Player Language

[pemerton]

It's the difference expressed here:

"I use Intimidate."

versus

"I intimidate him."

<snip>

You see this less with casters, "I cast fireball" is still used as it was in older editions, but the players of martial characters often say things like "I use Twin Strike", which is the player talking about game rules, rather than the player describing what the character is doing.

I was thinking about this issue the other day in relation to one of the other action resolution threads.

I'm not sure if it's good or bad design in classic D&D that players of spellcasters essentially get their fictional positioning for free, because all there player resources are also, according to the rules of the game, PC resources.

The reason why it might be good design I think is obvious.

The reason why I feel it might be bad design is because it may be something that contributes to spell-caster dominance.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not sure my head is quite getting this:

"I do Intimidate!"

"I do Fireball!"

"I do Sneak Attack!"

I sense there is a nuance to this that I'm missing!

Here's one way to look at it:

When you say "I attack" you haven't provided enough information for the game to proceed. Who do you attack? How? We need to know who you're attacking so we can resolve the attack's success - saving throws and AC differs between different targets. The game also requires that you say how you attack - what spell are you casting? what weapon are you using? That's necessary because we can't apply any outcome without that information; different spells and weapons have different effects.

If you apply this to skills, if you say "I use Diplomacy" the game doesn't have enough information to proceed. We need to know what you're actually saying before any resolution can be made. For example - is the DC going to be the target's Int, Wis, or Cha? That requires that you detail what your PC is saying.

Contrast that with Diplomacy from 3.5. You can just say "I use Diplomacy" because we don't need to know what your character is actually doing; you roll, we consult the table, and we get a result ranging from Hostile to Helpful.

In my 4E Hack one of the ways that I tried to apply this idea was to change the names of skills from simple verbs to more colourful descriptions of the character - background, training, and abilities. One PC in my current game has the background skill "Social Class: Noble"; if a player says "I use Social Class: Noble" without more information, we cannot proceed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's one way to look at it:

When you say "I attack" you haven't provided enough information for the game to proceed. Who do you attack? How? We need to know who you're attacking so we can resolve the attack's success - saving throws and AC differs between different targets. The game also requires that you say how you attack - what spell are you casting? what weapon are you using? That's necessary because we can't apply any outcome without that information; different spells and weapons have different effects.

Good point. But note that you're not asking for whether the attack is a back-hand swing or high low or anything like that. "I attack the goblin with my sword" is fine in AD&D. "I attack the goblin cutter on my left with Cleave using my Falchion" would be needed in 4e. Just to technically be able to resolve the action. No need to say whether your character is screaming a war cry or cutting vs thrusting with his sword or any such detail...

If you apply this to skills, if you say "I use Diplomacy" the game doesn't have enough information to proceed. We need to know what you're actually saying before any resolution can be made. For example - is the DC going to be the target's Int, Wis, or Cha? That requires that you detail what your PC is saying.

Does it? Or does it just require that you know what the PC is trying to accomplish it, and what he's willing to do for the NPC to get it?

"I use Diplomacy to try to convince their leader to let us pass. I'll offer gifts if that's appropriate." Would be fine, if the player isn't feeling the acting bug right at that moment.

Contrast that with Diplomacy from 3.5. You can just say "I use Diplomacy" because we don't need to know what your character is actually doing; you roll, we consult the table, and we get a result ranging from Hostile to Helpful.

And static difficulty. Yeah, I remember the "Diplomancer."

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me the combat mini-game is essentially a different game. I want its language to be precise and technical. In the rest of the session, I want the players to be largely talking in character, with rules talk and extraneous discussion kept to a minimum.

I'm cool with rpgs which lack a combat mini-game, but, if there is one, it needs its own language.

 

[LostSoul]

Does it? Or does it just require that you know what the PC is trying to accomplish it, and what he's willing to do for the NPC to get it?

"I use Diplomacy to try to convince their leader to let us pass. I'll offer gifts if that's appropriate." Would be fine, if the player isn't feeling the acting bug right at that moment.

I suspect that will be a valid option. (Is there a term for that? 3rd-person RP?)

 

[Minigiant]

Here's one way to look at it:

When you say "I attack" you haven't provided enough information for the game to proceed. Who do you attack? How? We need to know who you're attacking so we can resolve the attack's success - saving throws and AC differs between different targets. The game also requires that you say how you attack - what spell are you casting? what weapon are you using? That's necessary because we can't apply any outcome without that information; different spells and weapons have different effects.

If you apply this to skills, if you say "I use Diplomacy" the game doesn't have enough information to proceed. We need to know what you're actually saying before any resolution can be made. For example - is the DC going to be the target's Int, Wis, or Cha? That requires that you detail what your PC is saying.

Contrast that with Diplomacy from 3.5. You can just say "I use Diplomacy" because we don't need to know what your character is actually doing; you roll, we consult the table, and we get a result ranging from Hostile to Helpful.

In my 4E Hack one of the ways that I tried to apply this idea was to change the names of skills from simple verbs to more colourful descriptions of the character - background, training, and abilities. One PC in my current game has the background skill "Social Class: Noble"; if a player says "I use Social Class: Noble" without more information, we cannot proceed.

Yes, you must say more than "I attack."

The issue is that you don't need much more.
Just

Subject: I/My PC
Action: Attack/Fireball
Target: The Orc/The BBEG

Sure you could add "with my sword" but but 90% of the time, everyone knows that you are using your sword.

Now my Five Cities RPG specially contain mechanics that force player to say you must name the targeted defense and your Ability score for offense. So it sounds like "I Power Attack his Dodge", "I Smart Attack his Armor", "I Smart Charm his Logic".

But it isn't D&D.
D&D rarely asks for more than Subject, Action, Target.

 

[Yora]

The 4th Edition PHB referring to slots to equip your items was one of the worst offenses I found when trying to get into 4th Edition. Admitedly, I didn't get very far, but when the whole book consists of powers without fluff text, I lost interest very quickly.

 

[avin]

The 4th Edition PHB referring to slots to equip your items was one of the worst offenses I found when trying to get into 4th Edition. Admitedly, I didn't get very far, but when the whole book consists of powers without fluff text, I lost interest very quickly.

This seem to appeal a lot of DMs, tho. Around here, my friends who like wargames were the ones who loved it most.

I don't.

"Slots", "Powers"... I'm glad that designers want it out of the game this time.

 

[herrozerro]

The 4th Edition PHB referring to slots to equip your items was one of the worst offenses I found when trying to get into 4th Edition. Admitedly, I didn't get very far, but when the whole book consists of powers without fluff text, I lost interest very quickly.

So spell slots are fine? Is this another "its okay if magic does something because it's magic."?

you obviously didn't read much because each power does have fluff text.

 

[Thaumaturge]

each power does have fluff text.

That is true. Though, in my experience, that fluff text is quarantined quite well from the rest of power description. Sometimes they seemed to have no relation to one another. I understand some liked it this way.

I did not.

Thaumaturge.