Storytelling vs Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

Yet seem to have an inability to answer the question.

I seem never to have been issued a "stat block" with a number for "ability to answer questions"; I guess skills did not exist back when I was born.

"D&D skills" used to refer to actual acumen possessed by players.

 

[Ariosto]

In every edition of D&D the only way to ensure a PC survives is DM fudging.

In any game in which outcomes depend at least partly on chance, the only way to ensure them is to "fudge". They have another word for it in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

 

[Scribble]

I seem never to have been issued a "stat block" with a number for "ability to answer questions"; I guess skills did not exist back when I was born.

"D&D skills" used to refer to actual acumen possessed by players.

My question was:

There wasn't anything in the rules called a skill challenge, so I needed you to define what YOU were calling an OD&D skill challenge. You responded with snark.

Now you're comparing two separate aspects and calling them the same.

Player "acumen" still exists in the game. We also now have new tools and ideas to work with as well, one of which being a skill challenge. (Of which players can also gain "acumen." )

 

[maddman75]

I seem never to have been issued a "stat block" with a number for "ability to answer questions"; I guess skills did not exist back when I was born.

"D&D skills" used to refer to actual acumen possessed by players.

Doesn't it mostly refer to being annoyingly paranoid and having the MM memorized?

 

[Ariosto]

Scribble: Your play on the word "skill" looked like a clever joke to me. Was it really uncharitable of me to take likewise your personal jab concerning "inability" and roll with it in good humor?

I am well aware of the advice to DMs in the 1e DMG in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of page 9. To represent that as advocacy of the "fudging" at issue here seems to me quite a stretch.

It is no news to me that "amateur thespianism" has been a significant part of the game from the first! It's another great leap from that analogy to play-acting to trying to impose a script (whether as player or as DM).

If you want to cross that gap yourself, then you need nobody's "official permission"! Neither are appeals to an "authority" I found odious 30 years ago about to make me toe a line today. The rhetorical acrobatics make them entertaining, though.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I am well aware of the advice to DMs in the 1e DMG in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of page 9. To represent that as advocacy of the "fudging" at issue here seems to me quite a stretch.

1e fudges to promote gamism, by which I mean challenging the players, over simulationist rules. 2e fudges to promote story over simulationist rules.

Could you give an example of 4e's promotion of fudging? I suspect if it does it would be in the name of fun or 'whatever works for your group' or somesuch. The DMG advice in the d20 editions is much more open-minded about different gaming styles than that of previous editions.

 

[Scribble]

Scribble: Your play on the word "skill" looked like a clever joke to me. Was it really uncharitable of me to take likewise your personal jab concerning "inability" and roll with it in good humor?

Wasn't making a jab, just commenting that instead of answering the question you went to snark.

Maybe we just misunderstood each other at some point?

My point is simply that a player's skill at the game itself, hasn't left the game at all, simply because he/she now has more "tools" to work with.

I don't think it's valid to say that player skill has been replaced by in game skill challenges, anymore then it is to say a powerful new computer system replaces the need for skill in the 3d animator.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't think it's valid to say that player skill has been replaced by in game skill challenges ...

The player skill at playing a 4e "skill challenge" is different from the player skill at dealing with other kinds of challenges.

 

[Ariosto]

For advocacy of fudging, 1e DMG p. 110 would (IMO) better fit the bill than page 9:

You might ... wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g., a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

An aside:

Speaking of monsters, page 9 states, "Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them." It beats me where that section is, and -- come to think of it -- I'm not sure it's there (in the DMG or PHB) at all. Oh, there are mentions, but I don't recall that particular section.

I've got the default 1/6 chance per turn in the dungeon stuck in my brain from the original set, but darned if I can find it in 1e! Organization is an asset of 2e (and of OSRIC).

 

[Hussar]

Already answered but can you not see the difference between wholesale creation and speculation based on the logical environment?

Pulling this particular quote out.

No, I really can't. You're telling me that the appearance of a dog in the street in a fantasy town is somehow wholesale creation and far less likely than the appearance of a crowbar (thanks for the clarification Ariosto - was going by memory) in a shed?

Do you have a crowbar in your shed? I know I don't. I keep my crowbar with my tools - in my basement. The only thing in my shed are gardening tools. Not sure of the last time I used a crowbar while gardening. Might find a crowbar in a garage, I suppose, but a shed?

Ok, I'm being way too pedantic here, but, I am making a point. What you think of as reasonable and what someone else thinks is reasonable may be miles apart. Many, many gaming sessions have devolved into acrimony on that alone. I don't know about you, but, I've certainly had that argument more times than I care to count.

The addition of a mechanic that allows either a chance or a simple statement from the player takes away that argument. It makes the game go smoother, IME.

But, in either case, the player is trying to dictate setting elements that were not there. The GM did not put a crowbar there, nor did he add in the dog. Neither examples though are beyond belief. A dog in a fantasy town? Come on, be honest here. That's easily as believable as finding a crowbar in a shed.

Why use mechanics if certain events HAVE to happen and other events CANNOT happen at the wrong time? In any event such devices are for story telling rather than event resolution.

Again, you're taking this to a far extreme. I agree that if the players can dictate every single facet whenever they please, then yeah, that's probably not a role playing game. Or at the very least, it's pretty far left field. But, no game actually works like that. (or again, very few do) Most games allow you to make limited changes based on the genre (such as 007's Action Points which allow you to add in features that fit with the feel of the Bond movies) a limited number of times.

It's a resource, same as anything else.

Really, we're just going around in circles on this. I'm going to sum up my position here and go back to lurking unless something really new comes up. First, let me summarize how I understand your definition of role playing game:

A role playing game is one where the players act out a specified role and cannot affect anything in the game world outside of that role. Thus a wizard could have a greater effect on the setting (through a Wish spell for instance) but, any effect would be prescribed by the system. If the game includes mechanics which allow players to affect the setting in some fashion outside of their pre-defined role, then it becomes a story telling game.

(I hope I got that right. )

Why I don't buy into this:

1. It defines role playing too narrowly. It allows games like Hungry Hungry Hippos to be considered role playing games while excluding games like Spirit of the Century.

2. It ignores the fact that almost no rpg out there does not have some mechanism for a character to affect the setting. For example, many games have Flaw mechanics of some sort. Within those Flaw mechanics, you typically have an Enemy (again of some sort) Flaw. If I take that, I, as the player, have now affected the setting by adding in an enemy that was not developed through play.

3. There already exists perfectly good definitions of Role Playing Game which include pretty much everything that gamers consider to be rpg's. There's nothing wrong with sub-dividing the RPG into various types. That's fine. But, I do not see the value in promoting a single type of RPG over all others. It does nothing to clarify discussion.