The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Bumbles]

And some people are not so good at abstract mathematical assessments and highly specialized system analysis.

I don't know about you, but I'd find it a lot easier to explain to someone that X,Y,Z are the skills you're good at, because they match your high stats, than I would in training somebody to use various social techniques.

Theatrics are way beyond my ability to coach people on.

Does the design derive from the "gamers lacking social skills" stereotype? They can develop "system mastery" of countless board-game rules exceptions, but it's too much to expect them to navigate a social milieu? Well, we're supposedly considering here "the game for non-gamers"!

Actually, I find that sort of thing all over the place in real life too, so no, it's not because of any concepts of gamers in my head. I know a lot of people who can't get such things down. And I know some who do it all too well. I think I'd need the rules to keep them from getting whatever they want with their own personal savoir-faire.

If you really want to engage people who enjoy exploring a social -- or physical (as in old-style dungeon expeditions) -- space, then applying techniques designed to cater to people who prefer to avoid such exploration does not seem like a very good plan.

Heh, I actually find more people who think that's the sort of things we do in our games and find that more unappealing than otherwise.

I swear, somebody one day is going to ask me where we find Steam Tunnels around here...

 

[LostSoul]

Only if you, as the GM want them to matter....and in the right circumstances, I can accept that you may choose to give a bonus or a penalty (though I would be very cautious with the penalties) to them as appropriate. But requiring them? I think that goes a bit too far.

Right. What I'm saying is that those details matter to me.

The players ability to influence the gameworld has controls in two places. The mind of the GM and the roll of the dice. The former should be used sparingly when responding to players(creating being another story). The latter is up to the PC and chaos.

Works for me.

That's cool.

What I'm trying to say is that... when you describe your action it can have an effect on the in-game situation. If you don't describe it, there is still some effect but it can be bland. You just rolled Intimidate without saying anything, so what just happened? Where do we go from here?

It's less dynamic, I think.

 

[Bumbles]

Right. What I'm saying is that those details matter to me.

So how do they matter? As I said, if you want to give bonuses, that's cool. If you want to penalize...that is something I'd use sparingly. If you want to require it...that's a bit too far.

What exactly are you asking for?

What I'm trying to say is that... when you describe your action it can have an effect on the in-game situation. If you don't describe it, there is still some effect but it can be bland. You just rolled Intimidate without saying anything, so what just happened? Where do we go from here?

It's less dynamic, I think.

The only way describing your action can have an effect is if the GM chooses them to have one. As for where you go, it depends, did it succeed or fail? If it succeeded, then the PC gets closer to whatever their objective was, if it failed, then the NPC most likely gets offended. The results of their offense can vary too widely for me to provide any input on it since you didn't describe circumstances (Just as their successes do). Give me a city guard, a bartender, a beggar, a king, I can come up with something. I don't need to worry about exactly what the PC might have said so much.

I'll use an example, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs"]Dr. Evil[/ame]. Sure it's funny that he keeps getting then numbers wrong in the movie, but while that can also be funny at the game, it can be unfun if you punish the players because of it. That's a dynamic I don't like that much, hence my preference for abstracted mechanics with descriptions being an option that may give some bonus, may not matter, or in some rare circumstances which I won't rule out because I don't want to say never to it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And some people are not so good at abstract mathematical assessments and highly specialized system analysis.

The only alternative resolution method is DM Fiat, which, as I've pointed out, is not an entirely satisfying resolution method, especially for extended play, when you want your character's actual capabilities to influence the outcome.

That's kind of one of the major differences between D&D and, say, Cops & Robbers. The whole "I shot you!/No you didn't!" argument is resolved by a third party: the rules. Without rules, you have "I shot you!/No you didn't!", even with a DM whose word is final (because we all know not all DM's are fair or impartial, as much as that might be an ideal trait). Even if it doesn't degenerate into actual arguments, the emotions and feelings are there, and the trust is harder to establish, and the game as a whole steers away from these kind of resolutions because it's generally not fun for players to just ask the DM if they win or not.

