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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7293659" data-attributes="member: 6919838">OK so a few things and a serious disconnect from me on this...First, this is not language police but it actually impacts meaning, where you said "roles" and i underlined it in that first graph, i think you meant to say ROLLS, as in if the players assign their own ROLLS they need to understand etc.I am proceeding with that.But here is why i think you are incorrect about the players no needing to know which mechanics apply to which actions... they built the character. Unless they do not have character sheets, unless they dont have to go thru chargen of any serious degree of crunchy spending bits, then they **NEED** to know those mechanics in order to know the results of this choice vs that choice. "Saxon is a great medic" and assigning low wis and no skill in healing are contradictory, a conflict between description and mechanics that will show in play when it comes time to determine an actual result for that effort by that character. Similarly, in play  trying to get the out of the gaol cell deciding between(describing) using a "muscle approach"  (force bars ),a "dextrous approach" (lock pick) and a skilled approach (masonry) or others its a practical necessity for the player to have a clue which of his abilities should apply and really what they are.Someone else describe the role of mechanics in resolving situations of thing, their hope, was to have them basically fade into the background while the description and interactions flow, with the players not thinking about their characters abilities and mechanics.What i want is for them to absolutely keep those mechanics and abilities in mind *as* they choose their actions and select their approachs and work in the scene and show it through their description. i want the *mason* to have *masonry proficiency* and to be the one who suggests and tries the "stonework to weak bars" approach as he describes his character's choices and i don't want the dexterous guy with lock skills to be the one trying to force the door and i really don't want the described "muscle guy" (who actually has an 8 strength cuz, you know, no reason for player to know) to be the one to try the masonry angle without the actual mason involved.One character attempt intimidate the guard by being big, beefy and pushing up against them while another just stares calmly while sharpening his knife and whistling in a odd sort of way. They players should choose those approaches for their characters base on not a *lack* of knowledge of their strengths, weaknesses and how those apply to the situation but on accurate knowledge of those things.As i have said, for various games where the detail and crunch and mechanics are built in to be mostly narrative and where honeslty "screen time" is an actual gameplay element and "hit points" really is not, the idea that you dont need to know mechanics of actions is great but for a game like this one where you do spend a lot of time on builds, on chargen and where at a moment's notice your mechanics can be called in and determine the outcome, the idea that players don't need to know this enough so that *often* they get it wrong is a very bad marriage of game system and gameplay.  if and when a scene "goes to the dice" having that player not aware of how that scene will use their stats, not know whether this was good choice or bad choice, and having that player "often" surprised by the outcome... is just a hindrance to roleplaying.In my games, R-P-G all play a roll and mostly an equal role. ROLE is running the character to suit the charater you wanted and you built and having that chracter's mechanics match those.PLAY is your making choices that fit your character and his personality and his past and his aptitudes and weakness reflected in both the mechanics and the choices and the expectations of results. GAME is having the mechanics of resolution and success fail all tie together with the other things, with the decisions and choices, with the setting and scene and the narrative. And as stated before, it is not either/or for "die roll vs description. What i am referring to is what my players do and what i have seen other players do again and again, choose character actions, describe character actions and interact with a scene keeping their character's actual definitions in mind and then rolling dice at the appropriate time they choose, with of course Gm having full option to veto or adjust as needed.Consider this...There is a discussion between a player and an NPC. The player is trying to sway the NPC in their favor. The discussion goes back and forth. The discussion has ebbs and flows. The outcome in uncertain. I have no problem with the player at some point of his choosing to pick up his dice and basically decide to "call scene" on a high point, on a good line from him, and making the roll then and there. Sure, we could have continued that dialog for another 10m or 20m or whatever and it could have been fun etc but its not *me* and me alone who gets to decide "the editing" of that in my games... and letting the player decide to make that the point they want to roll is not something i have a problem with. That is *not* the same of course as saying "and thats it, give me an answer now." and in game cutting the talk short. That is a different thing which lets the "act" itself play into the resolution of the scene.  Not everyone would like giving the player that "creative control" over their scenes, that is for sure. In my experience, i find not having one standard of expectation for player choices and knowledge of mechanics and use of mechanics for combat resolution (i choose to use my axe because thats where i am best) and a completely different one for out-of-combat challenges does not serve the roleplaying game experience well for me and those i have seen.</blockquote>

Verification