New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Who expects anyone to memorize a monster manual? Thats a DMs book,it would be silly to require memorization of it.

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?

All that is required is paying attention to descriptive details and exploring the imagined space. This obviously won't work if sleeping or texting is happening while the gamespace is being defined or described.

That aside, do I expect a new player to be as jaded and paranoid as an old hand? Of course not. Skills and techniques will be learned in play. Handing a new person a character sheet with a line that says: Search +6 certainly won't teach them anytrhing.



Who expects anyone to memorize a monster manual? Thats a DMs book,it would be silly to require memorization of it.

 

[howandwhy99]

My answer from the vote thread:

I voted 3. I prefer to have the players roll when playing the active party as it lends control, but this is only a semblance of control. It really doesn't matter who rolls the dice in the end for their result, does it? If so, I'd rather they all rolled via a cup roller or something.

More important to me is the initiator of action and this I put squarely on the players. They are the one's who decide what to check and how they are going to check it. Abstract rolling is fine, but it costs more game time - typically quite a bit more than inspired search attempts. Going through in detail takes more playing time, but almost always takes less game time in the end. It's up to the players what the priority is though.

Since the players choose to engage organically for who goes when it's really up to each of them for when they want to dig into details and when they simply want to hurry and get on to something else. I'm not judging either way as better in any case, it's their decision and I go with it.

 

[Agamon]

All that is required is paying attention to descriptive details and exploring the imagined space. This obviously won't work if sleeping or texting is happening while the gamespace is being defined or described.

As an aside to this, I DMed for a loooong time before the first time I played. The new DM was, well, new. He ran a published adventure and read the flavor text verbatim. Anything longer than a few sentences and my eyes started to glaze over. This is when I learned that Shakespeare knew what he was talking about when he wrote, "Brevity is the soul of wit." Too much detail is indeed too much of a good thing.

Unless you're an orator that people would pay to hear speak, the less said, the better. Say what needs to be said, of course, but paraphrase and be concise. Your players will thank you.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Well, that's great if you actually like puzzle solving. There are those of us out there that think that puzzle solving/riddle games/crytograms, whatever, make for mind buggeringly frustrating experiences which should be covered in large amounts of honey and left staked out atop ant hills.

Love mystery. HATE puzzles.

 

[Agamon]

Well, that's great if you actually like puzzle solving. There are those of us out there that think that puzzle solving/riddle games/crytograms, whatever, make for mind buggeringly frustrating experiences which should be covered in large amounts of honey and left staked out atop ant hills.

Love mystery. HATE puzzles.

I both agree and need to spread the XP love.

 

[Quickleaf]

What about player choices determining "depth" of experience? Sort of taking a differen tack off of [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] 's idea. I guess what this means would be particular to each skill (and maybe each situation), though not in a "mother may I sense." Take the Endurance skill - when players take this skill it's because thy want to portray a PC who pushes through pain with sheer grit, right? So Endurance training should determine how much a character can do when drowning, swarmed by centipedes, or trapped in a room of poison gas...

If the party gets into a situation where two are unconscious and we're fighting for our lives in a room filled with poison gas... I damn well expect to be the one carrying my friends outta there and carvin a way through the beasties even when the rest of the party is puking their guts out.

In this scenario the skill breakdown might look like...

Endurance (untrained and untalented): 1 standard action per turn & grant combat advantage and 10 ongoing poison damage (save -2 ends; aftereffect: poisoned again, save ends). On a failed save knocked prone and weakened.

Endurance (untrained but talented): 1 standard action per turn & grant combat advantage and 8 ongoing damage (save ends; aftereffect: poisoned again, save ends). On a failed save knocked prone and weakened.

Endurance (trained but untalented): 1 standard and 1 minor action per turn & 8 ongoing damage (save ends; aftereffect: 8 poison damage). On a failed save knocked prone.

Endurance (trained and talented): normal actions & 8 ongoing poison damage (save ends; aftereffect: 8 poison). On a failed save grant combat advantage.

 

[Pentius]

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 know. I mean, less rules means less rules to learn, that's for sure. But what I've seen a lot out of new players is that they cleave very hard to the rules at first. They stick to things they know they can roll a die for, because they know they can do that, but tend to be more shy about freeform situations because they don't know how to do it yet and just want to watch what the other players do. Having mechanics for skills, in my games, has led to more newbies being willing to do things outside an initiative order, and I count that as a good thing.

