But there is a comparison, a totally one for one comparison. You’re letting a physically weak individual play a hugely strong Barbarian because one of their numbers just happens to be high but not letting a socially awkward person take advantage of where their high stats are just because you’d rather pull them massively out of their comfort zone and make them miserable.
Honest question.
What happens at your table when a player wants to persuade or deceive someone. Do they just say I want to do that. And the DM says roll. And the result determines what happens. No role-playing ever takes place?
Honest answer; it depends on the player
I run a kids club as one of my games and my aim at all my tables is to be as inclusive as possible. If someone is comfortable with long Critical Role style dialogue then they get to do it. If they aren’t I don’t ask them to. I’m not going to tell the 14 year old non-verbal girl on the Autism spectrum she doesn’t get to play the Warlock she dearly loves because the extent of her role playing is passing me a note saying “can I scare him?”
So why even roll for stats if you’re then going to turn around to a socially awkward player and say their 20 points in Charisma doesn’t count because they personally can’t persuade you of something?
CHA in earlier editions of the game served mostly two functions: how many retainers a character might attract—such is the nature of charisma—and how the character might influence how an encounter was going to respond to its presence.
It was even made pretty clear it was NOT a measure of a character's personality. Or appearance. A character with an extremely low CHA could still be likeable.
Do you honestly doubt a socially awkward player's ability to be at all persuasive when describing what he or she wants a character to do or say? I think that says more about you than it does a rule you don't like.
I’m not doubting them at all, you’re the one saying they shouldn’t be able to succeed at a persuasion check unless they can personally persuade you, I’m saying that if they aren’t comfortable doing that they shouldn’t have entire classes closed off to them
It is also worth noting that 5e does not have a monopoly on "use your stats to do persuasion/intimidation/deception/performance" checks--the names might have changed, but social skill checks have been a part of the game dating back to AD&D. The idea that the persuasion check is some kind of newfangled 5e invention to limit traditional D&D roleplaying is nothing shot of misinformation clearly designed in furtherance of gatekeeping.
Now, that also does not mean you can not take into account what the person says - what the person says might confer advantage or result in a lower difficulty check. That both rewards players for thinking through what they want to present, while also allowing skills and dice to make up for any social awkwardness that might have prevented the player from being able to lower the check's DC. That is what I have been doing for multiple editions of the game; I expect it is how I will always be doing such checks.
I run a kids club as one of my games and my aim at all my tables is to be as inclusive as possible. If someone is comfortable with long Critical Role style dialogue then they get to do it. If they aren’t I don’t ask them to. I’m not going to tell the 14 year old non-verbal girl on the Autism spectrum she doesn’t get to play the Warlock she dearly loves because the extent of her role playing is passing me a note saying “can I scare him?”
I likewise run games for kids. If we can find some common ground here I do truly commend what you are doing.
But there is no need to straw man what I am saying by acting as if I expect "long Critical Role style dialogue" from any of my players least of all those who might not be the biggest of speakers among them.
I am simply saying I expect players to describe what they want their characters to do or say. But then I run games for kids for whom English is a second language. The spontaneity with which they need to do this is beneficial for their education.
I once played an entire session in which no words were spoken and instead notes were passed between the GM and the players. A Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game that was one of court intrigue and none of us wanted the other players to know what we were up to. It was still role-playing. As we were expressing what we wanted our characters to do or say. And was for the most part purely a game of human social interaction and of influence.
I personally just think it discourages role-playing when a roll can just decide the outcome. This isn't to say no one role-plays when that's the case. Many do in spite of this. But think of it this way: How is it remotely fair for someone to put in a ton of effort into a monologue and roll a 1. And someone to to just say "Can I roll Deception?" and they roll a 20? If you really want to make this about fairness and how unfair you think it is for a shy player to not be perhaps so adequate at anything CHA-based.
It’s fair because they’re all starting from the same place: a d20 roll and the statistic they want to play rather than it being based on their personality or their real world skills.. That’s equality. Anything else is just the way they find fun. As Caerwyn said there’s rewards you can give players, inspiration or adapting the DC, but I’m not going to penalise players who aren’t good at that stuff just because they wanted to try a new class. Who knows, they might come out of their shell and gain more confidence or they may not. Either way I want them all to have a chance
Traps and puzzles I find very different from social encounters because they involve so much more above the table conversation and group work solving them. A persuasion or intimidation check is usually just the one person and has a certain degree of time pressure, a puzzle I’m happy for them to talk it through as a group for as long as they are having fun doing it. I’m also going to give them a lot more hints if they’re struggling then I ever would in a social encounter. As for perception or investigation checks, I usually either follow a fail forward approach where even a bad roll helps eliminate options even if it doesn’t give a solution or I’ll depending on the situation I’ll allow rerolls while making it very clear time has passed and the world has changed. Again, that’s not really an option with social encounters where you don’t get to wait five minutes and have another go at persuading someone
It shouldn’t matter how well the player can convince the DM of a thing, it should only matter how well the character can convince the NPC. A ton of effort on a monologue is what the player did; the natural 1 is what the character did. Rewarding a character for what the player is successful at is the opposite of role-playing. That player is only playing themself, not their character.
To have a not-so-clever player play a highly intelligent character, you simply allow the dice to dictate success rather than the player’s ability. For example, when such a player is stumped with their super smart wizard, the DM can have them roll a relevant skill or ability check and offer them information based on the result to reflect what the wizard knows but the player doesn’t. Conversely, when an intelligent player plays a low Int character, that player should not be permitted to use their personal encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual; they should be expected to succeed on a relevant skill or ability check to justify pulling out the perfect weapon to foil a critter’s resistance or take advantage of a vulnerability.
This is the very purpose of having the stats and skills—to represent a character that is not you. If those stats and skills aren’t used to determine the character’s circumstances, you’re not really playing that character, are you? There is no functional difference between my character with a 20 Cha and my character with an 8 Cha if how well I, the player, chats up the DM determines their success because my charisma doesn’t vary based on which character I’m playing.
I think what you two are talking about at this point is really one of the bigger changes between older and newer editions. Older editions challenged the players, newer one challenge the characters. When in the past you might say, “as I search the desk I look out for false buttons in the drawers,” or “as I enter the room, I look up at the ceiling.” Newer one you just say, I search the desk or the room, and figure your character has kinds of skills that you the player don’t and do knows how to check for a false bottom, and knows to look up. Personally, I don’t put puzzles in my games much for just that reason — the 20 int wizard or 20 wis cleric is smarter or more intuitive than anyone I’m playing with, they should be able to walk into the room take a glance at the puzzle and just know the answer. Really, it comes down to playstyle.
In the role play context, the awkward player with a suave character has been a source of friction since the beginning. No one expects anyone at the table to actually wield a greataxe or pick a lock, let alone cast a spell, but the talking parts are the one element where the player might be able to do what the character does and so some people expect that player’s abilities to be what matters those situations. Personally, I prefer the current model which lets anyone play a charismatic character much more easily. But, again, it’s really about playstyle.
You are also contradicting yourself when you claim to be a proponent of OSR principles but then sing the praises of 5E. Because 5E is the antithesis of the movement's principles.
I'm not going to respond to anything else because it's mostly nonsense, and I don't think its going anywhere but I will answer this for you because it's very simple. You have taken someone's idea, M. Finch and the OSR movement specifically and weaponized it to show how much more superior your preferred playstyle is to other playstyles. I get it, believe me, I do, hell perhaps even on some levels I might even agree with you a little, I have been known to make such arguments occasionally myself. But the thing is that, this is not what the OSR is about or for and neither is M. Finch. He wasn't trying to show how crappy modern gaming is, he was celebrating and revitalizing classic gaming.
That is the difference between the way I love the OSR and the way you do. I use the OSR to celebrate classic gaming because its awesome, you want to use it to prove how crappy modern gaming is. See.... I get the OSR, I don't think you do.
i do think in terms of rules. It is a game, and other than Calvinball, games have rules. All games. Indeed, the nature of games is predicated on the basis of rules — so anyone who is talking about games is talking about rules, fundamentally, and thus even you think in terms of rules.
2
you also forgot: the cleric did have a tool to disarm traps. And could have used it. So the question you asked is, again, still answers by the same response. Throwing sandbags to trigger spike throwers, lifting, hauling, positioning, and using a log — these all still had mechanical tests and challenges.
3
as for a narrative choice, everything in the books is a narrative choice, including the use of the mechanics or not using them. The narrative choice bit of the clothing is no different from my player’s deciding “that looks like a trapped area, let’s solve that problem” and then doing it. All of that was narrative, improvisational, and creative. So, again, no distinction and an empty argument.
4
The meta textual influence you reference requires specific evidence to use as an argument, though. I am aware such things exist, but I am also aware of how they operate, explicitly, and so I would need to have some concrete examples in order to accept that argument. How, specifically, do they teach looking at the game as a game of chess in terms of maximizing and optimizing?
1) This is not really true, which is part of my point. Do you solve problems in the real world by wondering which rules are the right ones to apply? Do you encounter spilled flour and wondering which mechanic will pick it up? Do authors have their characters act according to a set of rules?
In some sense the real world has rules, they are called the laws of physics, but people don't start picking out laws of physics to solve their problems.
Indeed, for me, I have always had an issue with calling RPGs "games" for this very precise reason, because the style of RPG I got into was not about rules. It was not built on rules. We used mechanics as aids, but you could've easily taken them away and our game would not have slowed down. We would probably get more frustrated at times and suffer more miscommunications, but fundamentally, we could play without rules.
Sure you might argue that a character having a particular personality is "a rule" but that is truly bending things away from the argument and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. There is a massive difference between a writer giving a character a consistent behavior vs a player of chess choosing their next move.
