Player Language

[herrozerro]

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.

I can understand that, there was a thread around here or the WotC forums that discussed that exact difference. Where 4e style powers were rewritten in 3.x format.

Honestly it was alright, but it lost much of the clear language that I liked about 4e.

Different strokes and all that..

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's the difference expressed here:

"I use Intimidate."

versus

"I intimidate him."

A good starting point but my question would still be "how?'

The first instance is certainly gamespeak. The player is picking an option from a list much like the terminator choosing from a list of possible responses.

The second instance doesn't reference game mechanics only by virtue of that particular action being a verb. Replace your example with diplomacy and you see what I mean.

In either case we still need more information in order to proceed.

 

[howandwhy99]

Here's how I've seen natural language gaming:

after player group discussion

Caller: Okay, Sally's going to go first and cast her Sleep spell on the orcs. Afterwards Don Juan and The Killer II are going to move forward like this <demonstrates on battlemat> to block any advancing orcs and attack the ones in front...

Paul: The Killer is using his 4-headed battleaxe with the metal skull on top in that 1-armed looping fashion like I showed you. He's aiming for their balls.

DM: Okay, is that a called shot?

Paul: Um, no, but he's doing it really fast to scare them back. He'll hit 'em when they get close.

Caller: Anyways... (side glance) Pope Francis and Carlos the Strange draw back as they do this and Pope boy will cast a light spell on the rock ceiling overhead...

Pat: A miracle! Pope Francis calls upon his god's power to shine the light of divine glory over these creatures of the shadow and expose their...

Caller: Yeah, right. But as he does the thief who goes with him is going to hide behind the bend and circle around in the shadows so he can sneak up from behind here. <points to battlemat map>

DM: You're not going to be able to sneak quietly there this turn, if you...

Caller: I'll just run then. Once combat breaks out I don't think they'll hear me and I'll be quieter on the other side.

The DM proceeds to account for these actions with Sally's first. He makes saving throws for the monsters and asks for different rolls from the players. When it's the creature's turn to act he rolls for them and asks for rolls from the players as needed all while relating what's happening from the character's point of reference.

At any moment the players can interject and change their own actions. That's not against the rules or anything. We want to be clear about what we do, but we want to address the fictional universe first too.

 

[Morrus]

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!

"I do message board post!"

The only "nuance" you're missing is that I was trying to fit it into 140 characters. It's not supposed to be a hypothetical transcript.

I was discussing this at great length with a bunch of people in another thread here, which is what prompted the tweet. So for a translation of what I was trying to say in 140 characters, check out that thread.

 

[Morrus]

I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I thought perhaps it's because I don't 'speak twitter' that I'm missing some arcane shorthand or something. I mean, who talks like that?

People who have only 140 characters to convey a concept which requires several paragraphs talk like that.

I was addressing it to Mike and Trevor, and it was shorthand, but they confirmed they got what I meant and that yes, indeed, one of the intentions is that the skill system stucture will change how players talk about their actions, rather than referring to skill names.

I believe it's a clever but subtle way of using skills in the system, and is tied into the concept that due to the "You have 17 STR so you can automatically break open the chest" aspect, means that the player (a) does not have a list of skills names to call out and (b) has no way of knowing whether a check is required. Therefore there is no process by which he can say "I use Intimidate!" - he doesn't have a set list of 20-odd skills to pick from, and he has no way of knowing whether a check is needed.

So he's stuck with saying "I crush the mug in my fist"; and then wondering if the DM will say "You're strong, the mug crushes easily" or "I'll need a strength check, please".

This is because in earlier editions, a check was still technically necessary; it's just that the DC may have been very low - the player knew what 20 skills he had to pick from, knew how those skills worked, and was in a position to literally tell the DM what rules he was using, rather than what action he was taking. He'd look down his list in a social situation and see he has a high Bluff, and a low Intimidate, so he'd choose to use the skill called "Bluff". In 5E, a check may not be necessary, and even if it is, it's just one of six ability checks. These six abilities are very broad, and thus, unlike prior edition skills, don't virtually form a list of "actions" (skill names that are largely verbs) for the player to choose from.

It partly ties in to player psychology. Now, before people get all up in arms and shout "I'm wonderful! Me and my players NEVER do that! We write 12-page essays describing every action in intimate detail! Here, let me describe to you how WE do it! See? It's easy!", one has to understand that we're talking about a general trend, not every game, and that not everyone is Super DM; most of us are just average. So if you don't do that - cool. I envy you.

The psychology is that when presented with a finite list of options (say skills, or powers), the player is predisposed to choose from that list rather than simply interacting freehand with the game world. All too often, the player will look at his list of 20 skills, and name which one he's using.

If you don't have a predetermined set list of 20 skills, you can't do that. You instead naturally simply interact with the game world. And the DM may - or may not - ask you for an ability check.

Powers in 4E, in my opinion, have the same effect. When you have a bunch of powers with specific names and effects, you're naturally predisposed - and the game structure encourages you to - simply choose one of those options. You're not punching the orc; you're using one of the finite list of powers you have to select from. It's hard to explain - I know what I mean, and that was a terrible example. The rule system (not explicitly - simply by its very structure) encourages you to name rules/skills/powers etc. rather than describe actions.

