Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6741085" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I don't think that's what it comes down to. IMO, what it comes down to is whether you think playing an RPG depends on interacting with the game-world through a PC that you control from the inside, or you think it's about watching the story of the PC unfold as an interested observer and co-author. The latter approach is rather too "simulationist" for my particular tastes when it comes to playing an RPG, but I certainly hope you don't think I'm looking down on you or anyone in this thread who has a different opinion. We all have our own tastes and are entitled to express our own opinions about them without anyone saying their way is better than someone else's. Personally, I like wargames and other types of simulation. I enjoy the many features D&D has in common with this type of game, but I also believe what makes an RPG more than a wargame is that a space has been made for the player to assume the role of a participant in the action in the form of the PC, and that the interior life of the PC belongs to the player alone.In my view, the action resolution system isn't an aid to roleplay. It's a means for resolving the actions the players have decided on for their PCs through roleplay. If I roleplay a decision for my NPC to shoot an arrow at your PC, we resolve that action with an attack roll to simulate the chance the arrow hits. This roll accounts for your PC's ability to duck at the last minute represented by your PC's AC. On the other hand, if I roleplay a decision for my NPC to try to talk your PC into going on a quest, we can't resolve that action with an ability check, IMO, because the resolution depends on your PC's decision to go on the quest or not. It can only be resolved with more roleplaying, and that roleplaying needs to come from the player. Now, of course, you could roll to see if the NPC's Charisma check persuades your PC, but again to me this is too much like a wargame, where you're watching the action from the sideline and not as a full participant on the battlefield. Instead of the player roleplaying the PC's response, the dice are used to run a numerical simulation of a conversation and the action is resolved accordingly. To me, a Charisma (Intimidation) check is set up to see whether an attempt to influence someone using intimidation as a tactic is successful or not. When describing the environment for the players, however, it would be fine in my games for the DM to describe just how intimidating an NPC is being. If the best way for you to communicate how intimidating an NPC is to your players is on a numerical scale, of course you could roll to generate that number, and also use it to inform your roleplay as DM. You could also simply assign a number that best fits your idea of how intimidating the NPC is.  I'm not saying you were playing your character wrong. If it's what your character would have done anyway, then that's the same way I would do it. I only find it somewhat concerning that you'd need to make an argument to retain control of your character's feelings and motivations.The difference is between description of the environment ("The Orc is very intimidating."), and action resolution ("The Orc intimidates you into agreeing to do X.")I think you're misunderstanding me here. My comment about the Orc "putting on a good show" was meant to be an acknowledgment from the player that the DM had indeed described the Orc as being very intimidating, but that the player had decided that his PC's resolve hadn't been softened, which is a roleplaying choice.Because the character's player is a player one week and a DM the next right? I'm not sure how that's different from the idea of a DM run PC. The players and the DM have different functions within the group due to different levels of meta-game knowledge.  I can see how a group where DMing duties rotate from week to week might develop a more wargamey style because of meta-game knowledge being more generally shared. The DM's job isn't to persuade the players. The DM should be describing what the NPC says and how s/he says it. I don't think acting ability need have anything to do with it. Of course you're going to get different results from DM to DM. What's wrong with that? The dice can give you wildly different results too, which is kind of the point, right?The character is the player's entry point into the world. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be insulting. Those are just the words I'd use for the things you're describing. Getting hit with an attack or failing a saving throw aren't choices your character is making. Acting out a response to those events isn't roleplaying unless that response involves making meaningful choices. Maybe we have different ideas of what roleplaying is, so to be clear the distinction I would make is that having your character act out some event that was determined by the dice is not roleplay. Roleplay, IMO, is when you have your character take some kind of action that you have chosen. Sometimes the results of those actions need to be determined by the dice. The three skills we're discussing are not mind control effects. They relie on the voluntary acquiescence of the target to be effective. When you intimidate me, you don't take away my ability to make my own choices. You just make me think it's in my own interests to go along with you. There's a choice involved for the character, so there should be a choice for the player. At least that's how I see it. I'm just not interested in running a simulation of a conversation in an RPG, and believe me, I do use social skill checks, just not as a substitute for roleplay.  If it effects the choices you have, the DM should describe those aspects of any NPCs you deal with. This seems like a false dichotomy. If you're the DM, you can describe the Orc as intimidating as you want him to be. However, I'm not sure how this information affects the player's decision whether to have his or her character go along with what the Orc wants. Right, because deciding what your character does is the basis of an RPG. Rolling comes in when it's uncertain whether the action will have the desired outcome.</blockquote>

Verification