2) A tool is not a mechanic, and you use the right tool for the job. Thieves tools are like lockpicks and pliers and such. You mention having players make mechanical challenges to move a log into position, and I really got to wonder why. The only thing that comes to my mind is that you felt there needed to be some sort of test, otherwise, why have the trap?
For me, there are three reasons to have a trap, the first is because it makes for a trap to be there and you want to show the trap being there because of what it communicates to the players, whether it be showing detail of the world to build verisimilitude or because it might be a clue or it might provide insight into something up ahead. The second is to make a scene where the players need to make a meaningful choice, which could be taking a risk or spending resources or impacting the life and livelihood of other characters. Third is to make them think creatively.
Where is the risk in moving a log? Where is the expenditure of resources? Mechanical challenges here do not seem to do anything other dictate whether they need to come up with a different plan. Not much risk, not much cost, not much impact. Rolling dice challenges here do not add a significant amount in any of these terms. What it does do is reward the meta play of game mechanics, not character build nor character personality.
3) Narrative choice in the sense I'm discussing it, is exclusively the choices within the context of the narrative milieu. There is a difference between looking at the mechanics, picking the best option and then building up story around that choice, vs making a choice based on the character you are playing and their perceptions and knowledge, then representing it with mechanics. Do you not see how the outcomes of these two alternatives are different?
4) I'm not the one that brought up minmaxing. Such subtleties in influence are generally difficult to get right because they are something that happens on a holistic level. You generally can't pin them down to "they made this particular mechanic like this so that players would be like that." There are exceptions but outside of gaming is easier to find some.
When a store puts snacks right next to the register, it is making it easy to give in to an impulse purchase which easily leads to a habit of giving in to impulse buying. Similarly, companies pay stores to put their product at a particular height because it makes it stand out and most people will take the easy solution and given a choice between an easy reach and reaching to the lowest or highest shelf. Yes, that has a significant impact on sales that absolutely makes it worth buying particular shelves. The same is true for the anti-trap skill. In 3.5 and pf1, the anti-trap skill exists, and that makes it easier to just use the anti-trap skill than to figure out an alternative not involving mechanics. This builds a habit of looking at mechanics first, which then drives creativity and problem solving to look first and foremost at mechanics. Subtle psychological tricks that matter.
The witch class. There is a sort of witch class in the core rulebooks, but DMs wouldn't allow it, even if they had homebrew, because to them it was somehow not legitimate, and that was important to them. Why? Because they have a certain reliance on the mechanics for how they think and resolve issues, and allowing the witch class makes them uncomfortable because it breaks the underlying assumptions they don't even know they are making.
Another example is flipping a table over for cover. Players won't do this. It's a trope we see in movies many times, and while players rarely have an issue with the idea, they never think of it themselves. The simple case of having a bunch of mechanics puts them in a mindset of thinking in terms of the mechanics, which means options not explicitly available in the mechanics tend to not be thought of. Most of the players I know that are not this limited, play freeform or some very rules light system that has mechanics more for story control rather than "what the character can do," and even then they usually limit themselves when playing in a "crunchy" system.
Indeed, the very fact that DnD mechanics are about what a character can do, instead of players having narrative control of outcomes, shapes the way they think of solutions and make plans. In fact, have you noticed that dnd homebrew is basically never a homebrew mechanic about narrative story control? I've never seen a dnd homebrew mechanic like "roll X, and on these result, the player gets to succeed and they get to come up with an additional boon, but this other value means that even though they succeed the GM gets to add a problem or complicaion, and this other value means they fail but they still get to come up with some advantage..." It is something that doesn't really fit with DnD mechanics so it doesn't get homebrewed in even though it is a fundamental and well used mechanic elsewhere. It is a contradictory mechanic. I can see that, yet I'm not really sure how to put into words the reason it is a contradictory structure.
1 - Factually, it is true. I am a sociologist and psychologist by training, vocation, and field of science.
Do you solve problems in the real world by wondering which rules are the right ones to apply? - Factually, yes, people do this every day. there's an entire concept called Structure and Agency for this.
Do you encounter spilled flour and wondering which mechanic will pick it up? - Factually, yes, people do this every day. The mechanic is a broom and a dustpan --and there are options.
Do authors have their characters act according to a set of rules?- Factually, yes, authors do have a set of rules relating to character actions. Multiple sets, in fact.
...the real world has rules, they are called the laws of physics... - There are far more rules than just the physical ones.
... people don't start picking out laws of physics to solve their problems. - But they do -- and they access them by using tools.
I have always had an issue with calling RPGs "games" ... - This is a personal problem, not one for the rest of the world. They are games by the normative definition, your personal one is only applicable to you, personally. [This became obvious in the next response, and shifted the way I can address you. See below.]
There is a massive difference between a writer giving a character a consistent behavior vs a player of chess choosing their next move. -- No, factually, there is not. Consistency is part of the rules of a writer that dictate what a character can and cannot do, and chess only has rules for moving pieces and a victory state, which delineate what a piece can and cannot do. Do not confuse the tactical and strategic approaches to chess with the rules of chess.
2 - A tool is a mechanic. Both in the game and in the real world. This highlights a problem. First, you have a different definition from the rest of the world about what a game is. Now it is obvious you have a different definition from the rest of the world about what a mechanic is -- and you previously noted that you think of mechanics as separate from rules, when the rest of the world in general does not.
if we cannot agree on what a mechanic is, we cannot discuss mechanics.
if we cannot agree on what a rule is, we cannot discuss rules.
if we cannot agree one what a game is, we cannot discuss games.
This is not because of any lack of good faith or desire, it is because we would be talking across each other and neither understanding the other, and it would be bad faith to attempt to do so knowing that we do not share common ground from which to communicate.
I can tell you that I will not operate in a space that is dictated solely by your terminology, nor will I do so in a space that is dictated solely by mine. I am willing to compromise on terminology, but not wholly shift to either, as that would be unseemly.
I leave it to you to proffer a middle point and we can begin to negotiate from there. Until we reach that consensus that is acceptable to both sides in terms of what those things are, I cannot in good faith continue with this discussion on these terms because it would not be conducive to being willing to change perspective or improv knowledge, which would make it a bad faith effort on my part. Even in my most sarcastic and nasty moments, I still operate in good faith.
3 - See point 2, above, and add "narrative" and "narrative milieu" to the list of terms needing rapprochement.
4 - Factually, you can do that. Specifically, factually, even in games, you can generally them down to "they made this particular mechanic like this so that players would be like that." Oddly enough, your example of chess, from earlier, is a prime example of this.
I cannot address any further aspects in your response because we are speaking about different things with the same words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I get it, believe me, I do, hell perhaps even on some levels I might even agree with you a little, I have been known to make such arguments occasionally myself.
Can verify: bolded statement is true and factual. Italicized phrase is borne out by previous interactions.
Additional information: is also unflaggingly polite, erudite, and capable; can admit and accept new information and change position based on new information. Does not gloat, takes teasing well.
Still has an overly burdensome attachment to the non-advanced version of the game, but not everyone can be perfect, and perfection is unattainable in any case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As for perception or investigation checks, I usually either follow a fail forward approach where even a bad roll helps eliminate options even if it doesn’t give a solution or I’ll depending on the situation I’ll allow rerolls while making it very clear time has passed and the world has changed. Again, that’s not really an option with social encounters where you don’t get to wait five minutes and have another go at persuading someone
It shouldn’t matter how well the player can convince the DM of a thing, it should only matter how well the character can convince the NPC. A ton of effort on a monologue is what the player did; the natural 1 is what the character did. Rewarding a character for what the player is successful at is the opposite of role-playing. That player is only playing themself, not their character.
To have a not-so-clever player play a highly intelligent character, you simply allow the dice to dictate success rather than the player’s ability. For example, when such a player is stumped with their super smart wizard, the DM can have them roll a relevant skill or ability check and offer them information based on the result to reflect what the wizard knows but the player doesn’t. Conversely, when an intelligent player plays a low Int character, that player should not be permitted to use their personal encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual; they should be expected to succeed on a relevant skill or ability check to justify pulling out the perfect weapon to foil a critter’s resistance or take advantage of a vulnerability.
This is the very purpose of having the stats and skills—to represent a character that is not you. If those stats and skills aren’t used to determine the character’s circumstances, you’re not really playing that character, are you? There is no functional difference between my character with a 20 Cha and my character with an 8 Cha if how well I, the player, chats up the DM determines their success because my charisma doesn’t vary based on which character I’m playing.
I just want to point out a key thing that applies in all of these circumstances as a fundamental part of 5e (and, ultimately, all editions of the game):
If the DM thinks they succeed for whatever reason (player monologue or knowledge, character monologue or knowledge), then there does not need to be a roll made at all.
Part of 5e's particular broad base is that both "the player knowledge" and the "the character knowledge" are effective uses of the systems inherent in the game. Even within the same playstyle, both can be used, and may or may not have a roll, because the DM may feel that one is not necessary -- while a different DM may feel they are.
Neither approach is wrong or right, but underlying both is the principle that if there is no success, partial success, and failure condition, then a roll is not needed. So if the Character convinces the DM, or the Player convinces the NPC, the end result is still going to be the same. That's four different approaches to the issue:
Player convinces NPC
Player convinces DM
Character convinces NPC
Character convinces DM
With all of the assorted ability scores, some variant of these four can always be applied -- and the flexibility of to roll or not is still a matter of the interplay between the DM and the Player, in any case (though not entirely based in verbal communication or even one on one).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I just want to point out a key thing that applies in all of these circumstances as a fundamental part of 5e (and, ultimately, all editions of the game):
If the DM thinks they succeed for whatever reason (player monologue or knowledge, character monologue or knowledge), then there does not need to be a roll made at all.
