New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

prosfilaes

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

If you ever throw a monster at people out of the Monster Manual, you're rewarding people who have memorized the Monster Manual. Some monsters--like the troll*--are basically undefeatable unless you know their weakness, from reading the Monster Manual, from running into them in play, or making an appropriate Knowledge check.

Handing a new person a character sheet with a line that says: Search +6 certainly won't teach them anytrhing.

It'll simplify their game. The goal of D&D is not particularly to teach anything, and I have serious doubts whether D&D-style tricks and traps are useful to know anywhere. I suspect that most new players would find it more fun to have Search +6 on their sheet.

* Giant In the Playground Games shows why you must know the weaknesses of trolls when fighting them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jhaelen

First Post
"You see a statue of a lizardman."
"I roll a Perception check!" <Roll>
"Okay. You still see a statue of a lizardman."
"I want to examine the statue's base." <Roll>
"Okay, the base seems to have grooves around it that suggests it might pivot."
Well, yes, BUT: where do you draw the line?

Would you have told the player about the base if he just said "I want to examine the statue."?

What if there was a secret compartment in the back of the statue's base? Would it still be sufficient for you if the player stated "I want to examine the statue's base." or would you wait for him to say "I want to examine the back of the statue's base."?
 
Last edited:

delericho

Legend
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.

Are you equally comfortable giving a leg up to the strong player in an athletic situation, if they're equivalently able to describe the optimum technique for climbing/swimming/lifting? After all, such a player is showing just as much investment in the situation.
 

Mark CMG

Creative Mountain Games
Are you equally comfortable giving a leg up to the strong player in an athletic situation, if they're equivalently able to describe the optimum technique for climbing/swimming/lifting? After all, such a player is showing just as much investment in the situation.


If one player who knows climbing techniques wants to roleplay the details and another wants to describe how careful they are being but doesn't know the technical terms, I'm equally comfortable giving them both the benefits from having roleplayed the situation well, yes.
 

Nightson

First Post
Are you equally comfortable giving a leg up to the strong player in an athletic situation, if they're equivalently able to describe the optimum technique for climbing/swimming/lifting? After all, such a player is showing just as much investment in the situation.

Do you have a problem with someone playing a fighter in a tactically sound way even though they dumped int and wisdom? Would you require him to pass am int or wis check in order to maneuver just so to avoid taking opportunity attacks and get flanking instead of just charging in?
 

delericho

Legend
Do you have a problem with someone playing a fighter in a tactically sound way even though they dumped int and wisdom?

Yes, I consider that potentially problematic. The player created his character, presumably he has created the character he wants to play, so he should play that character.

Thog the barbarian should not become Sun Tzu just because Initiative has been rolled.

Would you require him to pass am int or wis check in order to maneuver just so to avoid taking opportunity attacks and get flanking instead of just charging in?

No, but only because I don't agree with constraining PC actions unless I really must. Even a dominated PC still remains under the player's control in my game... they're just expected to take actions accordingly.

But I make it clear to my players at the outset of the campaign that I expect them to portray their characters to the best of their ability. And if a player routinely ignores this (as in the low Int/Wis tactical genius) then I will express my displeasure.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
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.

Sure, puzzles were just one example. Some people love investigations. Some people hate them. Some people love tactical combat, some people hate it. Some people love puzzles. Some people hate them. This is where the GM tailors the game to the tastes of his players. The issue I am raising is if you have players who like puzzles (and many do) then reducing puzzle solving to a roll detracts from their enjoyment and can disrupt immersion as well.

But to take an example of what you love: mystery (I do as well). Reducing a mystery investigation to a series of rolls, for me, would reduce enjoyment of the game. The fun of a mystery adventure is following leads, interviewing suspects and persons of interest, putting the clues together, etc. But if it is reduced to a roll or a sub-game, I won't have much fun (I won't feel like I am role playing all that much either).

Just to be clear though. I have stated several times (I believe in this thread, but possibly it was a different one) I am on the fence when it comes to social rolls and perception rolls. I see their utility. I think they can be helpful. And I have skills like Detect, Manipulation, Forensics, etc in my own game. So it isn't like I am a purist on this issue at all. There is definitely a time and place for these rolls. My concern is that I often see these kinds of rolls have a muffling effect on role play and interaction with the environment.
 

Balesir

Adventurer
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.
We say that climbers "conquer" mountains; I think tasks can be challenges/conflicts if they are a struggle to complete. And I think that, with the right degree of segregation and abstraction some engaging and tense conflict "mini-games" can be created for most conceivable challenges in D&D.

I think this could make a really blasting version of D&D, if done well, and I really do wish that this was where WotC were focussing their efforts.

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.
This post described the cases where task-based (D&D/traditional RPG style) rules are useful really well. Where I disagree is that, for other cases, DM fiat is the best primary vehicle for in-play decision making - I don't think it is.