I'm not saying it's a magic wand; just that the a game system can affect the way players interact with that game system. That's why different RPGs feel different to each other; the players interact with each system in subtly different ways. The system itself is a contributor to the gaming atmosphere (the people involved are too, of course, but we're discussing the system here). So a system can subtly encourage natural language interactions with the game world rather than the calling out of the name of an option on the character sheet simply by virtue of the rules structure (irrespective of what advice the game book may provide in addition).

And that probably made no sense. I'm rambling and typing while eating my dinner, and used pretty poor examples. I could think of better examples if I put my mind to it, but I hope my general gist got across.

 

[pemerton]

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

One of my players commented that one thing he likes about 4e is that it let's him "play his character" rather than "be his character". By which he mean, I think, 3rd person RP. Which doesn't necessarily mean author stance - a player can still reason from with the perspective of his/her character while doing it in 3rd person. And is also orthogonal to investment in the game/fiction.

But in my experience, at least, many players will switch between 1st and 3rd person in talking about their PC, depending on context, mood, and other more-or-less random factors.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

Whereas I don't object to PC build rules being expressed in a metagame level.

In the gameworld there are no classes, levels, hit points, etc. Nor (when playing a points buy game) are there character points, development points etc. Nor (when playing 3E or 4e) are there feats, skill points, etc.

These are all part of the metagame language for describing character building.

And from my point of view, the language of "powers" or "item slots" is no different from the language of "skill points" or "feats".

 

[pemerton]

a game system can affect the way players interact with that game system. That's why different RPGs feel different to each other; the players interact with each system in subtly different ways.

I don't think this is contentious. At least, I hope it isn't.

there is no process by which he can say "I use Intimidate!" - he doesn't have a set list of 20-odd skills to pick from, and he has no way of knowing whether a check is needed.

So he's stuck with saying "I crush the mug in my fist"; and then wondering if the DM will say "You're strong, the mug crushes easily" or "I'll need a strength check, please".

<snip>

In 5E, a check may not be necessary, and even if it is, it's just one of six ability checks. These six abilities are very broad, and thus, unlike prior edition skills, don't virtually form a list of "actions" (skill names that are largely verbs) for the player to choose from.

<snip>

If you don't have a predetermined set list of 20 skills, you can't do that. You instead naturally simply interact with the game world. And the DM may - or may not - ask you for an ability check.

This is the bit where I think just shrinking the list down to 6 broad attributes is not enough. Particularly when those attributes will have notations next to them like "+2 when climbing" or "+2 when crushing mugs".

As long as (i) failure is not an option, and (ii) the odds of success or failure vary widely across attributes + skill notations, and (iii) the resolution of conflicts is not highly sensitive to the way the player engaged the fiction in initiating action resolution, then I would not expect any substantial change in play. Perhaps a little more colour in action descriptions, as part of the process of bringing a particular attribute into play.

But what I would like to hear - from designers, or in due course from playtesters - is how (i) and (iii) will be addressed, if at all. Because historically D&D has not addressed (i) - the default consequence of failure is no XP, no treasure, and a serious prospect of character death - and has not really addressed (iii) either - whether the NPC is intimidated by crushing a mug, or persuaded by saying nice things about his/her choice of accoutrements, the game unfolds in much the same way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In the last 3e campaign I was involved with there was a player, John, who was often saying things like, "I threaten the king with a thousand gruesome tortures if he doesn't obey me! Diplomacy check." John had maxed out his PC's Diplomacy, because it was a class skill, but had no ranks in Intimidate. John's natural inclinations are invariably to threaten NPCs, not make nicey-nicey, it's just how he rolls.

If the DM based his rules interpretation purely on John's roleplaying it would always be an Intimidate check, which his PC would've certainly failed. But John didn't want to make Intimidate checks, he wanted his PC to succeed. Looking back, we should've probably just let him take Intimidate as a class skill, but my gaming buds have never been good at changing the rules as written.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The DM proceeds to account for these actions with Sally's first. He makes saving throws for the monsters and asks for different rolls from the players. When it's the creature's turn to act he rolls for them and asks for rolls from the players as needed all while relating what's happening from the character's point of reference.

At any moment the players can interject and change their own actions. That's not against the rules or anything. We want to be clear about what we do, but we want to address the fictional universe first too.

The crucial downside is that natural language mapping of fiction to system requires some subtle sleight of hand. Human brains being pretty adept at exactly that kind of language adapation, it can and does readily work in gaming groups. The danger is in thinking that picking the "correct" words for the mechanics is going to do the heavy lifting.

Whether someone says, "I use Intimidate on the orc," or "I try to intimidate the orc," the term "intimidate" is here representing both the fiction and the mechanic. One word used, two conceptual mappings. Use the first example, the group has to fill in the fiction. Use the second, the group has to fill in the mechanic.

There may very well be aethetic and even good game play reasons for preferring the second, but it is not a free lunch. You can see the costs in something like a beginner 3E game where a character wants to "help set the sails on our sloop". That maps to Profession: Sailor or Use Rope or something else? That is Aid Another or a skill check? (Not that 3E is any way special in this regard. It's a common issue.)

The more abstract and general the mappings (either way), the easier it is to internalize them, and thus blur the distinctions in play, in a consistent manner. The more specific the mappings, the easier it is to blur the distinctions in a given case, but with some unpleasant jarrings when the natural language mappings temporarily fail the group.