Part of 5e's particular broad base is that both "the player knowledge" and the "the character knowledge" are effective uses of the systems inherent in the game. Even within the same playstyle, both can be used, and may or may not have a roll, because the DM may feel that one is not necessary -- while a different DM may feel they are.
Neither approach is wrong or right, but underlying both is the principle that if there is no success, partial success, and failure condition, then a roll is not needed. So if the Character convinces the DM, or the Player convinces the NPC, the end result is still going to be the same. That's four different approaches to the issue:
Player convinces NPC
Player convinces DM
Character convinces NPC
Character convinces DM
With all of the assorted ability scores, some variant of these four can always be applied -- and the flexibility of to roll or not is still a matter of the interplay between the DM and the Player, in any case (though not entirely based in verbal communication or even one on one).
There is one additional thing and it is important and it comes from the perspective of the DM, the person responsible for unfolding the story before the players and that is that, if you just want something to happen because of whatever reason, narrative or otherwise. The dice, the conviction of the player or the perspective of the character, whatever it is, if the DM simply decides that something should, needs to or simply the DM wants something to unfold... it magically does and no rules, dice or philosophies matter.
In fact, that single idea is how most of the game resolves because whether a DM is conscious of it or not, they are making decisions like that on a micro and macro level all the time. What happens in the game is ultimately not really up to the dice, the system or anything else. Its just a DM fiat that is an inherent and unavoidable thing in the game. Its mostly smoke and mirrors. I see that a lot of DM's like to pretend or even trick themselves into believing this doesn't exist or that it only occasionally exists, but it's literary how 90% of the experience executes.
As such in the end the rules of the game don't really amount to much and are really just there to entertain people. If I say make a stealth check and you roll, whatever the result, I still decide what happens, Im the DM. There is no player control or rule concession, there is the DM...
This is why the game focuses on combat. This is the one place where DM narrative doesn't alter the results, the dice do. Meaning, its a tactical combat game at that point, a competition between player and DM decisions, character power vs. monster powers, DM's dice vs. player's dice. The DM can easily cheat here was well, but generally, this is the only thing in D&D a DM can consciously run straight without DM fiat interference.
You could take 100 DM's and put them in the exact same situation with the exact same players with the exact same dice results and you will always have 100 different outcomes. So this fussing about talking skill usage and how it affects the game and how it doesn't. I mean its fine for some theory-crafting, but these rules don't really amount to much in terms of impact compared to how the DM decides to unfold the story.
but social skill checks have been a part of the game dating back to AD&D.
That is only partially true. Beyond "Etiquette" as a non-weapon proficiency and that more about a player's knowledge of correct behavior there was no way to mechanically resolve social interaction in AD&D core.
It was not until the Complete Thief's Handbook for 2nd. Edition that we saw non-weapon proficiencies for things like "Fast-Talking" and "Intimidation."
Such books and non-weapon proficiencies in general were entirely optional. Non-weapon proficiencies were never a core rule of the game during the lifecycle of either 1st. or 2nd.
Visit any forum or subreddit with old AD&D players talking about this very issue. You will find many of their tables used the more artisan- and career-like non-weapon proficiencies but that "social skill checks" were not really a thing as most continued to expect these things to be role-played.
Actual formal skills, sure, but there wasn't even a skill system at all until 1e's Unearthed Arcana. And even then it was pretty limited.
But Charisma has always been a stat. It is one way too oft completely ignored or dismissed by DM's for the same reasons being cited in this entire thread, but it has always been there.
Yes things are to be roleplayed, but players are not expected to be as intelligent as their wizards, either, or as wise as their clerics. They are our characters, not *us*.
The roleplay aspect comes in in terms of choosing verbal tactics, which approach to take, etc, which can function as a way for the DM to consider things like advantage or DC
This is why the game focuses on combat. This is the one place where DM narrative doesn't alter the results, the dice do. Meaning, its a tactical combat game at that point, a competition between player and DM decisions, character power vs. monster powers, DM's dice vs. player's dice. The DM can easily cheat here was well, but generally, this is the only thing in D&D a DM can consciously run straight without DM fiat interference.
This is (probably) also why plenty of people claim that the game only supports 1 of the 3 "pillars." (For the sake of this comment, just accept that there are 3 pillars, I guess.) And it's not entirely wrong: exploration and social encounters don't "feel" as "supported" as combat in modern D&D.
I sometimes think that someone could write rules --- properly designed and streamlined to the level of a lightweight board game --- for such things (persuade a convincible person via debate or conversation; overland travel and scouting through hazardous terrain; investigation of a crime scene; exploration of an enclosed space full of traps and puzzles; etc.) and make some real money in the TTRPG space. Not for everyone, but some people (game runners and players both) might really like and appreciate that.
I don't think older-school D&D supported the other pillars better; I think it, comparatively, supported combat less, so it stood out less. For good or ill.
I sometimes think that someone could write rules --- properly designed and streamlined to the level of a lightweight board game --- for such things (persuade a convincible person via debate or conversation; overland travel and scouting through hazardous terrain; investigation of a crime scene; exploration of an enclosed space full of traps and puzzles; etc.) and make some real money in the TTRPG space. Not for everyone, but some people (game runners and players both) might really like and appreciate that.
There's some RPGs doing (or trying at least) this, L5R come to mind
Here are a couple anecdotes from the first campaign I played, run by the DM that taught me and was taught by a DM that learned from Arneson.
Which is a cool flex. Except, when you think of it, Arneson (and Gygax) were GMing since the mid-1970s when they started as old men. 35-years. And for the first several years, they were making it up as they went along. I've been DMing since I was 12 and am well into my 40s. In a couple years, I will have been DMing longer than they were. And I had the benefit of starting with a wealth of DMing advice.
First) My party had arrived at an elven city, and as important guests they wanted us protected but it would look bad if we went around in armor, so they made us clothes enchanted with protection. Easy enough mechanically to just give the otherwise ordinary, if well-made, clothes an armor bonus. Well, my character having had trouble hiding asked for black clothes. Another player asked me why, and I responded that I tended to get better rolls when I can in my mind how and why my character would be successful, and black clothes are hard to see in shadows. The DM said it made sense and not only described my character's clothes as seeming to almost suck in light, she also gave me a bonus to hide from the clothes. No one else got any skill bonuses from their enchanted clothes, and no one cared. No one derided it as unfair or unbalanced. But more importantly, The DM didn't go searching through the book to see what options were available. The DM simply translated what they wanted into mechanical terms and said that. It made it easy to communicate that my clothes really did make it easier to hide, and I wasn't even a rogue. Further, it was also specific. There was no question about how much it helped me hide, and more importantly, it did actually help me hide by affecting my rolls when I rolled to hide, and unlike 5e's advantage, helping me hide was scalable, allowing the DM to set the hide bonus to be a measure of how much it helped me hide. Advantage can't do that. Advantage (at least as 5e does it) is an all or nothing affair.
None of this couldn't be handled in 5e. It would be totally fair to give one person a bonus and not give it to the rest of the party. Sometimes that happens: one person gets a buff. And getting specific clothing not expecting a mechanical bonus happens all the time. People choose dark colour or fancy nobles clothing regularly. I think modern players are very used to the idea of cosmetic changes to outfits.
As for Advantage, I think you underestimate it's effect and appeal. Being told "you have advantage at hiding because of your dark clothing" is actually rather good. You're not better at hiding. You just have better odds of successfully hiding. Because a +1 or even a +3 bonus to Hide isn't going to help if you roll a "6."
Literally NOTHING in either of your examples couldn't be done in 5e. Or even Daggerheart or Pathfinder 2 or any of the myriad other fantasy RPGs.
I really think you'd be better off actually TRYING 5e and seeing how it handles at the table.
Notice how in both of these anecdotes, mechanics were used in ways outside the traditional use of mechanics, and they were not homebrew options, but rather just unique situations not dictated by the mechanics yet the mechanics served as shorthand communication and the ability to make something actually matter to rolls that normally would not.
The DM didn't treat the rules as a "how to play," instead she played first and used the rules as mere aids to accomplish her goals. Additionally, none of us looked at the rules for what to do or how to do it. I didn't even expect the bonus to hide, but rather I asked for roleplay reasons and the experience of seeing things in my mind as I made choices or when I rolled. I didn't look at the rules choose something from some table.
I think your experiences with 3e are the exact opposite experiences I had with 3e.
The several tables I played with would absolutely have stopped to pull out a dozen books to look through them for some example of Masterwork Clothing and the exact bonus it confers.
I sometimes think that someone could write rules --- properly designed and streamlined to the level of a lightweight board game --- for such things (persuade a convincible person via debate or conversation; overland travel and scouting through hazardous terrain; investigation of a crime scene; exploration of an enclosed space full of traps and puzzles; etc.) and make some real money in the TTRPG space. Not for everyone, but some people (game runners and players both) might really like and appreciate that.
There's some RPGs doing (or trying at least) this, L5R come to mind
It seems like the sort of thing one could find in the indie/narrative-focused RPG scene, though they tend toward simpler mechanics.
It's definitely a thing one could do in FATE -- the combat mechanics are explicitly generalizable to any domain of conflict, so you can have a psychic or social damage track in addition to (or instead of) the physical. Persuasion would be just another one there, though it'd be an odd game where it's standard. The other examples would be a bit more of a lift there, because there's no embodied opposition.
(I'm sure there are other games that'd fit the bill, but I'm only loosely aware of that scene.)
SandeebaRezYouri - That is not the point the above user is making. That is the point you are trying to make, but you do not get to just decide to insert your own points into another user's post because it fits your narrative.
1
I will also note that, once again, you are being inconsistent to the point of being hypocritical in your posting--after all, you ranted in another post about how 5e leaves too much up to the DM (which you said could result in inconsistent rulings or confusion)... and are now trying to justify your love of earlier editions by saying that DMs could just translate things into DM-contrived mechanical terms (resulting in the very same problems you said 5e had).
