The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[Thomas Shey]

Yes I am sure. However, please understand I am not making any value judgements only looking for discussion.

All right.

My position is that while not everything can have a mechanic associated with it precisely, the more things that don't, the more the game turns into an exercise in seeing if your world view and the GMs coincide (theoretically, it could be whether your and the rest of the group's world view coincide, but I can't say I've seen many "the answer is not on your sheet" types who weren't also pretty GM-power-centric), and you can all too easily find out the answer to that the hard way.

My argument about mechanics in the past is that sometimes mechanics tell you dumb things, but at least you know what they're going to tell you in advance if you want to. And if the dumb things involve any common events, you can try to get the GM and/or group to address that in advance at least as easily as you can convince a GM that his position on how likely something is to work to change.

(As with most things, this isn't a binary situation of course; relatively few games have mechanics associated with, say, taking over a criminal organization, so that's going to be thrown into the GM's perceptions anyway, but a lot of that has to do with the relative hostility to serious social mechanics that's still pretty common in the hobby and/or the situation just not being common enough to justify the book real estate and design overhead needed to cover it).

 

[Krachek]

« the answer is not on the players sheet « mean to me that the DM is convinced to have given more than enough clues to solve the problems while the players are still totally confused about the solution.

It also remind me DM that ask « You got to think outside the box! »
that was a nice invitation but we finally realize that outside the box mean inside the DM box.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m largely with @Thomas Shey here, thanks to an all-too-common sleight of hand.

“The answer may not be on your character sheet” is something I agree with. But Thomas and I have been around for a lot of cycles of argument about whether GMs should allow characters to be very special and whether any special features on the character sheet should be allowed to interfere with the GM’s vision.

It has all too often been used to mean “The answer will be on your character sheet only if I deign to allow what you chose for your character to matter.” And I hate that.

I want what’s on the character sheet to matter. That’s why I put it there. It’s about experiences and abilities I don’t have and often cannot have. I believe in going beyond it - it’s why I like backgrounds, Fate aspects and approaches, Over The Edge traits, and the like over skills and feats. But if I’m not able to make regular use of what’s there, the game is going someplace I am just about guaranteed not to enjoy.

I'll also note that the more schematic a game system is, the less likely it is that character generation will meaningfully cover the full range of potential character capability I want available. I spent a lot of my gaming career running and playing in BRP based games, but even broadly covered attributes and skills aren't the whole story. And something like OD&D is far, far worse at actually allowing any character distinction with actual teeth.

 

[Reynard]

« the answer is not on the players sheet « mean to me that the DM is convinced to have given more than enough clues to solve the problems while the players are still totally confused about the solution.

It also remind me DM that ask « You got to think outside the box! »
that was a nice invitation but we finally realize that outside the box mean inside the DM box.

This is the rub. It is a fine goal to rely on "player skill" -- but it only actually works if the GM doesn't actually prepare any answers.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Social games are different. Negotiation, where it happens in that kind of game, doesn't pause the gameplay or intrude.

I'm talking about having to pause a game to hash out what happens next because I suggested doing something, and now we need to decide if a mechanic applies or not.

Oh. Please replace "Blood on the Clocktower" with "Calvin Ball."

 

[grimmgoose]

I'm a Hybrid type DM.

Any character can "try" to do just about anything the character can do within reason. Though rule wise this is mostly a +0 effect. And that is to say the action won't have much direct mechanical effect on game play. Though the player will be able to get some role play effect...often advantage..from the action.

To get a real "hard" mechanical effect, the character needs the skill, ability, power or such.

So any character can try to distract a foe. Like say by dropping some gold coins. The greedy attacker might pause an attack to pick up the coins...but gets no mechanical effect just from the distraction. Only a fighter battle master with distracting strike can give the foe disadvantage for the next strike against it.

Agree on avoiding a "hard" mechanical effect.

At most, if we're playing 5E, and the player wants to bend the rules, I'll ask them to spend Inspiration (I hand it out pretty liberally in my games). That way, there is still an expenditure cost.

The way I see it, 5E is a resource management game. Everything has to cost a resource.

 

[Autumnal]

do in the game. The GM should respect that and run the game accordingly, or at least let you know they aren't going to and you can bow out.

Oh, yes. I’ve got no problem with the GM restricting some options, either specifically (“these classes don’t exist in the world of this campaign”) or in general terms (“play starts in Venice in 1201; your character has to have a non-ridiculous reason for being there), and I strongly approve of review and discussion before the GM gets actual play started.

Sometimes that can discussion can lead to some changes in plan, like the campaign discussed in another thread where a player wants to play the last magician in a world the GM imagined as no longer imbued with magic. I’d go for it and see what emerges as riffs on themes of autumnal decline with or without vernal renewal. Sometimes it can lead to working out an alternative way to the player’s desire that also fits within a framework the GM’s been thinking of. And sometimes the player ends up thinking of an entirely different idea that’s also appealing and requires no tweaking on anyone’s part. Those are all good outcomes.

It’s when the players come in with intentions that are supported by the available systems and info but that the GM has no intention of respecting. That’s when it’s no good for me.

 

[Reynard]

Oh, yes. I’ve got no problem with the GM restricting some options, either specifically (“these classes don’t exist in the world of this campaign”) or in general terms (“play starts in Venice in 1201; your character has to have a non-ridiculous reason for being there), and I strongly approve of review and discussion before the GM gets actual play started.

Sometimes that can discussion can lead to some changes in plan, like the campaign discussed in another thread where a player wants to play the last magician in a world the GM imagined as no longer imbued with magic. I’d go for it and see what emerges as riffs on themes of autumnal decline with or without vernal renewal. Sometimes it can lead to working out an alternative way to the player’s desire that also fits within a framework the GM’s been thinking of. And sometimes the player ends up thinking of an entirely different idea that’s also appealing and requires no tweaking on anyone’s part. Those are all good outcomes.

It’s when the players come in with intentions that are supported by the available systems and info but that the GM has no intention of respecting. That’s when it’s no good for me.

One of my most beloved campaigns ever started with the rules "No Ninjas and No Elves" and my perennially challenging player said "I want to play an elf ninja!"

Instead of saying no, I batted it around with him for a while and what emerged was a core element of the setting of a long lost Asian inspired Elf nation. It became a centerpiece of the 20 year campaign (or 3 linked campaigns over 20 years, depending on how you want to define "campaign".)

 

[payn]

This is the rub. It is a fine goal to rely on "player skill" -- but it only actually works if the GM doesn't actually prepare any answers.

A little turnabout is fair play? I think there can certainly be answers but the GM must be honest about them.

 

[Reynard]

A little turnabout is fair play? I think there can certainly be answers but the GM must be honest about them.

In my experience it rarely works out. Maybe if you really know your players, but generally I think it is too easy for a GM to get myopic and fail to realize they aren't actually providing the necessary clues. Best to avoid that scenario entirely and let the players come up with the right answer.