Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5671180" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>That seems disingenuous to me. Talking to each other around a table doesn't necessarily mean you want in-character dialogue and resolution systems relying entirely on how well you convince a GM. Talking to each other can also include describing violent actions, in such a way as to convince a GM. I'm pretty sure you can imagine a battle system entirely played out by a GM judging which attacks and defenses are successful based on "common sense" just as well as you can imagine a social conflict resolved through die rolls. </p><p></p><p>So it still seems rather arbitrary to me, which resolution system gets the in-depth mechanical solution, and which gets judged solely by DM Fiat. Why does one get "I look at the base of the statue, I examine the statue's arms, I try tinkering with the visor of the statue," and not "I examine the statue *roll*."? Why does the other get "I swing my sword *roll*" and not "I press my advantage, backing the orc against a wall, screaming to strike fear into its heart, and slash for his left arm, hoping to disable his shield."?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's interesting, since I see conflict all over that statue challenge. It's explicitly "character vs. environment," one seeking to overcome the other. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, to slightly expand on the idea, why would you use that in Exploration but not in Interaction or Combat? Why can I take skill training and describe the world, but not take skill training and describe the results of my attacks or defenses or the reactions of NPCs? Why that system <em>here</em> but not <em>there</em>?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This "no-rolling" method is usually described as more immersive, but I can't say I personally find that to be the case. Perhaps my background as a performer has lead me to be unusually good at this role-playing, so that I am not dislodged from it by a die-roll, which shatters others' sense of them being their character? For me, it enhances the immersion, being able to say, "My character is good at X, bad at Y, and completely untrained in Z" without having to know X, Y, and Z encyclopedically enough to convince the DM that my character can do things that I can't think of, since we are not the same creature. </p><p></p><p>Part of me now wonders how close this is to the "gamist problem" in 4e, where there are explicitly things that happen in the world for purely mechanical reasons, and that disrupts the enjoyment of the game for some, jarring them out of the world. Simply rolling dice might do that for a lot of folks. Everyone probably has different triggers. </p><p></p><p>Which is, again, why basing the game in "Assume there are no rules" would be a positive step. Each group can determine for themselves what elements of the rules help or hinder their own style of play, without fear that grabbing one bit of it would stop the other bits from working.</p><p></p><p>What we may need is smaller, discrete, more self-contained rules elements, that affect only themselves, and nothing outside of them. Nothing like 3e's treasure system, for instance, which has all sorts of unexpected consequences if not followed, from the skills and monsters to published adventures' encounter rates and hundreds of other tiny effects.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5671180, member: 2067"] That seems disingenuous to me. Talking to each other around a table doesn't necessarily mean you want in-character dialogue and resolution systems relying entirely on how well you convince a GM. Talking to each other can also include describing violent actions, in such a way as to convince a GM. I'm pretty sure you can imagine a battle system entirely played out by a GM judging which attacks and defenses are successful based on "common sense" just as well as you can imagine a social conflict resolved through die rolls. So it still seems rather arbitrary to me, which resolution system gets the in-depth mechanical solution, and which gets judged solely by DM Fiat. Why does one get "I look at the base of the statue, I examine the statue's arms, I try tinkering with the visor of the statue," and not "I examine the statue *roll*."? Why does the other get "I swing my sword *roll*" and not "I press my advantage, backing the orc against a wall, screaming to strike fear into its heart, and slash for his left arm, hoping to disable his shield."? That's interesting, since I see conflict all over that statue challenge. It's explicitly "character vs. environment," one seeking to overcome the other. So, to slightly expand on the idea, why would you use that in Exploration but not in Interaction or Combat? Why can I take skill training and describe the world, but not take skill training and describe the results of my attacks or defenses or the reactions of NPCs? Why that system [I]here[/I] but not [I]there[/I]? This "no-rolling" method is usually described as more immersive, but I can't say I personally find that to be the case. Perhaps my background as a performer has lead me to be unusually good at this role-playing, so that I am not dislodged from it by a die-roll, which shatters others' sense of them being their character? For me, it enhances the immersion, being able to say, "My character is good at X, bad at Y, and completely untrained in Z" without having to know X, Y, and Z encyclopedically enough to convince the DM that my character can do things that I can't think of, since we are not the same creature. Part of me now wonders how close this is to the "gamist problem" in 4e, where there are explicitly things that happen in the world for purely mechanical reasons, and that disrupts the enjoyment of the game for some, jarring them out of the world. Simply rolling dice might do that for a lot of folks. Everyone probably has different triggers. Which is, again, why basing the game in "Assume there are no rules" would be a positive step. Each group can determine for themselves what elements of the rules help or hinder their own style of play, without fear that grabbing one bit of it would stop the other bits from working. What we may need is smaller, discrete, more self-contained rules elements, that affect only themselves, and nothing outside of them. Nothing like 3e's treasure system, for instance, which has all sorts of unexpected consequences if not followed, from the skills and monsters to published adventures' encounter rates and hundreds of other tiny effects. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character
Top