2
There's some other nonsense you write, like your trying to say "encounters did not need to be combat" as if that was a unique feature of earlier editions not existent in 5e... even though 5e explicitly makes the non-combat encounter a clear part of the game.
3
Your anecdotes, your inconsistency in articulating your own points, and your clear lack of understanding of 5e are, however, are helpful.
3.b
In an earlier post, I said your problem seemed to be a lack of understanding of 5e--after all, the near totality of your posting on 5e has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of 5e's rules and systems, as nearly every single person on this thread has pointed out to you.
4
I realize now that I was wrong--your problem is not that you do not understand 5e; it is that you do not seem to fundamentally grasp any edition of D&D.
5
At its core, your anecdotes about prior editions of D&D share a common thread - a dedication to using the "Rule of Cool" instead of looking up the rules. It is pretty clear you played earlier editions fast and loose with the official rules, confusing your lackadaisical approach to the game for how the game was designed to be played. Perhaps that was because you were younger and the rules were less important in your youth; perhaps it was because you did not really understand the rules; perhaps it was because your group just wanted to do what they thought might be cool, rules be darned. No matter the reason, it is clear you gained an anarchistic view of earlier editions that is not really supported by the reality of those editions' rules, many of which were far more intensive than 5e's.
Naturally, if you go from a game system where you decided not to learn the rules and do whatever you want, assuming without verifying there were no rules to support your Rule of Cool philosophy and start looking at 5e in terms of the rules... well, of course you are going to think 5e is stifling. But, here's a little tip for you - if you and your friends who ignored most of the 3.5 rules want to ignore most of the 5e rules, you are welcome to do that in 5e as well.
6
Now, there is nothing wrong with playing by Rule of Cool as the superseding authority. I certainly would not want to play at your table--but that is the joy of D&D. As long as you find a table that is a good fit for you, there is no true wrong way to play.
1 Look it should be very clear by not that I am not good at explaining things. I am not being inconsistent, I am bringing up different facets of the same issue, looking at it from multiple perspectives. And you taking my words to mean not quite matching what I'm saying does not help. I never said that 5e leaves to much to the DM. Nor have I claimed that problems come from having mechanics.
What I said is that a lack of mechanics for resolving something is not greater freedom than when mechanics exist but are merely guidelines and aids instead of being explicit "this is how must do it." And I mentioned that because, just like with 4e, people claim the lack of mechanics is somehow greater freedom. DM contrived mechanical terms Well, how do you expect guidelines, play aids, and mechanical but mere suggestions to be used? No matter your answer the result can easily be called DM contrived mechanics. You claim that these DM contrived mechanics lead to issues, while I'm saying they don't have to, but it seems like people naturally have a limited outlook on the mechanics and as a result can only see how to use mechanics in a way that does.
2
There is a ton of stuff that 3.x explicitly states that no one knows about. Just because something is explicitly part of the game, doesn't mean anyone does it. Now granted there is always going to be a minority, but we aren't really discussing that.
As for non-combat encounters, I stopped encountering those years ago. Heck, I stopped seeing encounters end without enemies fighting to the death well over a decade ago. Enemies these days are almost exclusively run like the AI in videogames, where enemies always fight to the death, eve when they are supposed to be bandits simply looking for an easy payday by stealing from random travelers. Why is these bandits don't run away the moment they realize they are in over their heads? Because that is not how anybody at the table is thinking about them. The same is true for non-combat encounters. Sure they are supposed to exist, but I haven't seen them. I haven't seen the mindset that would allow them, except perhaps one or two people in this very thread, but never in a game I played or watched in many years.
I'd like to also mention, that my comment was not simply that encounters could be noncombat, but that you get encounters with evil humanoids like orcs, goblins, or even just simple bandits, and it not be a combat encounter. Most players these days just go "oh it's a bandit, kill it." As though what it is makes it automatically an enemy and that somehow being an enemy is automatic justification for wholesale slaughter. You've heard the term murderhobo. Where do you think it comes from?
3
Firstly, I said I played the 5e playtest and haven't gone back. But I have seen players play. The issue I've been discussing is not specific to 5e. I even said that I could play 5e in my style, but I dumped it after the playtest because the mechanics were more of a problem than a help. Attaching my complaints exclusively to 5e is a mistake. 5e is kind of a focus here because it is the big popular one, but it is not the issue.
Similarly, 3.5 is not the solution. Heck, I've mentioned multiple times that players haven't been playing 3.5 in the manner I'm discussing. So in both cases, 5e and 3.5 are serving as examples, but are not themselves important.
3.b much of my understanding of the situation is not about the specific mechanics, it is about the mindset. How do I know the mindset? I watch a lot of gaming content. Not very much of it is 3.5 these. I listen to videos while I work, so I go through hours of media every day. A huge portion of which is gaming related, everything from Mr Rhexx lore videos to Grungeon Master to Ginny Di.
And speaking of Ginny Di, there is an excellent example of the mindset. Consider her discussion of the new DMG 2024. Balancing encounters. She discusses how the new DMG has advice on how to balance encounters and make sure they aren't too difficult nor too easy. This concept is antithetical to certain ways of playing, including the one I promote. It is a concept built entirely on this mechanical view of playing the game. It leaves zero room for the old ways of encounters coming in a broad varieties of difficulty ranging from very easy to very difficult to "you should run away before you end up TPK." 3.5 had the latter. It even gave advice on how often you should have the various difficulties if you needed some advice on that, and guess what, the variety of difficulties actually serves a purpose, it isn't just about "realism." Various difficulties allows players to see the change in their character's power, the goblinsthey had trouble with early on become very easy to deal with later, and this makes the goblins a meterstick, as when players go from being terrified of too many goblins to wishing more were around to wet their blade, that gives a much truer sense of power growth than a few numbers on a sheet. And 5e just flat out doesn't do that.
Also, lets look at her video on warlocks. The entire concept of a warlock is the pact with a patron. That should be a major element of one's background. But in 2024, choice of patron is changed to be third level. Why? For purely mechanical reasons, which are held so central, that they completely override the very obvious narrative problems with the idea. Sure, it can work to have a player not know what kind of patron they have, but why limit the game to only warlock stories that don't know their patron? And even if a player doesn't know their patron, then the discovery of knowledge about their patron should in that instance be a character arc of discovery with hints and clues, not just suddenly one day the player choosing it.
These things tell me a lot about the mentality involved, even without my deep knowledge of 5e's mechanics.
4, see above. Seriously, I really question how much thought you really put into that sentence. I suck at communicating, especially through writing. Downside of autism I guess.
5. Here is where your lack of understanding the spectrum of playstyles and the various editions of dnd really shows. The 3.x DMGs literally say to have a wide variety of encounter difficulties, and even gives some guidance and the spread, yet when the earliest official modules came out following those very official guidelines, the community pushed back against the "lack of balance" in the encounter designs. This is literally the community lacking understanding of the system. and it's expectations. Have you read a 3e era DMG cover to cover? What about 2e? I have read the 3.5 in total, and much of the 3.0 when my 3.5 is unavailable, and I've listened to a cover to cover reading of the 2e DMG, and have been making my way through it myself when I get the chance.
I also have studied the issue of gamestyles, because I am literally trying to be the first professional grade scholar of RPGs (in the same way professionals study music and know a whole lot more than common listeners of music). I'm certainly not there yet, obviously, but I'm also not some idiot that claims everything wrong just because it match my desires and preferences.
My studies in psychology also have hammered home the fact that people in general have an extremely limited understanding of themselves, despite a very common belief that one is intimately familiar with themself.
So you might want to be careful about making such broad accusations of not understanding any version of DnD.
Further, I don't do the rule of cool and play loose with the mechanics. Firstly, I am very about about the action needing to make sense within the realm of the narrative milieu, jumping a 60' gap certainly sounds cool, but it is also completely implausible, regardless of mechanics. Second, I don't play loose with the rules, as that implies the idea that one is supposed to be following the rules. My description of 3.5 has always that the mechanics do not exist to be followed as some sort of "how to play" law, but rather that they are a language, and I certainly use the mechanics as a language, without much playing loose with them as a language, and that just looks very different from playing the mechanics.
6
An absolutely correct statement, of course, finding a table to play with can be a problem for those not on board with the 5e/pf2 playstyle.
Whenever someone decries the death of role playing because there’s skills for social encounters all I see is people trying to gatekeep certain classes based on who the player is. Why should only charismatic players get to play charismatic characters? Not everyone is silver tongued and able to come up with elaborate conversations on the fly so what, they should never get to play out their fantasy of being exactly that type of person? They should never get to play a Bard, a Warlock or a Sorcerer? Why stop at just social skills if you’re following that logic? Sorry, you can’t play a Barbarian unless you’ve got anger issues. Want to play a Fighter? Get down and give me 200 pushups or I won’t let you have a decent strength score. It’s an idiotic and exclusionary train of thought. Let people play how they enjoy playing
I'm going to step in here and counter this.
The difference between a charismatic person person and a not-charismatic person is in delivery and allure. Having an uncharismatic player play a charismatic character is rather easy for a gm to arbitrate even without dice at all. They simply consider the argument or concepts presented by the player and consider how receptive the listener would be to it if it had been presented better. Boom, done. But nowadays, people just kind of assume that without mechanics players would need to be charismatic in order to roleplay a charismatic character and that is entirely false. Further, the point of a social skill check is almost always because you are trying to get something from the character, and that means arguments need strategy as well as delivery, and the strategy of such conversations can still be considered even under the idea that a character has the talent to present themselves better.
But nowadays, people just kind of assume that without mechanics players would need to be charismatic in order to roleplay a charismatic character
This statement is not borne out by the evidence.
That is, while some players may do that, it is not all and it is not a majority, and it is not an effective generalization.