Several posters have talked about players "engaging" with the game play - I find this a trifle confusing, since players engage with the game elements of 4E all the time, but this appears not to be what they are referring to. I think what they mean is they want players to engage in (mentally) exploring the imaginary game setting. Some have said that they want players to "think like a character in the setting", which supports my belief, I think (brain hurts, now). I recognise this style of play; it's a fine option for a roleplaying campaign, even though I would not say that this style is, exclusively, what "roleplaying" is (as some seem to claim). But, I don't think this style is best supported by DM fiat in place of rules - even in theory.

If the imagined setting has a "master copy" that resides in the head of one player (the DM/GM), what you are asking the other players to do is play the part of individuals who have a comparatively huge bandwidth of information available about the game world - typically, we may assume that they have all of the sensory information that the players have about the "real" world. And yet the non-GM players have an incredibly narrow bandwidth of information available - generally only what the GM says and does. This is a fundamentally flawed construction.

To obtain the style of play desired, it seems to me that it would hold much more potential to focus on a few key aims:

1) Maximise the bandwidth where you can; shared drawings, written descriptions and miniatures setups and model representations could all be considered.

2) Remove or modify rules that do not contribute to the sharing of a congruent world vision. Rules that assist the players in understanding their characters, the world or other characters are fine, but things that do not relate to the world setting "reality" should be excised.

3) Give the players input to the world setting creation. To begin with, if they assume something about the setting that the GM did not, let it ride rather than contradicting them. Their imaginations have elaborated on the setting where the bandwidth of communication did not "fill in all the blanks" - let them fill that blank unless it causes problems more generally with the world. Further to this, invite player input to discuss how the game world "should" be. This mainly aims to use player expertise - either knowledge of foreign cultures or times, or logical thinking ability to spot where previously defined aspects of the game "reality" may clash with what is being proposed, or just creativity in coming up with neat ideas and concepts. Finally, when adjudicating the outcome of character actions, give the players a vote - literally. Remove the (natural) temptation to game the system/game the GM by making outcomes partly a matter of player choice. Make the exploration a game all present are participating in; relax your GM control a little, and see what magical places you can reach when everyone contributes to the emerging picture.

In summary, I recognise both styles of play [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] describes, but if I wanted to get to the one he claims is "non-rules focussed", I wouldn't start from D&D. I would still want rules - they would just be very different rules to those of "traditional" RPGs, and the role of "GM" would be very different, indeed.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Belasir: When it comes to NPC and player interaction, I see no problem with the GM hearing what the PCs say and then making a judgment on how the NPC responds based on the NPCs background and personality. Certainly this is a subjective judgment, but for me it definitely supports immersion and role play more than converting that experience into a mini-game. I am not opposed to mini-games. But I don't see how they support these two goals more than old fashioned character role play. Characterization just doesn't seem to me to be something that you can mechanize very well (case in point video games---which are the ultimate in objective mechanical approaches---fail horribly at supplying the kind of role playing experience I am looking for).

Maybe I am not reading you clearly though.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Balesir said:
f the imagined setting has a "master copy" that resides in the head of one player (the DM/GM), what you are asking the other players to do is play the part of individuals who have a comparatively huge bandwidth of information available about the game world - typically, we may assume that they have all of the sensory information that the players have about the "real" world. And yet the non-GM players have an incredibly narrow bandwidth of information available - generally only what the GM says and does. This is a fundamentally flawed construction.

A "good DM," someone who needs no rules, can successfully navigate around this pitfall, without needing a way to resolve it. Essentially, they're good enough at giving out the right information, taking input from the players, and keeping the game moving, that a conflict between these two copies never really occurs (or if it does, it doesn't do so for long enough or bad enough to ruin anyone's fun).

Everyone else is going to probably need a way to get everyone on the same page, imagination-wise, and rules can certainly help that along.

In summary, I recognise both styles of play [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] describes, but if I wanted to get to the one he claims is "non-rules focussed", I wouldn't start from D&D. I would still want rules - they would just be very different rules to those of "traditional" RPGs, and the role of "GM" would be very different, indeed.

I'm not entirely sure I follow you. You'd still want rules, even if you didn't need them?

Bedrockgames said:
When it comes to NPC and player interaction, I see no problem with the GM hearing what the PCs say and then making a judgment on how the NPC responds based on the NPCs background and personality.

For me, the interesting division is why someone is totally OK with this in NPC and PC verbal interaction, but is not OK with this for NPC and PC combat.

Why is it that in one circumstance you say, "If you can make a convincing case that makes sense, you're good," and in the other circumstance you say, "You must roll dice and perform maths and play this mini-game?" What does each of them give you?

I mean, Amber Diceless is a fine game. So when do we decide that we want the rules?
 

Remove ads

Top