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.
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
Don't put words in my mouth.
I said nothing about the player's having to persuade "me."
I said I expect a player who seeks to persuade or deceive an NPC to describe what their character will do or say. To do something at least approaching role-playing. It is a role-playing game.
When a dice roll can just determine whether a character can persuade or deceive someone and the player doesn't say anything beyond "I try to persuade/deceive [X}" that is not role-playing. It is what for aeons has been thought of as roll playing.
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.
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
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.
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
Fair enough.
What about the solving of trap rooms or of puzzles or riddles?
Do you allow players to make INT checks to arrive at the answers to such things? Or to earn them some hints? Or expect them to use their own wits to figure these things out?
Not saying one way or the other is "wrong." Just genuinely curious.
Out of curiosity: Have you ever looked at Kenneth Hite's Trail of Cthulhu? I ask because he did he away with the skill with which characters would find clues. Why? Because there is little sillier than a game master telling players to make a check and their all failing it but their all left knowing there must be something in the room or else the game master wouldn't have called for a check. [For this very same reason I would never call for a Perception check and would either weigh characters' Passive Perception against something or wait for them to try to perceive anything.] Hite instead made the game more about characters' automatically discovering clues then using their respective career-based knowledge to decipher them. Interesting take on things.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I said nothing about the player's having to persuade "me."
I said I expect a player who seeks to persuade or deceive an NPC to describe what their character will do or say. To do something at least approaching role-playing. It is a role-playing game.
When a dice roll can just determine whether a character can persuade or deceive someone and the player doesn't say anything beyond "I try to persuade/deceive [X}" that is not role-playing. It is what for aeons has been thought of as roll playing.
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.
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
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.
Fair enough.
What about the solving of trap rooms or of puzzles or riddles?
Do you allow players to make INT checks to arrive at the answers to such things? Or to earn them some hints? Or expect them to use their own wits to figure these things out?
Not saying one way or the other is "wrong." Just genuinely curious.
Out of curiosity: Have you ever looked at Kenneth Hite's Trail of Cthulhu? I ask because he did he away with the skill with which characters would find clues. Why? Because there is little sillier than a game master telling players to make a check and their all failing it but their all left knowing there must be something in the room or else the game master wouldn't have called for a check. [For this very same reason I would never call for a Perception check and would either weigh characters' Passive Perception against something or wait for them to try to perceive anything.] Hite instead made the game more about characters' automatically discovering clues then using their respective career-based knowledge to decipher them. Interesting take on things.
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.