Further, the point of a social skill check is almost always because you are trying to get something from the character, and that means arguments need strategy as well as delivery, and the strategy of such conversations can still be considered even under the idea that a character has the talent to present themselves better.
This is a playstyle difference, not something that is "the point", merely one person's idea of how to do that.
That approach is not better or worse than any other approach, and it is not more correct or less correct than any other.
A point of a social skill check may be:
to get something out of the character
to distract the character
to entertain the character
to explain something to the character
to give something to the character
to prove something the to the character
and more.
A social skill check may not
need strategy
need tactics
need an argument
need talent
Since these conditions can occupy a broad range of possibilities, keep in mind that the outcome of a check can vary, as well (with success, partial success, or failure).
It is entirely possible for someone to "roll-play" all social encounters. some social encounters, or not to "roll-play" them at all.
This is no different from those who want to role-play all social encounters, some social encounters, or not role-play at all.
Neither approach is better" or "worse', and neither approach is "good" or "bad". Neither approach is determined by the rules, mechanics, or even the intent or design of the rules or mechanics. They are entirely factors of the players themselves deciding how to utilize the tools the rulebooks give them.
Pointedly, the intent of the design is to enable both -- and that goes back to 0e. In every edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
i do think in terms of rules. It is a game, and other than Calvinball, games have rules. All games. Indeed, the nature of games is predicated on the basis of rules — so anyone who is talking about games is talking about rules, fundamentally, and thus even you think in terms of rules.
2
you also forgot: the cleric did have a tool to disarm traps. And could have used it. So the question you asked is, again, still answers by the same response. Throwing sandbags to trigger spike throwers, lifting, hauling, positioning, and using a log — these all still had mechanical tests and challenges.
3
as for a narrative choice, everything in the books is a narrative choice, including the use of the mechanics or not using them. The narrative choice bit of the clothing is no different from my player’s deciding “that looks like a trapped area, let’s solve that problem” and then doing it. All of that was narrative, improvisational, and creative. So, again, no distinction and an empty argument.
4
The meta textual influence you reference requires specific evidence to use as an argument, though. I am aware such things exist, but I am also aware of how they operate, explicitly, and so I would need to have some concrete examples in order to accept that argument. How, specifically, do they teach looking at the game as a game of chess in terms of maximizing and optimizing?
1) This is not really true, which is part of my point. Do you solve problems in the real world by wondering which rules are the right ones to apply? Do you encounter spilled flour and wondering which mechanic will pick it up? Do authors have their characters act according to a set of rules?
In some sense the real world has rules, they are called the laws of physics, but people don't start picking out laws of physics to solve their problems.
Indeed, for me, I have always had an issue with calling RPGs "games" for this very precise reason, because the style of RPG I got into was not about rules. It was not built on rules. We used mechanics as aids, but you could've easily taken them away and our game would not have slowed down. We would probably get more frustrated at times and suffer more miscommunications, but fundamentally, we could play without rules.
Sure you might argue that a character having a particular personality is "a rule" but that is truly bending things away from the argument and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. There is a massive difference between a writer giving a character a consistent behavior vs a player of chess choosing their next move.
2) A tool is not a mechanic, and you use the right tool for the job. Thieves tools are like lockpicks and pliers and such. You mention having players make mechanical challenges to move a log into position, and I really got to wonder why. The only thing that comes to my mind is that you felt there needed to be some sort of test, otherwise, why have the trap?
For me, there are three reasons to have a trap, the first is because it makes for a trap to be there and you want to show the trap being there because of what it communicates to the players, whether it be showing detail of the world to build verisimilitude or because it might be a clue or it might provide insight into something up ahead. The second is to make a scene where the players need to make a meaningful choice, which could be taking a risk or spending resources or impacting the life and livelihood of other characters. Third is to make them think creatively.
Where is the risk in moving a log? Where is the expenditure of resources? Mechanical challenges here do not seem to do anything other dictate whether they need to come up with a different plan. Not much risk, not much cost, not much impact. Rolling dice challenges here do not add a significant amount in any of these terms. What it does do is reward the meta play of game mechanics, not character build nor character personality.
3) Narrative choice in the sense I'm discussing it, is exclusively the choices within the context of the narrative milieu. There is a difference between looking at the mechanics, picking the best option and then building up story around that choice, vs making a choice based on the character you are playing and their perceptions and knowledge, then representing it with mechanics. Do you not see how the outcomes of these two alternatives are different?
4) I'm not the one that brought up minmaxing. Such subtleties in influence are generally difficult to get right because they are something that happens on a holistic level. You generally can't pin them down to "they made this particular mechanic like this so that players would be like that." There are exceptions but outside of gaming is easier to find some.
When a store puts snacks right next to the register, it is making it easy to give in to an impulse purchase which easily leads to a habit of giving in to impulse buying. Similarly, companies pay stores to put their product at a particular height because it makes it stand out and most people will take the easy solution and given a choice between an easy reach and reaching to the lowest or highest shelf. Yes, that has a significant impact on sales that absolutely makes it worth buying particular shelves. The same is true for the anti-trap skill. In 3.5 and pf1, the anti-trap skill exists, and that makes it easier to just use the anti-trap skill than to figure out an alternative not involving mechanics. This builds a habit of looking at mechanics first, which then drives creativity and problem solving to look first and foremost at mechanics. Subtle psychological tricks that matter.
The witch class. There is a sort of witch class in the core rulebooks, but DMs wouldn't allow it, even if they had homebrew, because to them it was somehow not legitimate, and that was important to them. Why? Because they have a certain reliance on the mechanics for how they think and resolve issues, and allowing the witch class makes them uncomfortable because it breaks the underlying assumptions they don't even know they are making.
Another example is flipping a table over for cover. Players won't do this. It's a trope we see in movies many times, and while players rarely have an issue with the idea, they never think of it themselves. The simple case of having a bunch of mechanics puts them in a mindset of thinking in terms of the mechanics, which means options not explicitly available in the mechanics tend to not be thought of. Most of the players I know that are not this limited, play freeform or some very rules light system that has mechanics more for story control rather than "what the character can do," and even then they usually limit themselves when playing in a "crunchy" system.
Indeed, the very fact that DnD mechanics are about what a character can do, instead of players having narrative control of outcomes, shapes the way they think of solutions and make plans. In fact, have you noticed that dnd homebrew is basically never a homebrew mechanic about narrative story control? I've never seen a dnd homebrew mechanic like "roll X, and on these result, the player gets to succeed and they get to come up with an additional boon, but this other value means that even though they succeed the GM gets to add a problem or complicaion, and this other value means they fail but they still get to come up with some advantage..." It is something that doesn't really fit with DnD mechanics so it doesn't get homebrewed in even though it is a fundamental and well used mechanic elsewhere. It is a contradictory mechanic. I can see that, yet I'm not really sure how to put into words the reason it is a contradictory structure.
1 - Factually, it is true. I am a sociologist and psychologist by training, vocation, and field of science.
Do you solve problems in the real world by wondering which rules are the right ones to apply? - Factually, yes, people do this every day. there's an entire concept called Structure and Agency for this.
Do you encounter spilled flour and wondering which mechanic will pick it up? - Factually, yes, people do this every day. The mechanic is a broom and a dustpan --and there are options.
Do authors have their characters act according to a set of rules?- Factually, yes, authors do have a set of rules relating to character actions. Multiple sets, in fact.
...the real world has rules, they are called the laws of physics... - There are far more rules than just the physical ones.
... people don't start picking out laws of physics to solve their problems. - But they do -- and they access them by using tools.
I have always had an issue with calling RPGs "games" ... - This is a personal problem, not one for the rest of the world. They are games by the normative definition, your personal one is only applicable to you, personally. [This became obvious in the next response, and shifted the way I can address you. See below.]
There is a massive difference between a writer giving a character a consistent behavior vs a player of chess choosing their next move. -- No, factually, there is not. Consistency is part of the rules of a writer that dictate what a character can and cannot do, and chess only has rules for moving pieces and a victory state, which delineate what a piece can and cannot do. Do not confuse the tactical and strategic approaches to chess with the rules of chess.
2 - A tool is a mechanic. Both in the game and in the real world. This highlights a problem. First, you have a different definition from the rest of the world about what a game is. Now it is obvious you have a different definition from the rest of the world about what a mechanic is -- and you previously noted that you think of mechanics as separate from rules, when the rest of the world in general does not.
if we cannot agree on what a mechanic is, we cannot discuss mechanics.
if we cannot agree on what a rule is, we cannot discuss rules.
if we cannot agree one what a game is, we cannot discuss games.
This is not because of any lack of good faith or desire, it is because we would be talking across each other and neither understanding the other, and it would be bad faith to attempt to do so knowing that we do not share common ground from which to communicate.
I can tell you that I will not operate in a space that is dictated solely by your terminology, nor will I do so in a space that is dictated solely by mine. I am willing to compromise on terminology, but not wholly shift to either, as that would be unseemly.
I leave it to you to proffer a middle point and we can begin to negotiate from there. Until we reach that consensus that is acceptable to both sides in terms of what those things are, I cannot in good faith continue with this discussion on these terms because it would not be conducive to being willing to change perspective or improv knowledge, which would make it a bad faith effort on my part. Even in my most sarcastic and nasty moments, I still operate in good faith.
3 - See point 2, above, and add "narrative" and "narrative milieu" to the list of terms needing rapprochement.
4 - Factually, you can do that. Specifically, factually, even in games, you can generally them down to "they made this particular mechanic like this so that players would be like that." Oddly enough, your example of chess, from earlier, is a prime example of this.
I cannot address any further aspects in your response because we are speaking about different things with the same words.
