New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[Crazy Jerome]

As General Eisenhower said, when the problem has no solution, enlarge the problem (space).

As stated within just the parameters of the two options, the problem has no solution. For any given aspect (combat, diplomacy, etc.), the problem will boil down to four choices. Consider diplomacy:

1. Eloquent player means everything.
2. Roll means everything.
3. Eloquence And Roll (combined) means everything.
4. Eloquence Or Roll (someone picks) means everything.

Sure, you get some differences depending upon which one you pick--in some cases, some very sharp differences. Put any one pick will have unsatisfactory results for many players, if based on nothing but those two methods.

It is a testament to social contract and the general adaptibility of humanity that all of these have been made to work, and sometimes well--but when they have, it is because people have enlarged the problem space. They put socially acceptable brakes on the eloquent players that kept things reasonable. Or they only played with people that could cope with the eloquence. They used #3, but the DM and players used a bit of sleight of hand so that the balance swung a bit and kept people guessing (a very slick and subtle kind of fiat). They used #4 when non-eloquent player A was ok that spending points on talking let him get results similar to player B who simply talked. They went with the roll being determinant, but then made the narration of the result matter some other way besides success.

You'll note that all of these solutions provided something else in the equation. So the trick here is arriving at one or more other things that can interact with this framework, that can be easily communicated to people in the game rules and/or advice. Or I guess, emergent in some other aspect of the design.

 

[Nightson]

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.

In my experience, this problem is far, far more common when mechanically saying something requires a check. As in the bard with the high diplomacy talks to people and the fighter says nothing he'll fail his check and something bad will happen, or the NPCs will ignore his point despite it being perfectly sensible.

Obviously if the players and the GM are all on board with using mechanics to resolve social situations then power to them, but I find such games to be very distinctly less fun from either a player or GM perspective.

 

[Balesir]

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?

I've said elsewhere that I don't think DM fiat is (ever) useful in judging in-play outcomes; I stand by that. I think the way to engage players, for D&D, specifically, is to handle non-combat a similar way to the way combat is handled. Make the 'roll play' happen in the context of a mini-game. No-one I have encountered asks a player to swing a (replica) greatsword to show how thier character does it, or to demonstrate how they wrestle a troll to the ground. The fact that hit points and armour class are wildly unrealistic representations of how creatures may be damaged and tough clothing protects the body doesn't phase anyone. The mini-game is seen, and - importantly - understood by all at the table for what it is: a fun game inspired by and representative of a cinematic version of combat. Why not do the same for exploration and social "encounters"?

For the statue example, how about some variant of a Skill Challenge? Don't announce the level of the challenge and so on - just allow Perception and Thievery rolls (and maybe others, if the mode of use can be explained); successes bring items of information ("there are scrape marks on the floor near the base", "you find a small protrusion that looks like it might push in if pressed"). Three failures mean all future rolls are treated as failures. Failures may mean "you find nothing" or you actually find something that would have become evident in time anyway - you find the panel you are looking for, when a success would have also told you that the panel itself is trapped...

Combat works well as a mini-game because everyone can read the rules and grasp from that the basics of how to play it; non-combat should work the same way. This applies to the type of game supported by D&D; it matches with D&D combat. For other games that aim at a different dynamic, other methods might be preferable (Primetime Adventures' resolution system works fine for any type of "encounter" - no combat/non-combat distinction is required, just for example).

 

[Agamon]

In my mind, c) is necessary in any game I run. a) is just too gamey and dull for my liking. And b) is too player-oriented, as Mearls points out.

I especially love slapping down bright and expressive players that play PCs that aren't, thinking they can get away with using mental stats as dump stats.

Player (whose PC has low charisma and bad Diplomacy): I approach the woman in the street and ask her, "Greetings, young lady. My compatriots and I are searching for an inn with quality lodgings. Perhaps you can assist us?"

Me: She looks at you in shock and slaps you, storming away angrily.

Player: Huh? Why?

Me: You tried to say that, but it came out sounding more like a request for her to join you and your friends at the local brothel.

Note there was no die roll there, the interaction wasn't really any more important than opening a door or packing up your backpack, other things I don't make the players roll for. If the interaction was important for some reason (needing to find the inn quickly, the party suspects the woman of being someone she's not and is trying to gauge that with interaction, the PC is trying to open up dialogue to get to know the woman, etc), then a die roll would happen, with a low one having the same result and a high one meaning he managed to say what he wanted to.

 

[prosfilaes]

Less rules on the players side of things also made things friendlier for new players. A new person could show up, generate a character in minutes and join in as a valuable contributing member of the party. By engaging the environment and describing intentions and actions in plain english (or whatever the spoken language was) the new player could settle in quickly.

I don't buy it. As I said above, Knowledge skills are all about giving players who haven't memorized the monster manual a chance. I'm not sure I could do a proper old-school search of a dungeon after 15 years playing D&D; do you really expect new players to know to search for pit traps or what to look for in a statue?

