Rule-Of-Three 2-7-12

[Minigiant]

The second response worries me.

I have never been comfortable with a game that purports significant roleplay and detailed characters and at the same time expects player metagaming to be an important factor in problem resolution. It is one of the reasons I was not happy with much of the "Gygaxian" style of play in early D&D.

If characters have detailed stats and defined skills and powers, then the player should be able to roleplay those abilities, and make a die roll to determine success--especially when the player's relevant ability or knowledge is vastly different from the character's.

If the rules explicitly call for adjudicating situations by player actions/statements (rather than character-based actions), I think that is step backwards.

Anyone else here been in one of these situations over the years?

a. My genius-level wizard is confronted with a simple logic puzzle, but I (the player) can't figure it out.

b. I am playing a dumb-as-rocks warrior who can solve the logic puzzle because I (the player) am good at that sort of puzzle.

c. I have a smooth-talking bard or thief who needs to get information from the local barman, but I (the player) can't quite think of the right words to say.


There are games out there were these situations are explicitly based on player actions/statements, but these same systems don't heavily define character stats and abilities like D&D always has. I will be sad to see the game move in that direction.

I've been in all three.
I am a heavy "Roleplay the Character. No metaknowledge. No player help" style gamer.

My current PC is a moron. He thinks about the here and now. I don't let him solve hard puzzles. He does not make long term plans. And if her can't outthink something or someone, I leave him at their mercy.

I hope they don't emphasize the "PC brain = My brain" mentality to much. I hate puzzles. Let me roll to pass and fail.

 

[Number48]

Well, this 4ron has no sacred cows. I love completely swapping out mechanics every few years; but then again, I'm a ruleset junkie. I collect them like rare bugs.

That being said, the only only only only thing that frightens me is the possibility of losing lightweight monster construction. It is literally what allows me to DM, given my time constraints.

I am very disturbed by you collecting rare bugs and I am never coming to your house, or letting you in mine.

 

[Halivar]

I am very disturbed by you collecting rare bugs and I am never coming to your house, or letting you in mine.

WHAT? You don't want to meet Wilbur?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Anyone else here been in one of these situations over the years?

a. My genius-level wizard is confronted with a simple logic puzzle, but I (the player) can't figure it out.

b. I am playing a dumb-as-rocks warrior who can solve the logic puzzle because I (the player) am good at that sort of puzzle.

c. I have a smooth-talking bard or thief who needs to get information from the local barman, but I (the player) can't quite think of the right words to say.

Yes, all three.

In cases a & b our group approaches them as a player challenge. Being a group-based game, everyone is encouraged to join in determining the solution, whether your character would be capable of solving the puzzle or not. In-game the solution is described as being solved by the appropriate character and his high intelligence is modeled by the player group effort.

In case c our group approaches this similarly to a & b, but as a character challenge. The player or the group determines what they want to say. The skill roll determines how well they convey what they were trying to say.

 

[Gundark]

Well, this 4ron has no sacred cows. I love completely swapping out mechanics every few years; but then again, I'm a ruleset junkie. I collect them like rare bugs.

That being said, the only only only only thing that frightens me is the possibility of losing lightweight monster construction. It is literally what allows me to DM, given my time constraints.

My one and only dealbreaker is having long and complicated monsster and NPC generation.

 

[Number48]

I hope my players don't read this, I'm pretty sure they don't. For the next game, I designed a lovingly intricate puzzle. You have to move these pillars from their starting places into the correct ending places while the ceiling is coming down to crush you and monsters get released into the room at regular intervals. In order to solve the riddles, first somebody has to translate the text on the pillar. Then someone has to figure out the answer, then someone has to find the right slot for the answer, then someone has to maneuver the pillar to the right answer slot. But wait! Did I mention that there's a trick to getting all the pillars in the right place? Moving the pillars is based on the ring stacking game. So somebody is going to have figure that out, too. Then, of course, we have at least part of the group dedicated to defending the puzzle solvers. Tense, time-based, multi-skill dependent! But, there shouldn't be any need for skill rolls. I am not going to let someone ruin this design by rolling a D20 and saying "38" while looking at me expectantly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What is the point of a logic puzzle if you solve it with a dice roll... ?

 

[Halivar]

What is the point of a logic puzzle if you solve it with a dice roll... ?

I can see handing out clues perhaps, but never solving it outright.

 

[KidSnide]

When it comes to the "player ability" vs. "character ability" dichotomy, the game just has to support both play styles (and a range of styles in between).

Personally, I think both are important because, (1) thinking things through yourself is a central part of the fun and excising that from the game makes it less fun and (2) allowing your character to be smooth and effective where you are not is also an important part of the fun. But that's just my preference. The game needs to support the range of preferences and I think the answer to question 2 reflects that.

As an observer of the D&DN design process, we're all going to see WotC announcing support for game styles that aren't our preference. That's the nature of the beast when the objective is to support a range of styles. It's important that we don't react to news that "the other guy's" preference is supported as if it were news that our own preference will not be.

-KS

 

[Mattachine]

I am not going to let someone ruin this design by rolling a D20 and saying "38" while looking at me expectantly.

I completely understand what you are saying. I have both played and DMed in games like that a long time ago.

Still, you aren't going to make the players translate the ancient runes. The characters will do that. Yet, the players have to solve the logic puzzle, rather than the characters.


The 4e DMG actually had a whole section discussing this dichotomy and gave guidelines, suggestions, and possible pitfalls for using player ability for a challenge, rather than character ability. In other words, the default expectation was to use character abilities, but advice was given for using player ability instead.

If the game is going to have stats, skills, and dice, shouldn't the default be to use them?