I don't particularly care about terminology beyond reaching common understanding. One thing I do know however, is that most people don't use terms properly, and I have had to learn multiple definitions for a great many things precisely because how most people understand a particular word can be very different from what the dictionary has to say. For the most part, I've given up looking at dictionaries because it is so rare to talk to someone that has actually read one.
So, now I think it is time to find some common terms we can use, though as I'm sure you must be aware, the way people conceptualize things can be very different from other people. I find it difficult to believe that most people would think of their broom as a law of the universe, regardless of what is technically correct.
So mechanics, rules, and games.
We must consider a field or space of interaction between people. When playing chess, there are the interactions that are considered part of the actual interaction we call playing chess, such as moving a pawn, then there are the interactions outside of that, such as the small talk and conversation and gestures that are not part of chess. We may consider the "game" of chess as being a space of interaction within another somewhat larger space that encompasses common interactions that surround chess but are not explicitly part of chess.
Mechanics: mechanical or functional details or procedure
Mechanical: done as if by machine : seemingly uninfluenced by the mind or emotions
Mechanics here are the explicit methods of interaction, the stuff that details that a pawn can only make certain moves and what those moves are as well as the consequences, such as when a pawn reaches the back row. Now if that is a bad term for it, then I really don't know what else to call it. That is what most people tend to understand of mechanics, but if you have a better definition, then by all means, share.
Rule: a prescribed guide for conduct or action
Prescribe: to specify with authority
So rule can be this: a guide for conduct or action as specified with authority
Rules, as a word is commonly interchangeable with mechanics for most people I've heard speaking about RPGs, but even then it does have certain connotations in my experience, such as the notion that rules are to be followed. This notion of "rules" existing to be followed is why I was making a distinction, because I do not feel that the explicit writings of 3.x are to be explicitly followed, and I don't just mean whether homebrew is allowed. We can probably get by without finding some common term for this.
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement . But as that would include a lot of things incomparable here, for the purposes of our discussion it is probably best here to think of a term for a defined system of interactions between people via some intermediary. Chess for example is a system of well defined actions that can be taken and how those choice of actions progresses and what consequences there are.
What I see as a difference between RPGs and any other "game" I've encountered, such as card games, boardgames, wargames, etc, is that in RPGs, or at least in some playstyles of RPGs, is the open ended nature that is straight up contradictory to how the other "games" work. Sure, you can play a RPG like you would a board or card game, but you can also play in ways for which card and board games simply have no comparable options.
In chess, you can not take any actions not explicitly defined as valid. Now in chess, we don't define every gamestate and the valid following gamestates, but we do define several functions, or moves if you will, that we can use construct valid gamestates and the valid gamestates to progress to. In a RPG however, you have two categories of playstyles that differ in this regard. The first simply allows implied actions as valid. There is no explicitly defined action for how to turn over a table make it suitable for cover, but there is the implication that a character should be able to do so. This allowance of implied actions being valid means that it is a non-computable problem to try and define the gamestate and following gamestates.
The second is that the explicit definitions listed are not defining valid actions, but are a common set of descriptors, a language, to communicate about the space in which the interactions are taking place where any action is only implied as allowed or not and implied based not a set of explicit writings about allowable actions, but instead what is allowed is implied by a common understanding of a fictional world.
In chess or similar, there is a written set of rules that one looks at for a listing of available actions. In a RPG, the players can also look at a fictional milieu for possible actions and not rely on only explicitly written actions, and in some playstyles, players only look at the fictional milieu for valid actions.
This is why I question whether RPGs should be called games, as they do not have to share the trait that any other "game" has where every gamestate can be computed as valid or invalid according to well defined methods. Now I grant that you have game theory, a scientific field of study in which decisionmaking is studied. Perhaps we can find a better definition there, not for the term"game" but perhaps a term that better fits what most people would consider a game to be, those things sold in stores and online as "games" such as chess and poker, which are a distinctly identifiable category that is a subset of what the scientists studying game theory would call a game.
Narrative: having the form of a story: of or relating to the process of telling a story.
Milieu :the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops. Nothing prevents this from referencing a fictional setting.
Thus narrative milieu would be the physical or social setting in which a story occurs.
I have no idea if any of this is making sense, but I am absolutely willing to work with you in coming up with a common set of terms and definitions. In fact I look forward to it. I am tired right now though, so I'll have to come back to this later. I'm tired and this not my best post, but I hope it gets us moving in the right direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honest answer; it depends on the player
I run a kids club as one of my games and my aim at all my tables is to be as inclusive as possible. If someone is comfortable with long Critical Role style dialogue then they get to do it. If they aren’t I don’t ask them to. I’m not going to tell the 14 year old non-verbal girl on the Autism spectrum she doesn’t get to play the Warlock she dearly loves because the extent of her role playing is passing me a note saying “can I scare him?”
It is also worth noting that 5e does not have a monopoly on "use your stats to do persuasion/intimidation/deception/performance" checks--the names might have changed, but social skill checks have been a part of the game dating back to AD&D. The idea that the persuasion check is some kind of newfangled 5e invention to limit traditional D&D roleplaying is nothing shot of misinformation clearly designed in furtherance of gatekeeping.
Now, that also does not mean you can not take into account what the person says - what the person says might confer advantage or result in a lower difficulty check. That both rewards players for thinking through what they want to present, while also allowing skills and dice to make up for any social awkwardness that might have prevented the player from being able to lower the check's DC. That is what I have been doing for multiple editions of the game; I expect it is how I will always be doing such checks.
It’s fair because they’re all starting from the same place: a d20 roll and the statistic they want to play rather than it being based on their personality or their real world skills.. That’s equality. Anything else is just the way they find fun. As Caerwyn said there’s rewards you can give players, inspiration or adapting the DC, but I’m not going to penalise players who aren’t good at that stuff just because they wanted to try a new class. Who knows, they might come out of their shell and gain more confidence or they may not. Either way I want them all to have a chance
Traps and puzzles I find very different from social encounters because they involve so much more above the table conversation and group work solving them. A persuasion or intimidation check is usually just the one person and has a certain degree of time pressure, a puzzle I’m happy for them to talk it through as a group for as long as they are having fun doing it. I’m also going to give them a lot more hints if they’re struggling then I ever would in a social encounter. As for perception or investigation checks, I usually either follow a fail forward approach where even a bad roll helps eliminate options even if it doesn’t give a solution or I’ll depending on the situation I’ll allow rerolls while making it very clear time has passed and the world has changed. Again, that’s not really an option with social encounters where you don’t get to wait five minutes and have another go at persuading someone
It shouldn’t matter how well the player can convince the DM of a thing, it should only matter how well the character can convince the NPC. A ton of effort on a monologue is what the player did; the natural 1 is what the character did. Rewarding a character for what the player is successful at is the opposite of role-playing. That player is only playing themself, not their character.
To have a not-so-clever player play a highly intelligent character, you simply allow the dice to dictate success rather than the player’s ability. For example, when such a player is stumped with their super smart wizard, the DM can have them roll a relevant skill or ability check and offer them information based on the result to reflect what the wizard knows but the player doesn’t. Conversely, when an intelligent player plays a low Int character, that player should not be permitted to use their personal encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual; they should be expected to succeed on a relevant skill or ability check to justify pulling out the perfect weapon to foil a critter’s resistance or take advantage of a vulnerability.
This is the very purpose of having the stats and skills—to represent a character that is not you. If those stats and skills aren’t used to determine the character’s circumstances, you’re not really playing that character, are you? There is no functional difference between my character with a 20 Cha and my character with an 8 Cha if how well I, the player, chats up the DM determines their success because my charisma doesn’t vary based on which character I’m playing.
I think what you two are talking about at this point is really one of the bigger changes between older and newer editions. Older editions challenged the players, newer one challenge the characters. When in the past you might say, “as I search the desk I look out for false buttons in the drawers,” or “as I enter the room, I look up at the ceiling.” Newer one you just say, I search the desk or the room, and figure your character has kinds of skills that you the player don’t and do knows how to check for a false bottom, and knows to look up. Personally, I don’t put puzzles in my games much for just that reason — the 20 int wizard or 20 wis cleric is smarter or more intuitive than anyone I’m playing with, they should be able to walk into the room take a glance at the puzzle and just know the answer. Really, it comes down to playstyle.
In the role play context, the awkward player with a suave character has been a source of friction since the beginning. No one expects anyone at the table to actually wield a greataxe or pick a lock, let alone cast a spell, but the talking parts are the one element where the player might be able to do what the character does and so some people expect that player’s abilities to be what matters those situations. Personally, I prefer the current model which lets anyone play a charismatic character much more easily. But, again, it’s really about playstyle.
I'm not going to respond to anything else because it's mostly nonsense, and I don't think its going anywhere but I will answer this for you because it's very simple. You have taken someone's idea, M. Finch and the OSR movement specifically and weaponized it to show how much more superior your preferred playstyle is to other playstyles. I get it, believe me, I do, hell perhaps even on some levels I might even agree with you a little, I have been known to make such arguments occasionally myself. But the thing is that, this is not what the OSR is about or for and neither is M. Finch. He wasn't trying to show how crappy modern gaming is, he was celebrating and revitalizing classic gaming.
That is the difference between the way I love the OSR and the way you do. I use the OSR to celebrate classic gaming because its awesome, you want to use it to prove how crappy modern gaming is. See.... I get the OSR, I don't think you do.
1 - Factually, it is true. I am a sociologist and psychologist by training, vocation, and field of science.
2 - A tool is a mechanic. Both in the game and in the real world. This highlights a problem. First, you have a different definition from the rest of the world about what a game is. Now it is obvious you have a different definition from the rest of the world about what a mechanic is -- and you previously noted that you think of mechanics as separate from rules, when the rest of the world in general does not.