 

[The Shaman]

But what I've seen a lot out of new players is that they cleave very hard to the rules at first. They stick to things they know they can roll a die for, because they know they can do that, but tend to be more shy about freeform situations because they don't know how to do it yet and just want to watch what the other players do.

On the other hand, telling a player, "Don't worry about what's on your character sheet yet - just tell me what you want your character to do and we'll figure it out from there," encourages players to stop fussing about the rules and start thinking as someone in the setting. Once the player tells you want she wants to do, then you can bring in the rules - the trick is to think about the game-world first, and the rules second.

This is part of teaching new gamers how roleplaying games differ from other games: it's not roll a die, move a token, and draw a card - it's about thinking and reacting as someone living in the game-world.

 

[Pentius]

On the other hand, telling a player, "Don't worry about what's on your character sheet yet - just tell me what you want your character to do and we'll figure it out from there," encourages players to stop fussing about the rules and start thinking as someone in the setting. Once the player tells you want she wants to do, then you can bring in the rules - the trick is to think about the game-world first, and the rules second.

This is part of teaching new gamers how roleplaying games differ from other games: it's not roll a die, move a token, and draw a card - it's about thinking and reacting as someone living in the game-world.

True, and I do try to draw players away from the rules-life-raft, but I still find that they cling to it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My usual byline is that you need rules for things that you do a lot of. When you advocate for DM Fiat for searching a statue or talking through a banquet, think of why you don't ask for it when swinging a sword or dodging dragon breath. Why would you want rules in one case, but not in the other?

DM Fiat is essential at some level. And it's desirable for a few people at many levels. A good DM trumps all systems, trumps all rules, and delivers a good game with FATAL, if that's what they have. DMs who are on their game can run diceless combat seamlessly, just based on "what should happen."

So the rules aren't there for the good DMs who want to gatekeep the answers to the questions. Those people don't need rules. They perhaps at most need permission to disregard the rules -- reinforcement that the game is in their hands, and that what they say goes, and that, if they don't want the skill system, they don't have to use it. They need Rule Zero, and to be reminded of it often, and with gusto. They need to be told, it's okay if you completely jettison the combat system. Everything else should still work. Have fun.

The rules that exist do so for everyone else. Primarily, these fall into two camps:

The first is a DM who just doesn't want to make those hundreds of little permission decisions in the course of a night. Deciding Yay or Nay isn't fun for everyone. Rolling dice, consulting tables, letting the unexpected happen, based on chance and unexpected abilities. Rules in this case are a safety net. They exist to keep the DM grounded, to keep the game fair, and to help answer the questions that the whole group has. "What Do You Encounter" can be a fun question for the DM, too, after all.

The second group is the tactical players. Complex, involved rules are what this player thrives on, because they derive a sort of gearhead fun from tweaking the system and seeing where it goes, and even getting the most out of the system. There's a real fun in this mode of playing for a lot of people -- just look at everyone who enjoys 4e's combat system, which is this in spades.

So the rules aren't there for those who don't want them. You don't need 900 pages to run this game. You don't need one word. All the rules are there on an opt-in basis. If you want those 900 pages of rules, you want to use them to shore up your own DMing stunts, or you want them to engage them tactically and reasonably, to find strengths and weaknesses.

So there's one easy way to give mostly everyone what they want:

#1: Assume the game uses no rules.
#2: Provide modular rules for those who want them. E.G.: "Use this system if you want to award your characters treasure without just deciding what they get!"
#3: Provide big packages of rules for those who want to use them tactically. E.G.: "Here is a replacement combat system for use with minis skirmish combat, here are several rules for how to add this to your game."

But regardless, you need to be very aware that when you decide to use rules in combat, but neglect to use rules in searching a statue, it's not because you have to do it that way. It's because you choose to. Ask yourself, when you use a rule, why you want to use it, what functional purpose does it serve at your table, how is it fun for you and the people you game with? So you roll dice to attack against a target number and then you roll different dice for damage. Why? What does that get you that simply describing the action does not? Can you imagine someone wanting that in a situation that isn't combat?