You threaten to beat him up?
You threaten to take his social position from him (blackmail, in essence)?
You threaten violence against his prize falcon?

How the Duke reacts to those different statements from the player can change the in-game situation in interesting ways.

Think about it the other way around. Think about how you do combat.

You roll a d20 and THEN describe it. If the roll is low, you might have hit the shield, or been deceived by her speed. If the roll is high, maybe you struck with enough force, or caught them off guard. On a crit, perhaps you hit a vein or find a chink in the armor. Damage and HP work kind of like this, too: high damage when you're low on HP is described as a more severe blow than light damage when you're high on HP.

The dice provide the direction, you provide the dialogue.

The dice say how well your threat worked. You figure out what that means in-character.

It does actually matter in combat if you hit someone in the eye or if you hit someone in the leg, but D&D doesn't make you tell the DM what you're aiming for before you roll to attack, and it doesn't really care how you describe it after the fact (what's important is that the fighting ability is decreased). It shouldn't make you tell the DM your exact statement before you decide what happens, and it shouldn't care exactly what that statement is (what's important is that you made a point that helps convince the Duke).

 

[LostSoul]

So how do they matter? As I said, if you want to give bonuses, that's cool. If you want to penalize...that is something I'd use sparingly. If you want to require it...that's a bit too far.

What exactly are you asking for?

Okay, let's say that the PC is a knight and the NPC is a maiden that he's been formally courting. He comes to the feast hall after a hard day of jousting, and sees her chatting up his married rival. They're laughing and what not.

Player: I stand over them and stare down my rival. "My Lord. Where is your wife? I'm sure she would like to hear the joke you just told."
Player: I come up behind them and put my hand on her shoulder and give my rival a cold, mean stare.
Player: I stand between them and give the maiden a dirty look.
Player: "What the hell are you doing?"
Player: I put my hand on my sword and stand over my rival. "Excuse yourself. You are leaving."

For each different action, the game is going to play out differently, even though all of those are Intimidate actions. In addition, how the DM chooses to describe the actions of the NPCs is going to change what the player does.

 

[Teflon Billy]

In short, we've all been playing Cops and Robbers when a number of non-gamers have been wanting to play House or Tea Party.

If I have to change my game of Cops and robbers into Tea Party to get certain people to play, I think I would prefer they didn't play.

TTRPGs, however, are better at Tea Party than MMORPGs. But are we looking to beat the MMORPG? If we want more non-gamers to play, should we be finding ways to emulate social networking sites instead?

"Building the Hobby" isn't my job. I've got a waiting list for my game that's in the double digits. Enjoying the hobby is my job.

If it were to change from "Epic Battle and Politics in a Magical Society" to "Shopping, Landscaping and The Power of Love in a Fey Society"...I'd probably opt out.

 

[Bumbles]

Okay, let's say that the PC is a knight and the NPC is a maiden that he's been formally courting.

Your example doesn't even come close to understanding what I was asking about. You are concerning yourself with the descriptions you're giving, instead of the game methods being used, which is what is concerning me.

It's hard discussing things when we're obviously not on the same page.

For each different action, the game is going to play out differently, even though all of those are Intimidate actions. In addition, how the DM chooses to describe the actions of the NPCs is going to change what the player does.

See, what you seem to be saying is that you'd require things to be that way, for the player to have to pick a choice. But you're leaving off how you'd resolve it, or even differentiate between them. This leaves me wondering what you're requesting. Can I not be fine with a PC just saying "I'm going to try to scare him to stay away from my girl!" and let that roll settle it? Do I have to use some different rules, or rely on my own fiat to determine the NPC's reaction?

This is not to say I can't let the PC use another skill, like Streetwise to know the gossip, or Insight to see if the girl or anybody else is upset(or Perception perhaps), or Athleticism to Arm Wrestle him, if the player wishes to try something like that. This may or may not give the PC a bonus on the attempt to Intimidate, and I would reward it if the roll were successful. (I might even with the Arm-wrestling let that end the contest..). Believe it or not, I can conceive how the players might do multiple things to resolve a situation, and I can welcome that.

