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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7029628" data-attributes="member: 996">There's really a very basic question here, and, early on, D&D went to the polar extremes in answering it in combat vs social/interaction (NOT, I should point out 'RP,' since RP happens in combat, too - it's not just speaking in character!).  The question is, how do you resolve the question of whether a character succeeds at a task?   Do you a) reference the abilities of the character? or b) reference the abilities of the player?   In early D&D, combat tasks (like hit'n the other guy) were resolved entirely with a dice roll based on the ability of the character - mainly his class & level, with an assist from STR and magic weapons, for instance.  In stark contrast, an interaction task (like talking your way past a not particularly hungry dragon - one reaction dice have indicated was initially neutral to you, say) was resolved entirely based on the ability of the player to pitch convincingly to the DM.  (Now, to be fair, pitching a convincing argument to the DM could probably have accomplished just about anything, I'm just talking as far as systems and total lack thereof go).That started changing almost immediately.  The Thief class came out and had special abilities in the interaction pillar (and arguably pick pockets is interaction, for instance), and DMs would sometimes use reaction checks modified by CHA to resolve social interactions instead of just to determine the NPCs initial attitude. Then we got non-weapon proficiencies, and, finally, in 3.0, skills - including Diplomacy, and the Diplomancer build.  At that point, interaction had gone from being almost entirely based on the player (with the character wedged in by DM variant) to almost entirely based on the character (or build, I suppose, with the player needing to speak in character to get there and maybe earn a bonus/penalty, only if the DM insisted on it).  5e hasn't much pulled back from that as far as it's mechanics go.  The player describes what he wants to do, the DM narrates success failure or sets a difficulty and calls for a check.  (The player might be able to get away with a thing or few in how he declares said action, of course, if he knows the DM responds well (success, or at least lower DCs) to some pitches than other.) Well, you can just narrate success.  OK, sounds like a hybrid of the two resolution systems.How would you feel about a combat resolution that worked like that?  The players make three combat checks, and get to choose bigger boffers and shields the more successes they get, then go at it?  ;P So, for all that it's unfairly criticized for being a 'violent game' because it has so many rules devoted to combat, D&D combat does end up a pretty decent sub-system, at least a fair proportion of the time, while non-combat has generally been pretty sketchy.  From 'your 18 CHA does nothing for you' to 'my Diplomancer Elf make the Berserk Orc Barbarian into his new best friend because he rolled a 75.'  What's missing?From the former, obviously, any modeling of the character - from the latter, any meaningful in-play agency of the player (that may seem crazy, since the player is powergaming up the wazoo, but it really doesn't matter what he does, he'll make anyone 'Friendly' because his numbers are just that big - when it doesn't matter what you do, no so much agency, no?  Oversimplifying?  Using the Forge term wrong?  Maybe, but I hope the idea got across - neither is that fun).In 5e, what you can do is leverage the basic role of the DM in resolution to make something more interesting.  Let the players make decisions about /what/ the character will do, let the roll speak for how well the character will do it.  It has to be more specific on the player side than "I diplomacize him harder!"  But it shouldn't call for actual skill in diplomacy from them.  What you said above about taking a 'tone' would be an example.  The player shouldn't have to perform in character like he was auditioning for a Death of a Salesman, but he should leave you with a clear idea of what the character is trying to do, and why /that/ character should be able to do it - which should suggest to you whether he succeeds or fails (and what that looks like) or to call for a check, which stat, and whether proficiency should apply.Vague, I know, but Empowered DMing is as more art than science.</blockquote>

Verification