This is not because of any lack of good faith or desire, it is because we would be talking across each other and neither understanding the other, and it would be bad faith to attempt to do so knowing that we do not share common ground from which to communicate.
I can tell you that I will not operate in a space that is dictated solely by your terminology, nor will I do so in a space that is dictated solely by mine. I am willing to compromise on terminology, but not wholly shift to either, as that would be unseemly.
I leave it to you to proffer a middle point and we can begin to negotiate from there. Until we reach that consensus that is acceptable to both sides in terms of what those things are, I cannot in good faith continue with this discussion on these terms because it would not be conducive to being willing to change perspective or improv knowledge, which would make it a bad faith effort on my part. Even in my most sarcastic and nasty moments, I still operate in good faith.
3 - See point 2, above, and add "narrative" and "narrative milieu" to the list of terms needing rapprochement.
4 - Factually, you can do that. Specifically, factually, even in games, you can generally them down to "they made this particular mechanic like this so that players would be like that." Oddly enough, your example of chess, from earlier, is a prime example of this.
I cannot address any further aspects in your response because we are speaking about different things with the same words.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Can verify: bolded statement is true and factual. Italicized phrase is borne out by previous interactions.
Additional information: is also unflaggingly polite, erudite, and capable; can admit and accept new information and change position based on new information. Does not gloat, takes teasing well.
Still has an overly burdensome attachment to the non-advanced version of the game, but not everyone can be perfect, and perfection is unattainable in any case.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I just want to point out a key thing that applies in all of these circumstances as a fundamental part of 5e (and, ultimately, all editions of the game):
If the DM thinks they succeed for whatever reason (player monologue or knowledge, character monologue or knowledge), then there does not need to be a roll made at all.
Part of 5e's particular broad base is that both "the player knowledge" and the "the character knowledge" are effective uses of the systems inherent in the game. Even within the same playstyle, both can be used, and may or may not have a roll, because the DM may feel that one is not necessary -- while a different DM may feel they are.
Neither approach is wrong or right, but underlying both is the principle that if there is no success, partial success, and failure condition, then a roll is not needed. So if the Character convinces the DM, or the Player convinces the NPC, the end result is still going to be the same. That's four different approaches to the issue:
With all of the assorted ability scores, some variant of these four can always be applied -- and the flexibility of to roll or not is still a matter of the interplay between the DM and the Player, in any case (though not entirely based in verbal communication or even one on one).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There is one additional thing and it is important and it comes from the perspective of the DM, the person responsible for unfolding the story before the players and that is that, if you just want something to happen because of whatever reason, narrative or otherwise. The dice, the conviction of the player or the perspective of the character, whatever it is, if the DM simply decides that something should, needs to or simply the DM wants something to unfold... it magically does and no rules, dice or philosophies matter.
In fact, that single idea is how most of the game resolves because whether a DM is conscious of it or not, they are making decisions like that on a micro and macro level all the time. What happens in the game is ultimately not really up to the dice, the system or anything else. Its just a DM fiat that is an inherent and unavoidable thing in the game. Its mostly smoke and mirrors. I see that a lot of DM's like to pretend or even trick themselves into believing this doesn't exist or that it only occasionally exists, but it's literary how 90% of the experience executes.
As such in the end the rules of the game don't really amount to much and are really just there to entertain people. If I say make a stealth check and you roll, whatever the result, I still decide what happens, Im the DM. There is no player control or rule concession, there is the DM...
This is why the game focuses on combat. This is the one place where DM narrative doesn't alter the results, the dice do. Meaning, its a tactical combat game at that point, a competition between player and DM decisions, character power vs. monster powers, DM's dice vs. player's dice. The DM can easily cheat here was well, but generally, this is the only thing in D&D a DM can consciously run straight without DM fiat interference.
You could take 100 DM's and put them in the exact same situation with the exact same players with the exact same dice results and you will always have 100 different outcomes. So this fussing about talking skill usage and how it affects the game and how it doesn't. I mean its fine for some theory-crafting, but these rules don't really amount to much in terms of impact compared to how the DM decides to unfold the story.
Actual formal skills, sure, but there wasn't even a skill system at all until 1e's Unearthed Arcana. And even then it was pretty limited.
But Charisma has always been a stat. It is one way too oft completely ignored or dismissed by DM's for the same reasons being cited in this entire thread, but it has always been there.
Yes things are to be roleplayed, but players are not expected to be as intelligent as their wizards, either, or as wise as their clerics. They are our characters, not *us*.
The roleplay aspect comes in in terms of choosing verbal tactics, which approach to take, etc, which can function as a way for the DM to consider things like advantage or DC
This is (probably) also why plenty of people claim that the game only supports 1 of the 3 "pillars." (For the sake of this comment, just accept that there are 3 pillars, I guess.) And it's not entirely wrong: exploration and social encounters don't "feel" as "supported" as combat in modern D&D.
I sometimes think that someone could write rules --- properly designed and streamlined to the level of a lightweight board game --- for such things (persuade a convincible person via debate or conversation; overland travel and scouting through hazardous terrain; investigation of a crime scene; exploration of an enclosed space full of traps and puzzles; etc.) and make some real money in the TTRPG space. Not for everyone, but some people (game runners and players both) might really like and appreciate that.
I don't think older-school D&D supported the other pillars better; I think it, comparatively, supported combat less, so it stood out less. For good or ill.
There's some RPGs doing (or trying at least) this, L5R come to mind
Which is a cool flex.
Except, when you think of it, Arneson (and Gygax) were GMing since the mid-1970s when they started as old men. 35-years. And for the first several years, they were making it up as they went along.
I've been DMing since I was 12 and am well into my 40s. In a couple years, I will have been DMing longer than they were. And I had the benefit of starting with a wealth of DMing advice.
None of this couldn't be handled in 5e. It would be totally fair to give one person a bonus and not give it to the rest of the party. Sometimes that happens: one person gets a buff.
And getting specific clothing not expecting a mechanical bonus happens all the time. People choose dark colour or fancy nobles clothing regularly. I think modern players are very used to the idea of cosmetic changes to outfits.
As for Advantage, I think you underestimate it's effect and appeal. Being told "you have advantage at hiding because of your dark clothing" is actually rather good. You're not better at hiding. You just have better odds of successfully hiding. Because a +1 or even a +3 bonus to Hide isn't going to help if you roll a "6."
Literally NOTHING in either of your examples couldn't be done in 5e. Or even Daggerheart or Pathfinder 2 or any of the myriad other fantasy RPGs.
I really think you'd be better off actually TRYING 5e and seeing how it handles at the table.
I think your experiences with 3e are the exact opposite experiences I had with 3e.
The several tables I played with would absolutely have stopped to pull out a dozen books to look through them for some example of Masterwork Clothing and the exact bonus it confers.
It seems like the sort of thing one could find in the indie/narrative-focused RPG scene, though they tend toward simpler mechanics.
It's definitely a thing one could do in FATE -- the combat mechanics are explicitly generalizable to any domain of conflict, so you can have a psychic or social damage track in addition to (or instead of) the physical. Persuasion would be just another one there, though it'd be an odd game where it's standard. The other examples would be a bit more of a lift there, because there's no embodied opposition.
(I'm sure there are other games that'd fit the bill, but I'm only loosely aware of that scene.)
1 Look it should be very clear by not that I am not good at explaining things. I am not being inconsistent, I am bringing up different facets of the same issue, looking at it from multiple perspectives. And you taking my words to mean not quite matching what I'm saying does not help. I never said that 5e leaves to much to the DM. Nor have I claimed that problems come from having mechanics.
What I said is that a lack of mechanics for resolving something is not greater freedom than when mechanics exist but are merely guidelines and aids instead of being explicit "this is how must do it." And I mentioned that because, just like with 4e, people claim the lack of mechanics is somehow greater freedom. DM contrived mechanical terms Well, how do you expect guidelines, play aids, and mechanical but mere suggestions to be used? No matter your answer the result can easily be called DM contrived mechanics. You claim that these DM contrived mechanics lead to issues, while I'm saying they don't have to, but it seems like people naturally have a limited outlook on the mechanics and as a result can only see how to use mechanics in a way that does.
2
There is a ton of stuff that 3.x explicitly states that no one knows about. Just because something is explicitly part of the game, doesn't mean anyone does it. Now granted there is always going to be a minority, but we aren't really discussing that.
As for non-combat encounters, I stopped encountering those years ago. Heck, I stopped seeing encounters end without enemies fighting to the death well over a decade ago. Enemies these days are almost exclusively run like the AI in videogames, where enemies always fight to the death, eve when they are supposed to be bandits simply looking for an easy payday by stealing from random travelers. Why is these bandits don't run away the moment they realize they are in over their heads? Because that is not how anybody at the table is thinking about them. The same is true for non-combat encounters. Sure they are supposed to exist, but I haven't seen them. I haven't seen the mindset that would allow them, except perhaps one or two people in this very thread, but never in a game I played or watched in many years.
I'd like to also mention, that my comment was not simply that encounters could be noncombat, but that you get encounters with evil humanoids like orcs, goblins, or even just simple bandits, and it not be a combat encounter. Most players these days just go "oh it's a bandit, kill it." As though what it is makes it automatically an enemy and that somehow being an enemy is automatic justification for wholesale slaughter. You've heard the term murderhobo. Where do you think it comes from?
3
Firstly, I said I played the 5e playtest and haven't gone back. But I have seen players play. The issue I've been discussing is not specific to 5e. I even said that I could play 5e in my style, but I dumped it after the playtest because the mechanics were more of a problem than a help. Attaching my complaints exclusively to 5e is a mistake. 5e is kind of a focus here because it is the big popular one, but it is not the issue.
Similarly, 3.5 is not the solution. Heck, I've mentioned multiple times that players haven't been playing 3.5 in the manner I'm discussing. So in both cases, 5e and 3.5 are serving as examples, but are not themselves important.
