He stated "I don't know if...". He doesn't need to provide evidence to support the fact that he doesn't know.Merely that your unsubstantiated statement holds as much water as mine.
Nitpick revenge
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?
- Thread starter Janx
- Start date
Nitpick revenge
Merely that your unsubstantiated statement holds as much water as mine.
Unsubstantiated? That the GNS model is theoretical, and not empirical, is historical fact. Nobody at the Forge claimed to have done broad studies, did they?
There was one relevant empirical study done, the WotC Market Survey in 1999 - and it indicated that gamers did cluster, but not along GNS lines: Breakdown of RPG Players
Most importantly, though - I was not pigeon-holing anyone or anything. I was arguing against your classifications, which is pretty much the opposite of pigeon-holing.
It is all well and good for you to disagree with my assessment, or even to feel it is not well-supported. But please at least describe what I was doing accurately.
You brought up the Forge model, not me. The Forge GNS model is all about boosting a particular playstyle they called Narrativism, and is really nothing to do with my comment.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I tend to agree. GNS is a model that can work for some people, but I personally haven't found it useful at the table or in design. Nothing wrong with models, but it is all about how you choose to slice things--at the end of the day still just have a model and models can trap you as much as liberate you.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
As an anecdote in passing, when I intervene with my current group because the play is out of sync with the mental stats of the characters, it is nearly always to suggest that perhaps the portrayal is unnecessarily rough on the character. Then if the player is fine with it, anyway, they proceed.
That is, a player with a character having an 8 charisma and rolling a 9 on a diplomacy check might tend to roleplay that conversation as something closer to a 5 charisma rolling a 2. We've found that characterizing the "middle" results well is far more challenging than the extremes. And like Hussar, I'm more concerned with the effort than the exact result, in any case. We broadly want a game where people try to act as their charactrs would likely act, as reflected in their abilities, interaction with other character, and anything established thus far in play.
So no, I'm not going to "force" the player to do anything. I will give subtle or not so subtle minor rewards to encourage play to follow the social contract that the group has established. But if a new player actively refused to conform to that social contract, then the only "force" will be letting them know that they aren't a good fit with us. And if I joined a group that had a different social contract, I'd either conform to theirs or leave (probably the latter on this issue).
That is, a player with a character having an 8 charisma and rolling a 9 on a diplomacy check might tend to roleplay that conversation as something closer to a 5 charisma rolling a 2. We've found that characterizing the "middle" results well is far more challenging than the extremes. And like Hussar, I'm more concerned with the effort than the exact result, in any case. We broadly want a game where people try to act as their charactrs would likely act, as reflected in their abilities, interaction with other character, and anything established thus far in play.
So no, I'm not going to "force" the player to do anything. I will give subtle or not so subtle minor rewards to encourage play to follow the social contract that the group has established. But if a new player actively refused to conform to that social contract, then the only "force" will be letting them know that they aren't a good fit with us. And if I joined a group that had a different social contract, I'd either conform to theirs or leave (probably the latter on this issue).
For things that don't matter, like looks, I don't really care. In fact, often I find changing things from the stats to make more sense. As an example, I have an avenger that wields a massive gouge but has a starting Str of 12. Logically, he could barely lift it let alone wield it. Also, the gouge is a stupid weapon. In my descriptions of the character, he's 6'7" tall, lean but well muscled, and wields a fullblade.
What I find solves the problem of the 'low charisma character, high charisma player', or wisdom and int versions, is simply to rely on rolls to balance things back out. Even if a player is awesomely charismatic and yet always plays 8 Charisma characters, if you make him use Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. then his character won't be a problem. Now if he complains, you explain to him that whatever he says is filtered THROUGH his character. So even though his words and manner might be incredibly convincing, when filtered through his character they sound like a threat or an insult, or a demand, or simply falls flat in some way.
What I find solves the problem of the 'low charisma character, high charisma player', or wisdom and int versions, is simply to rely on rolls to balance things back out. Even if a player is awesomely charismatic and yet always plays 8 Charisma characters, if you make him use Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. then his character won't be a problem. Now if he complains, you explain to him that whatever he says is filtered THROUGH his character. So even though his words and manner might be incredibly convincing, when filtered through his character they sound like a threat or an insult, or a demand, or simply falls flat in some way.
Dude, you were the one to use the words "gamist", "narrativist" and "simulation", and spoke about "stances" all in one post. You're going to toss out a stack of terminology that originated in GNS theory, but somehow think you aren't referring to that theory? Really?
Does anyone else here think S'mon *wasn't* talking about GNS theory?
Lemme see:
My feeling, informed by the discussion I initiated, is that:
1. In a Gamist game it's unfair to limit player behaviour by reference to PC mental stats, except to the extent hard-coded into the rules. The player is supposed to be trying hard to win/succeed. Punishing this is unfair. In hardcore gamism the PC is just a pawn to be manipulated by the player in pursuit of victory - all is fair, within the rules.
2. In a Simulation, it may well be fair to expect players to play PCs in accordance with their listed stats. The player is not supposed to be trying to 'win' using all their personal resources, they are supposed to be exploring the imaginary world to find out what happens. Dramatic or narrativist play is similar, but the player probably has a slightly different stance in regards to their PC.
D&D came out of wargames, which are gamist with a simulation element. My impression is that most people play it basically according to #1, a smaller number according to #2, whereas some other games like Call of Cthulu are more commonly played according to #2.
As I said, I think it's unfair for the GM to be running a #1 game but expect the players to stick to #2 norms. However many games occupy a space somewhere between the two, in which case the group needs to establish its particular social contract at the table. Games with a strong emphasis on 'story', but where the story is defined as 'defeat X encounters to complete the adventure', can easily fall into this grey area.
OK, it looks like my big mistake was to include a throwaway line Dramatic or narrativist play is similar, but the player probably has a slightly different stance in regards to their PC which did not speak to the point I was trying to make, and raised visions of GNS Narrativism. Sorry about that.
How about:
"1. If the player is supposed to be trying hard to win/succeed, then punishing them for not limiting PC behaviour by reference to PC mental stats is unfair.
2. If the player is not supposed to be trying to 'win' using all their personal resources, but supposed to be exploring the imaginary world to find out what happens, then it may well be fair to expect players to play PCs in accordance with their listed stats.
D&D came out of wargames. My impression is that most people play it basically according to #1, a smaller number according to #2, whereas some other games like Call of Cthulu are more commonly played according to #2."
Is that better?
agree with S'mon
in practice this means
- presenting the players with situations that are 'solveable' with player skill and then not letting them use that skill is Unfun.
- throwing deathtraps at character-exploring-type players is Unfun
(ie if you want 5 Int characters to be played like idiots, make it an idiot-tolerant enviroment)
in practice this means
- presenting the players with situations that are 'solveable' with player skill and then not letting them use that skill is Unfun.
- throwing deathtraps at character-exploring-type players is Unfun
(ie if you want 5 Int characters to be played like idiots, make it an idiot-tolerant enviroment)
BTW I may sound like an advocate of #1, and my tabletop games are normally oriented to #1, but I have used D&D or its clones for a lot of #2 type exploratory play via pbem, pbp, chatroom games etc. Usually the simpler systems like Labyrinth Lord work best for that.
Similar Threads
