Good Stuff.

I think the divide can't be between social and physical though because you then get players unable to be social in real life unable to play social characters in the game.

I think primarily The games themselves need to push for more interaction with the rules. They need to indicate that aside from just rolling the player should describe his/her actions in detail because the DM might find they get a bonus to do whatever task. (Personally I don't think they should be penalized that way leads to dick DMs.)

On the DM's side they need to do more to talk about how player ideas outside of just rolling can add to their ability.


Here's a question though: Do you think skills in and of themselves lessen player immersion because they make players think about what they can do on paper?

For instance if you don't list any skills, you just try whatever.

When you DO list skills, do you find yourself thinking hrmmm what out of x number of skills should I try?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Here's a question though: Do you think skills in and of themselves lessen player immersion because they make players think about what they can do on paper?

For instance if you don't list any skills, you just try whatever.

When you DO list skills, do you find yourself thinking hrmmm what out of x number of skills should I try?

Explicit skills can have that effect. But short of freeform, I think some of that effect is unavoidable. And I'm not a proponent of freeform. So I'd rather look to things that keep the listed skills, but minimize the bad side effects, within reason.

For example, I think skills should be reasonably broad most of the time, within the confines of what the game is about, but narrow when utility makes that important. That is, I think in a game of action heroes, "Athletics" is generally a superior skill to separate skills for "Jump", "Swim," and "Climb. Then if you want to distinguish among people who can't swim but can jump well, you do that with some supplemental mechanic, rather than breaking out one skill into three. Being "athletic" is something that the player of an action hero character can wrap his mind around, without worrying too much about the distinctions. OTOH, in a gritty game, part of immersion is wrapping your mind around those distinctions. You should be worried about having a lousy swim skill. So obviously the lines get drawn in different places depending upon what you want to achieve.

However, on the larger question, I think this effect of listed skills--unless the skills are very poorly done--is minor compared to how the rest of game interacts with whatever type of play is expected. For example, if you routinely make it extremely challenging to do task T, and critical to success, then players will start grabbing every advantage the game and the table will allow--pouring over character sheets, gaming the DM, repeated use of "clever" play that is more about spreadsheet fanny covering--AKA 10' pole checking every square foot of every corridor.

To wit, my experience with good and not so good games is that if the DM puts them under siege, the players will act like they are under siege. If you let up a little, and encourage them to roleplay the things they do, you'll get more roleplay. If they've been under siege for a long time, it may take awhile to turn it around. But once the bad stuff gets stopped, the good stuff will pick up momentum rapidly.

So obviously, one of the ways to help a DM having trouble with this is to put some kind of mechanism on the players to let/encourage them to set the pressure level where they can roleplay comfortably. And related to your question, I think that the effect of explicit skills on the sheet is more often than not a symptom rather than the cause of the problem.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't recall a time, even while running (O)D&D in the early years, that a DM didn't follow C (A combination of approaches: players describing their actions & the DM rolling dice as appropriate) so I am a bit unclear as to why B (Describing to the DM what your character does, and letting the DM make a judgment call.) is in the mix. I suppose in stuations where there is no randomness or chance of avoidance of danger a DM might simply describes what happens based on what the players do but there was always a roll if multiple results could transpire or there was only a percentage chance of something coming to be.

 

[The Shaman]

That is a little frustrating for some players (like myself) who always make their characters try to negotiate even when they aren't skill in Diplomacy (ahem).

You don't need ranks in Diplomacy to negotiate - in fact, I could make the argument that this isn't how Diplomacy is meant to work in the first place, but that's a whole 'nother kettle o' fish.

ANYONE can negotiate - a skill check says how sucessful they are, and the referee can add bonuses or subtract penalties or even decide that the circumstances are such that a check isn't required at all.

 

[Nightson]

I think the divide can't be between social and physical though because you then get players unable to be social in real life unable to play social characters in the game.

That point always gets mentioned in this debate, and my view is that if they're so socially lacking they cannot manage to say anything then I don't know if they should be playing D&D.

 

[Mallus]

I'm interested in the more practical aspects of this debate...

For example, as DM, the more I rely on player knowledge during a session, the more concrete information I need to provide. It's great to have each demon idol, every nook and cranny of an adventure site mapped out in enough detail so the players can explore and interact with them without dice; by pure interrogation. It's immediate, it's visceral, it means the whole environment is a kind of puzzle for the players to solve. That makes for a good gaming (emphasis on game) experience.

It also entails a hell of a lot of work. Designing challenging physical and spatial puzzles for 3-6 people who just might be smarter than you --individually, let alone in aggregate-- is tough. I've found it's best to save that for special occasions, and handle the rest with dice and hefty level of abstraction.

Not to mention there are certain skills/areas of exploration that are better left to the character's knowledge; say like the finer points of thaumaturgy, setting geography, and history. In order to make these things into player knowledge challenges, I'd have to do more work than I'll willing to do at 42!

Diplomacy and negotiations are a special case. I like playing out conversations, and wheeling and dealing is far more than simply being charming/polite; it's already strategy game, and of type you don't need to (further) simulate at the table.

 

[Scribble]

That point always gets mentioned in this debate, and my view is that if they're so socially lacking they cannot manage to say anything then I don't know if they should be playing D&D.

The problem I see isn't that players are super inept, it's that inevitably there is someone at the table that is really eloquent, and since the DM is only human, his viewpoint is colored by this player.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The problem I see isn't that players are super inept, it's that inevitably there is someone at the table that is really eloquent, and since the DM is only human, his viewpoint is colored by this player.

I understand this concern, and I think social skills can be useful in these circumstances if its a problem, but I also think you lose a lot when you shift too much in this direction. This kind of stuff comes up with tactics as well. Some players are better at miniature combat than others. I don't know if the solution is to automate combat to avoid people being rewarded for their natural talents.

 

[MacMathan]

That point always gets mentioned in this debate, and my view is that if they're so socially lacking they cannot manage to say anything then I don't know if they should be playing D&D.

Conversely though I could say, if you are not strong enough to wield a bastard sword and can't describe the type of attack, defense and footwork you are using in a fight you should not be playing D&D. Of course that then leads to magic where we don't expect the player to know anything about thaumaturgy or evocation.

The real thing is a DM to player interface if a more shy or less glib player wants to take a shot a a character that has something to do during social interactions I as a DM would want to be able to use rules to accomodate that kind fo fun for them.

The other issue with social encounters is often the discussion can be dominated by one player for the whole encounter, in many groups there is someone who is just better at that sort of thing.

This can be boring for the rest of the group, where as in combat even if you are not a tactical genius you still get a turn and an oppurtunity to change the fight.

Overall I think this is a great exapmle of a place for a few default notches on the dial. Each group has a preference and I don't think any extreme will make most people happy.