New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
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?

For me it boils down to I am at the table to be a character. If I am rolling dice to interact with NPCs, then that jars my suspension of disbelief. Suddenly what I actually say in character is sometimes not as important as what I roll. It becomes a mechanical contest.

On the other hand combat is a small concern for me in most games. However I believe the reason a lot of people are okay with subjective role play calls and less okay with subjective combat calls is that whether or not you are rolling dice against a Target Number or whether the GM decides how successful your attack is based on his knowledge of your character and opponent, neither approach really disrupts immersion much. I don't feel any less involved in the combat just because I am rolling dice. But with role play situations, rolling very much intrudes because you end up with this tension between what I am saying and doing in character and what the die says (it also creates less of a 1 to 1 feel for me).

Also with combat you tend to end up with more arguments over success and mechanics help overcome this. I rarely see many arguments arise from role play situations.

Haven't played amber but have been meaning to for a long time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?

They give you an opportunity to have fun. If you encounter something in a given game system that hampers rather than enhances those opportunities then change it, or change systems.

It depends on what the group enjoys. If a particular group didn't really like round by round combat resolution and came up with a system in which plans and resources of both sides were compared and distilled into a modifier then a simple win/lose/tie roll determined the outcome, that would be perfectly fine.

The vast majority of tabletop rpgs are written with certain assumptions. A big one of these is guessing that a group of friends might enjoy sitting around a table and conversing with one another as part of the game.

These same assumptions also guess that when violence takes place in the game these friends don't actually want to swing objects at each other and so mechanics for handling this in the gameworld are written.

These assumptions may be incorrect for some groups but I would venture that they are more likely than the reverse for the vast majority of tabletop gamers.
 

Klaus

First Post
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."?
I draw the line at the point where it's no longer fun.

"I want to examine the statue" <Roll>
"It seems to be made of a greenish type of stone... (do you have Dungeoneering? Oh, good) ... possibly granite. The statue rests atop a squatted cube base. The floor near the statue seems to be somewhat damaged."
"Really? What kind of damage?" <Roll>
"blah blah blah, pivots"

In the case of the secret compartment, a perusal of the base (and a successful roll) shows a faint outline, a groove forming a small rectangle, almost hidden in the stone's uneven surface.

The point is, your answers to the player have to inform his decisions/deductions. Show, don't tell.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
The point is, your answers to the player have to inform his decisions/deductions. Show, don't tell.
Okay, I see. This is quite similar to the feedback you get in (good) text adventure games when you examine something - except those work without skill checks. Considering I'm an adventure game fan, that would be fine with me.

Maybe, a real example of the kind of thing I don't like in a game is in order:
In our Earthdawn game my thief character after searching every square foot of a room's floor and walls managed to find a kind of ancient, rusty safe behind a secret panel (after making a bunch of Perception checks). I told the DM I tried to open the safe, which unsurprisingly didn't work.
I then told him I wanted to try to unlock it with my Open Lock talent, getting an exceptional result on my check. I tried to open it again and was told that it still didn't open.

At this point I gave up (suspecting some kind of magical protection being at work).

The DM later told me the safe was only rusted shut and I should have simply continued trying to open it with more force, or trying to get it unstuck with a blade or something.

This was when I had a wtf moment. I refuse to believe that a Thief character wouldn't have realized what the problem was, particularly after an exceptional check result.

I can see that this might have developed differently, had you been the DM, but it shows why I don't like this approach in general:
If the DM doesn't give you sufficient hints or you don't get the hints of your DM (although your DM is absolutely certain the hints were totally obvious!) you're screwed, regardless of your character's abilities.
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
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.

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.

...

In summary, I recognise both styles of play @Kamikaze Midget 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.

...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?

I think the key thing about mini-games for resolution ties back into Kamikaze's point. My answer is that if you have that level of detail in the game, sometimes you want to use it and sometimes you don't. Most games answer this by having a somewhat involved system for the standard, but then DM advice to skip over a portion if it isn't important. (Though many systems aren't really very clear about this, or when it should be done.)

Burning Wheel kind of pushes this idea to the limit, thanks to its central focus on the characters' beliefs. If this thing you are trying to do is really important, you pull out the "artha" (various kinds of fate points), and most likely a relevant mini-game. If it is sort of important, you roll with it, and most likely have at least a partial failure, but gain some artha due to trying. If it isn't important at all, the DM will "Say Yes"--giving you want you wanted in the narration, but no advancement or artha gathering opportunity.

All that said, there is a huge difference between what people at a given table often want versus what will work for a wider range, nearly all the time. I think about a 1/4 of the replies here thus far have basically been, "Why don't you just do simple thing X"--implicitly suggesting that, "this works well enough for me, and probably will for you too." Problem is, "just mix in a blender at high speed some roleplaying, a skill roll or two, and adhoc DMing to smooth out the rough edges," is often a satisfactory system for a substantial number of people. But it isn't satisfactory for everyone, and certainly reveals its unsatisfactory rough edges on occasion even to people who like it. And if that is the best a game designer can do, then frankly they might as well admit that they are focused on setting and drop the game designer moniker. Because people can find that design easily enough for themselves (and have, many times).

Now maybe from a marketing or mass appeal perspective, D&D being a gateway game, should settle for that kind of solution. Focus on setting and production values--and keeping the costs down otherwise, to move products at a low margin. If one makes that business case, then they don't need much in the way of designers. They just need someone to tweak skill lists and feats and powers, clean things up, and play around the edges, the way the 2E team did.