3.b much of my understanding of the situation is not about the specific mechanics, it is about the mindset. How do I know the mindset? I watch a lot of gaming content. Not very much of it is 3.5 these. I listen to videos while I work, so I go through hours of media every day. A huge portion of which is gaming related, everything from Mr Rhexx lore videos to Grungeon Master to Ginny Di.
And speaking of Ginny Di, there is an excellent example of the mindset. Consider her discussion of the new DMG 2024. Balancing encounters. She discusses how the new DMG has advice on how to balance encounters and make sure they aren't too difficult nor too easy. This concept is antithetical to certain ways of playing, including the one I promote. It is a concept built entirely on this mechanical view of playing the game. It leaves zero room for the old ways of encounters coming in a broad varieties of difficulty ranging from very easy to very difficult to "you should run away before you end up TPK." 3.5 had the latter. It even gave advice on how often you should have the various difficulties if you needed some advice on that, and guess what, the variety of difficulties actually serves a purpose, it isn't just about "realism." Various difficulties allows players to see the change in their character's power, the goblinsthey had trouble with early on become very easy to deal with later, and this makes the goblins a meterstick, as when players go from being terrified of too many goblins to wishing more were around to wet their blade, that gives a much truer sense of power growth than a few numbers on a sheet. And 5e just flat out doesn't do that.
Also, lets look at her video on warlocks. The entire concept of a warlock is the pact with a patron. That should be a major element of one's background. But in 2024, choice of patron is changed to be third level. Why? For purely mechanical reasons, which are held so central, that they completely override the very obvious narrative problems with the idea. Sure, it can work to have a player not know what kind of patron they have, but why limit the game to only warlock stories that don't know their patron? And even if a player doesn't know their patron, then the discovery of knowledge about their patron should in that instance be a character arc of discovery with hints and clues, not just suddenly one day the player choosing it.
These things tell me a lot about the mentality involved, even without my deep knowledge of 5e's mechanics.
4, see above. Seriously, I really question how much thought you really put into that sentence. I suck at communicating, especially through writing. Downside of autism I guess.
5. Here is where your lack of understanding the spectrum of playstyles and the various editions of dnd really shows. The 3.x DMGs literally say to have a wide variety of encounter difficulties, and even gives some guidance and the spread, yet when the earliest official modules came out following those very official guidelines, the community pushed back against the "lack of balance" in the encounter designs. This is literally the community lacking understanding of the system. and it's expectations. Have you read a 3e era DMG cover to cover? What about 2e? I have read the 3.5 in total, and much of the 3.0 when my 3.5 is unavailable, and I've listened to a cover to cover reading of the 2e DMG, and have been making my way through it myself when I get the chance.
I also have studied the issue of gamestyles, because I am literally trying to be the first professional grade scholar of RPGs (in the same way professionals study music and know a whole lot more than common listeners of music). I'm certainly not there yet, obviously, but I'm also not some idiot that claims everything wrong just because it match my desires and preferences.
My studies in psychology also have hammered home the fact that people in general have an extremely limited understanding of themselves, despite a very common belief that one is intimately familiar with themself.
So you might want to be careful about making such broad accusations of not understanding any version of DnD.
Further, I don't do the rule of cool and play loose with the mechanics. Firstly, I am very about about the action needing to make sense within the realm of the narrative milieu, jumping a 60' gap certainly sounds cool, but it is also completely implausible, regardless of mechanics. Second, I don't play loose with the rules, as that implies the idea that one is supposed to be following the rules. My description of 3.5 has always that the mechanics do not exist to be followed as some sort of "how to play" law, but rather that they are a language, and I certainly use the mechanics as a language, without much playing loose with them as a language, and that just looks very different from playing the mechanics.
6
An absolutely correct statement, of course, finding a table to play with can be a problem for those not on board with the 5e/pf2 playstyle.
I'm going to step in here and counter this.
The difference between a charismatic person person and a not-charismatic person is in delivery and allure. Having an uncharismatic player play a charismatic character is rather easy for a gm to arbitrate even without dice at all. They simply consider the argument or concepts presented by the player and consider how receptive the listener would be to it if it had been presented better. Boom, done. But nowadays, people just kind of assume that without mechanics players would need to be charismatic in order to roleplay a charismatic character and that is entirely false. Further, the point of a social skill check is almost always because you are trying to get something from the character, and that means arguments need strategy as well as delivery, and the strategy of such conversations can still be considered even under the idea that a character has the talent to present themselves better.
This statement is not borne out by the evidence.
That is, while some players may do that, it is not all and it is not a majority, and it is not an effective generalization.
This is a playstyle difference, not something that is "the point", merely one person's idea of how to do that.
That approach is not better or worse than any other approach, and it is not more correct or less correct than any other.
A point of a social skill check may be:
A social skill check may not
Since these conditions can occupy a broad range of possibilities, keep in mind that the outcome of a check can vary, as well (with success, partial success, or failure).
It is entirely possible for someone to "roll-play" all social encounters. some social encounters, or not to "roll-play" them at all.
This is no different from those who want to role-play all social encounters, some social encounters, or not role-play at all.
Neither approach is better" or "worse', and neither approach is "good" or "bad". Neither approach is determined by the rules, mechanics, or even the intent or design of the rules or mechanics. They are entirely factors of the players themselves deciding how to utilize the tools the rulebooks give them.
Pointedly, the intent of the design is to enable both -- and that goes back to 0e. In every edition.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't particularly care about terminology beyond reaching common understanding. One thing I do know however, is that most people don't use terms properly, and I have had to learn multiple definitions for a great many things precisely because how most people understand a particular word can be very different from what the dictionary has to say. For the most part, I've given up looking at dictionaries because it is so rare to talk to someone that has actually read one.
So, now I think it is time to find some common terms we can use, though as I'm sure you must be aware, the way people conceptualize things can be very different from other people. I find it difficult to believe that most people would think of their broom as a law of the universe, regardless of what is technically correct.
So mechanics, rules, and games.
We must consider a field or space of interaction between people. When playing chess, there are the interactions that are considered part of the actual interaction we call playing chess, such as moving a pawn, then there are the interactions outside of that, such as the small talk and conversation and gestures that are not part of chess. We may consider the "game" of chess as being a space of interaction within another somewhat larger space that encompasses common interactions that surround chess but are not explicitly part of chess.
Mechanics: mechanical or functional details or procedure
Mechanical: done as if by machine : seemingly uninfluenced by the mind or emotions
Mechanics here are the explicit methods of interaction, the stuff that details that a pawn can only make certain moves and what those moves are as well as the consequences, such as when a pawn reaches the back row. Now if that is a bad term for it, then I really don't know what else to call it. That is what most people tend to understand of mechanics, but if you have a better definition, then by all means, share.
Rule: a prescribed guide for conduct or action
Prescribe: to specify with authority
So rule can be this: a guide for conduct or action as specified with authority
Rules, as a word is commonly interchangeable with mechanics for most people I've heard speaking about RPGs, but even then it does have certain connotations in my experience, such as the notion that rules are to be followed. This notion of "rules" existing to be followed is why I was making a distinction, because I do not feel that the explicit writings of 3.x are to be explicitly followed, and I don't just mean whether homebrew is allowed. We can probably get by without finding some common term for this.
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement . But as that would include a lot of things incomparable here, for the purposes of our discussion it is probably best here to think of a term for a defined system of interactions between people via some intermediary. Chess for example is a system of well defined actions that can be taken and how those choice of actions progresses and what consequences there are.
What I see as a difference between RPGs and any other "game" I've encountered, such as card games, boardgames, wargames, etc, is that in RPGs, or at least in some playstyles of RPGs, is the open ended nature that is straight up contradictory to how the other "games" work. Sure, you can play a RPG like you would a board or card game, but you can also play in ways for which card and board games simply have no comparable options.
In chess, you can not take any actions not explicitly defined as valid. Now in chess, we don't define every gamestate and the valid following gamestates, but we do define several functions, or moves if you will, that we can use construct valid gamestates and the valid gamestates to progress to. In a RPG however, you have two categories of playstyles that differ in this regard. The first simply allows implied actions as valid. There is no explicitly defined action for how to turn over a table make it suitable for cover, but there is the implication that a character should be able to do so. This allowance of implied actions being valid means that it is a non-computable problem to try and define the gamestate and following gamestates.
The second is that the explicit definitions listed are not defining valid actions, but are a common set of descriptors, a language, to communicate about the space in which the interactions are taking place where any action is only implied as allowed or not and implied based not a set of explicit writings about allowable actions, but instead what is allowed is implied by a common understanding of a fictional world.
In chess or similar, there is a written set of rules that one looks at for a listing of available actions. In a RPG, the players can also look at a fictional milieu for possible actions and not rely on only explicitly written actions, and in some playstyles, players only look at the fictional milieu for valid actions.
This is why I question whether RPGs should be called games, as they do not have to share the trait that any other "game" has where every gamestate can be computed as valid or invalid according to well defined methods. Now I grant that you have game theory, a scientific field of study in which decisionmaking is studied. Perhaps we can find a better definition there, not for the term"game" but perhaps a term that better fits what most people would consider a game to be, those things sold in stores and online as "games" such as chess and poker, which are a distinctly identifiable category that is a subset of what the scientists studying game theory would call a game.
Narrative: having the form of a story: of or relating to the process of telling a story.
Milieu :the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops. Nothing prevents this from referencing a fictional setting.
Thus narrative milieu would be the physical or social setting in which a story occurs.
I have no idea if any of this is making sense, but I am absolutely willing to work with you in coming up with a common set of terms and definitions. In fact I look forward to it. I am tired right now though, so I'll have to come back to this later. I'm tired and this not my best post, but I hope it gets us moving in the right direction.