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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
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="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7636393" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>First let's be clear. No one is advocating that a GM turn a successful check into a failure. What is being suggested is that just like there are multiple states of failure there are also multiple states of success. </p><p></p><p>A simple counter-example to establish this point. Suppose a player says, "I search the room for 1000 gold". He rolls a 1. Do you really consider a possible fail state in this example to be "you find a ruby worth 1000gp"? If you think that's a valid failure narration then you stand alone. </p><p></p><p>So then with it established that there are multiple success states, why would a DM pick the one that a player didn't specifically request. A few possibilities:</p><p>1. His chosen success may move the story further along at some later point in time.</p><p>2. His chosen success may not interfere with already established fiction wheras the players precise request could.</p><p>3. It saves time. If the player asks to find 1000 gold and you say you don't and then he follows up with what do I find and you make him roll and tell him it was a 1000gp worth ruby anyways, then there was no fictional need for that additional exchange.</p><p></p><p>There's countless other reasons to still fulfill the players intent but slightly alter their specified outcome.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>So let's start in a simple test case. Can a single fantasy author write a story about a character that is legitimately challenged? Does he need dice to do so?</p><p></p><p>It's apparent the answer is he can do so without dice. In fact all it takes for him to create a character that is challenged in the fiction is for him to imagine that is the case and to write it down. How can that be?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course we are different. Do you think anyone is asserting that fictional characters and real people are exactly the same in all the same exact ways? There's a reason we call them fictional characters and real people for crying out loud.</p><p></p><p>But pointing that out doesn't point out that there is a difference in the requirements of a fictional challenge in a fictional world and a real challenge in the real world (besides the obvious real vs fictional part). So then I come back around, there is no god ordained dice roller in the universe and we have challenges all the same. Why then do you believe that a fictional world requires a god ordained dice roller in order for the fictional character to face challenges in that fictional world? </p><p></p><p>You see, the basis for my claim is simple, anything that can be in the real world is also possible in a fictional world. Therefore, because the real world doesn't require dice rollers to produce challenges then a fictional world doesn't either. What's the basis for your claim otherwise?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but a fictional character can only be challenged by fictional things. Dice are not part of the fiction. They by nature can't cause a PC to be challenged. The dice may dictate to the author of said fiction to introduce a challenge to the character, but the dice themselves have no part in the fiction. Only in the authorship of said fiction.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">If that's your definition of roleplaying then I don't think it applies to D&D. Players in D&D simply state attempted actions - they don't suggest things that might be true. They simply state attempted actions. They don't negotiate with the other participants to determine their truth. They have predetermined that the DM will be sole arbitrator of what's true in the game.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">But you don't actually need to constrain the real-world social negotiation between players and the table... (unless you refer to appointing a DM to preside over the game as a mechanic - which seems a bit specious IMO, but at least could possibly fit). In short - your stated function of mechanics is redundant.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Going back to your limited, D&D exclusionary, definition of roleplay sure. To a more broad and inclusive definition of roleplaying, doing that would constitute a moment when the DM is removing your ability to roleplay your character - which for a role playing game needs to be treaded lightly. Thus you may see mechanics involved in such situations to make the non-roleplaying aspects be more palatable. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>All other roleplaying systems yield inferior roleplaying to this (although they may make much better games overall)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you have multiple players then this system doesn't even work.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Someone always has to determine when to roll dice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's because you are using a flawed definition of roleplaying.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We are in agreement with this statement.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Acting is not roleplaying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7636393, member: 6795602"] First let's be clear. No one is advocating that a GM turn a successful check into a failure. What is being suggested is that just like there are multiple states of failure there are also multiple states of success. A simple counter-example to establish this point. Suppose a player says, "I search the room for 1000 gold". He rolls a 1. Do you really consider a possible fail state in this example to be "you find a ruby worth 1000gp"? If you think that's a valid failure narration then you stand alone. So then with it established that there are multiple success states, why would a DM pick the one that a player didn't specifically request. A few possibilities: 1. His chosen success may move the story further along at some later point in time. 2. His chosen success may not interfere with already established fiction wheras the players precise request could. 3. It saves time. If the player asks to find 1000 gold and you say you don't and then he follows up with what do I find and you make him roll and tell him it was a 1000gp worth ruby anyways, then there was no fictional need for that additional exchange. There's countless other reasons to still fulfill the players intent but slightly alter their specified outcome. So let's start in a simple test case. Can a single fantasy author write a story about a character that is legitimately challenged? Does he need dice to do so? It's apparent the answer is he can do so without dice. In fact all it takes for him to create a character that is challenged in the fiction is for him to imagine that is the case and to write it down. How can that be? Of course we are different. Do you think anyone is asserting that fictional characters and real people are exactly the same in all the same exact ways? There's a reason we call them fictional characters and real people for crying out loud. But pointing that out doesn't point out that there is a difference in the requirements of a fictional challenge in a fictional world and a real challenge in the real world (besides the obvious real vs fictional part). So then I come back around, there is no god ordained dice roller in the universe and we have challenges all the same. Why then do you believe that a fictional world requires a god ordained dice roller in order for the fictional character to face challenges in that fictional world? You see, the basis for my claim is simple, anything that can be in the real world is also possible in a fictional world. Therefore, because the real world doesn't require dice rollers to produce challenges then a fictional world doesn't either. What's the basis for your claim otherwise? Sure, but a fictional character can only be challenged by fictional things. Dice are not part of the fiction. They by nature can't cause a PC to be challenged. The dice may dictate to the author of said fiction to introduce a challenge to the character, but the dice themselves have no part in the fiction. Only in the authorship of said fiction. [INDENT] If that's your definition of roleplaying then I don't think it applies to D&D. Players in D&D simply state attempted actions - they don't suggest things that might be true. They simply state attempted actions. They don't negotiate with the other participants to determine their truth. They have predetermined that the DM will be sole arbitrator of what's true in the game. But you don't actually need to constrain the real-world social negotiation between players and the table... (unless you refer to appointing a DM to preside over the game as a mechanic - which seems a bit specious IMO, but at least could possibly fit). In short - your stated function of mechanics is redundant. [/INDENT] Going back to your limited, D&D exclusionary, definition of roleplay sure. To a more broad and inclusive definition of roleplaying, doing that would constitute a moment when the DM is removing your ability to roleplay your character - which for a role playing game needs to be treaded lightly. Thus you may see mechanics involved in such situations to make the non-roleplaying aspects be more palatable. All other roleplaying systems yield inferior roleplaying to this (although they may make much better games overall) If you have multiple players then this system doesn't even work. Someone always has to determine when to roll dice. That's because you are using a flawed definition of roleplaying. We are in agreement with this statement. Acting is not roleplaying. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top