OTOH, asking the player to necessarily formulate it, that would be a bit much for me. Especially if it were a more random encounter than with an established NPC where there might be some history to go from.

 

[LostSoul]

Your example doesn't even come close to understanding what I was asking about. You are concerning yourself with the descriptions you're giving, instead of the game methods being used, which is what is concerning me.

It's hard discussing things when we're obviously not on the same page.

That's the internet for you! I didn't understand what you were looking for.

I was thinking standard conflict resolution, that is, you roll the dice to resolve the conflict.

In the above example, the PC would roll Intimidate and the NPC would roll something based on his action. And maybe the maiden would roll something.

Can I not be fine with a PC just saying "I'm going to try to scare him to stay away from my girl!" and let that roll settle it?

No, you couldn't. You'd have to describe how you are scaring him away from your girl. The reason being: we don't know how to resolve it, because I don't know how to determine the NPC's reaction. Scared, yes; but scared, how? Afraid for his life? Afraid you will make him look like a fool? Afraid you will tattle on him to his wife? Afraid he'll lose face for breaking social conventions?

I'd need to know what the PC's action is in order to determine what action he's going to take, and how he will react in the case of success.

Do I have to use some different rules, or rely on my own fiat to determine the NPC's reaction?

Fiat, keeping in mind the result of the roll. That is, if the PC succeeds the NPC is scared, though he might still hang around.

My preferred game would have the rival leave or not leave based on the DM's portrayal of that NPC, but the roll would still have an effect (give the PC an advantage in the case of success).

 

[Umbran]

"Building the Hobby" isn't my job. I've got a waiting list for my game that's in the double digits. Enjoying the hobby is my job.

Well, it's great that you're so superb and have so many players that match your playstyle near you. Some are not so lucky. And while growing the hobby as a whole may not be their job, growing their pool of available players may be required for them to really enjoy the hobby.

Depending who is around them, maybe learning a little bit about Tea Parties can help.

 

[Bumbles]

That's the internet for you! I didn't understand what you were looking for.

It happens. I still don't think the understanding is completely, but maybe we're getting closer.

I was thinking standard conflict resolution, that is, you roll the dice to resolve the conflict.

So I'm not differentiating between the actions or what? How does what you want to do differ from how I said I'd do it? How are you doing things differently from the existing rules?

The reason being: we don't know how to resolve it, because I don't know how to determine the NPC's reaction.

You ask the player what they wanted to do. Or do you mean, how do you roll to see if it succeeded? Intimidate is a check against Will, if I've determined that in making the NPC, or against some DC. The value of which would probably depend on my plans as the GM rather than the Player's description of his actions. If I wanted the NPC to have been a serious rival, it'd be hard. If he was just a flirt, easy. I may also require more than one success, and make it a challenge with multiple attempts.

Of course, I could also have the NPC return in some form, but those plans would not necessarily be contingent on what exactly the PC said or did.

I'd need to know what the PC's action is in order to determine what action he's going to take, and how he will react in the case of success.

So far you haven't explained why you need it. The action has been explained clearly enough to go forward. Scaring the NPC away from his girl. I don't need anything more to determine the results. Seems likely that's an Intimidate check. If it succeeded, it happens, if it fails, it doesn't happen. If the PC wanted to do something else, then I'd ask them to amend their action. I don't need to know exactly what they said in these circumstances. I feel all I absolutely need is the result they wanted.

And like I said, if they came up with something that they believed would work to improve their chances, I'd let them try that, and if I have any existing plans, well, I might factor those in as well. The exact words though? I'd not absolutely *need* them as I see it.

Sure, it might help to have the PC's words in describing the NPC's reactions, but would I need it? No, I don't feel I do. He can just storm off in a huff and I can worry about the consequences later. That's as good a result for me as coming up with something else.

Can you provide me with a reason why I must do it differently?