 

[Agamon]

I don't buy it. As I said above, Knowledge skills are all about giving players who haven't memorized the monster manual a chance. I'm not sure I could do a proper old-school search of a dungeon after 15 years playing D&D; do you really expect new players to know to search for pit traps or what to look for in a statue?

Lol, no kidding.

DM: How often do pygmy elephants mate?

Player: Uhhh...

DM: What is the 3rd largest city in Nyrond, and how many elves live there?

Player: Wha...?

DM: Okay, what ingredients are required for spellbook ink?

Player: ???

DM: Hey, your PC has an 18 intelligence. If you want to be able to play him right, you better get some learnin' done!

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm equaly fine, and capable, as a GM giving an eloquent player a leg up on a diplomacy situation if they roleplay some aspects and make good points as I am giving a less eloquent player a leg up on a diplomacy situation even if they can only manage to mention a couple of interesting points on how to approach the situation. Either is a viable way to enhance their position and deserves consideration. Both show an investment in the situation and both are roleplaying to their strengths, such as they are.

I am just as sure that I wouldn't give the eloquent player any undue consideration if all they do is rattle on. Nor would I give the less eloquent player advantage if they merely mention some unrelated points that don't serve their end. Both approaches might also damage their position.

In a roleplaying game, encouraging players to roleplay and not simply rely on the dice is worth the effort and they are more likely to become better at it if they do it more often.

It's either a roleplaying game and players at least attempt to roleplay (and the rules should encourage it in all aspects of play) or the group might as well be playing some other type of game.

 

[Agamon]

I'm equaly fine, and capable, as a GM giving an eloquent player a leg up on a diplomacy situation if they roleplay some aspects and make good points as I am giving a less eloquent player a leg up on a diplomacy situation even if they can only manage to mention a couple of interesting points on how to approach the situation. Either is a viable way to enhance their position and deserves consideration. Both show an investment in the situation and both are roleplaying to their strengths, such as they are.

I am just as sure that I wouldn't give the eloquent player any undue consideration if all they do is rattle on. Nor would I give the less eloquent player advantage if they merely mention some unrelated points that don't serve their end. Both approaches might also damage their position.

In a roleplaying game, encouraging players to roleplay and not simply rely on the dice is worth the effort and they are more likely to become better at it if they do it more often.

It's either a roleplaying game and players at least attempt to roleplay (and the rules should encourage it in all aspects of play) or the group might as well be playing some other type of game.

My posts have been extremes, but this is my point, exactly. There needs to be player involvement, that's what makes it fun and interesting (in my opinion, of course). There needs to be PC involvement, because the player is not the PC and doesn't have the same capabilities and/or drawbacks. The two should mesh together to make for a better game. At least, in my experience. I've done it that way, as the rules have allowed (and where they haven't so much, I made it work), for as long as I can remember.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't buy it. As I said above, Knowledge skills are all about giving players who haven't memorized the monster manual a chance. I'm not sure I could do a proper old-school search of a dungeon after 15 years playing D&D; do you really expect new players to know to search for pit traps or what to look for in a statue?

Any GM should be able to give the players enough clues as their characters search to be able to have a chance of avoiding or disarming traps. Any player running a character whose background and experience suggests they should know something about a setting can solicit that knowledge from a GM if the GM has not already provided it (and/or the player can have that information refreshed). A GM is a facilitator of the senses of the characters and helps the players interface with the setting through their characters. Sometimes and with some players it requires more effort on the part of the GM than at other times and with other players. When a group is firing on all cylinders, the process can be a nearly seamless roleplaying experience.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Combat works well as a mini-game because everyone can read the rules and grasp from that the basics of how to play it; non-combat should work the same way. This applies to the type of game supported by D&D; it matches with D&D combat. For other games that aim at a different dynamic, other methods might be preferable (Primetime Adventures' resolution system works fine for any type of "encounter" - no combat/non-combat distinction is required, just for example).

That's fine, as long as you can have some way of keeping score in the non-combat analogue, that makes at least a little sense thematically. Hit points do this for combat. In Burning Wheel, your "Disposition" is a score that handles how well you handle the Duel of Wits. (That your disposition is based on both your character and the scene helps keep this sane.)

Really, sometimes I think skill challenges would have been better always being opposed contests built on something very similar to Duel of Wits. N successes before 3 failures tries to be that score, but the lack of active opposition makes it rather sterile in practice.

And of course the problem with the hit point analogue for something like disposition is that it works great for something targeted like the Duel of Wits, but gets strange very quickly with a more open-ended purpose, as skill challenges have. Is it possible to have Disposition or some other score keeping mechanism (or handful of such mechanisms) that works great for a variety of non-combat options?

Maybe there is if divided between social challenges, exploration challenges, and whatever else is need to cover all activities. Mouse Guard comes close with its single conflict resolution mechanic, though I think I'd find that a bit sterile in D&D. Not to mention, I can't see D&D as a straight conflict resolution game. It almost has to be some form of task resolution to go with appropriate level of combat.