If designers are going to earn their keep, I think they can try for something a little more ambitious than that, though.
 

Klaus

First Post
Okay, I see. This is quite similar to the feedback you get in (good) text adventure games when you examine something - except those work without skill checks. Considering I'm an adventure game fan, that would be fine with me.

Maybe, a real example of the kind of thing I don't like in a game is in order:
In our Earthdawn game my thief character after searching every square foot of a room's floor and walls managed to find a kind of ancient, rusty safe behind a secret panel (after making a bunch of Perception checks). I told the DM I tried to open the safe, which unsurprisingly didn't work.
I then told him I wanted to try to unlock it with my Open Lock talent, getting an exceptional result on my check. I tried to open it again and was told that it still didn't open.

At this point I gave up (suspecting some kind of magical protection being at work).

The DM later told me the safe was only rusted shut and I should have simply continued trying to open it with more force, or trying to get it unstuck with a blade or something.

This was when I had a wtf moment. I refuse to believe that a Thief character wouldn't have realized what the problem was, particularly after an exceptional check result.

I can see that this might have developed differently, had you been the DM, but it shows why I don't like this approach in general:
If the DM doesn't give you sufficient hints or you don't get the hints of your DM (although your DM is absolutely certain the hints were totally obvious!) you're screwed, regardless of your character's abilities.
Yeah, this was the GM's fault. If you roll an exception Open Locks check and the safe won't open, it's the GM's duty to tell you (because really, your character is *there*, looking at the thing; you, as the player, is having to rely on the description) "you perform admirably, and you can hear the lock sliding, but still the door won't yield. The rust seems to have stuck the door shut, and you might need to force it". This would give you two basic approaches: sheer Strength, or "scrape the rust off".
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
I can see that this might have developed differently, had you been the DM, but it shows why I don't like this approach in general:
If the DM doesn't give you sufficient hints or you don't get the hints of your DM (although your DM is absolutely certain the hints were totally obvious!) you're screwed, regardless of your character's abilities.

Absolutely. The DM cannot expect his players to be mind readers. They need information to make good choices or to even know when a choice can be made.
In a case not too different from the safe opening, I have a player in my PF Council of Thieves campaign who has invested a lot in open locks, to the point where most locks are a trivial obstacle. Only locks given the arcane lock treatment (wizard lock to the grognards) slow her down much. And in those instances, I will tell her that the lock seems to actively resist her attempts to pick it or some other clue so that the party could try to press on with her attempt or maybe even try some magical counter. It helps keep the whole party involved in the action.

By a similar token, the players also should learn that not everything the DM mentions in his descriptions is Checkhov's gun. Not everything is significant. Not every gun introduced in the background will be fired. Sometimes a statue in the corridor is just a statue and not an entrance to a secret tunnel if you just slide it aside. If they (and the DM) don't realize this, then descriptions just become lists of things to manipulate and PCs end up spamming the searches.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
Kamikaze Midget said:
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?
There are 3 factors: conflict, player wants, and the exploration check.

Unless there's a conflict, dice resolution in D&D isn't required. Once there's conflict dice resolution becomes the preferred method of resolution. So the answer with the statue would be that there is no conflict (save in only the most abstract sense), so rolling isn't necessary.

Generally when a player invests in training a skill it means the player is interested in tha aspect ofthe game. Depending on the specific skill, this may mean the player wants more spotlight time on that aspect. For example, Endurance wouldn't be this sort of skill - yes the power wants situations that test endurance, but not ones where they role-play out their PC enduring in great detail (probably). Diplomacy OTOH is exactly the sort of skill where the player is more likel to be interested in roleplaying out interaction with NPCs... this is where it becomes ambiguous which to use: the role-play or the dice roll. If you can't guess, I consider that a false dichotomy.

Last, to get back to the exploration of the statue, I think the way D&D handles exploration (in all editions) could use rethinking. Whether the player knows the DM well, has as played lots of D&D, or is able to hone in on subtle clues, they still look to the DM for the answer. "What do I see/know?" is more interactive with Q&A, but it's still dependent on being shown the answer. Rolling is just a quicker way of cutting through the Q&A immersion to the core question, again "What do I see/know?"

Usually a that point the DM describes something and the player goes "Yeah, that," to the rest of the party. It's the same situation by different names.

But what if skill training in exploration skills signified the player getting a say in the narrative such that the DM responds with "Here's the basic setup, now what do you notice?" The reward for roleplaying with a high skill is that you get to determine some of what your PCs discover.

I actually think that each subset of the game Mearls identified: combat, role-play, and exploration, plus the different skill groupings, has an ideal way for such things to be handled (in a core D&D sense).
 

The DM later told me the safe was only rusted shut and I should have simply continued trying to open it with more force, or trying to get it unstuck with a blade or something.

Your DM needs to understand and live by Wheaton's Law.

At a minimum your exceptional lockpicking should have revealed that the safe was indeed unlocked and something else was involved in keeping it shut.

That alone might have prompted you to try brute force seeing as how the safe was described as ancient and rusty.
 

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
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.
Agreed. I already have a perfectly good set of games that involve solving puzzles in a dungeon setting, they're called "The Legend of Zelda".
 

Remove ads

Top