ad_hoc
2019-09-17, 10:48 PM
I found this breakdown of 3 styles of play which explains them well using the example of 'do the characters know a troll is weak to fire?'
1. In the beginning, there was the idea of "skilled play." If you look back, you see that while players inhabited a role (proto-roleplaying), players were also assumed to have some skill at the game itself. That is why early modules featured puzzles and traps and riddles and so on that were meant to be solved by the players, not the PCs. And the different abilities of monsters were known (or not) by the players, not the PCs. This was so well-known that one of the earliest Dragon Magazines (before the Monster Manual!) mocks the problem and has a way for DMs to create random monsters!!!
2. Then we can discuss the concept of "role playing." People that were more interested in role playing became focused on the divide between the player and the PC. The player might know that a troll could be stopped by fire (having encountered one in the last campaign), but the PC might not. So the player would have to determine if the PC had that knowledge- did their history, background, intelligence, and so on, mean that they would know this? Would a noble-born Cleric know it? How about a peasant fighter recently released from the army?
3. Finally, there is the concept of "dice play." With the advent of later parts of 2e, and especially 3e on, their was an increased emphasis on the use of dice to resolve non-combat situations.** Here, instead of looking solely at skilled play (what the player knew) or the role play (what the PC knew), the player would determine if the PC knew that information the same way that the player would determine if the PC hit an opponent; by rolling. This made it worthwhile to invest in an applicable skill to know, um, stuff.
This has consequences beyond 'what does my character know?' for example:
Searching a room:
1. The player describes the places the character looks and what they do to objects to manipulate them. No rolls are expected, the player did the right things or they didn't. Special abilities may apply like elves' innate ability to detect secret doors.
2. The player states that they would like to search the room and describes a general way to go about it possibly noting what they do with key objects. The DM determines if the PC found it or not based on how the player set about searching. Often the outcome is in doubt because the character has their own abilities and may also see more details than were given to the player. In that case the DM calls for a roll (in 5e often here Intelligence (Investigation) ability check).
3. The player states that they are making an investigation roll on the room.
I'm in the #2 camp and I believe this is how 5e was designed. It makes player interaction and involvement in the world meaningful while leaving room for both character ability and the excitement of uncertainty.
1. In the beginning, there was the idea of "skilled play." If you look back, you see that while players inhabited a role (proto-roleplaying), players were also assumed to have some skill at the game itself. That is why early modules featured puzzles and traps and riddles and so on that were meant to be solved by the players, not the PCs. And the different abilities of monsters were known (or not) by the players, not the PCs. This was so well-known that one of the earliest Dragon Magazines (before the Monster Manual!) mocks the problem and has a way for DMs to create random monsters!!!
2. Then we can discuss the concept of "role playing." People that were more interested in role playing became focused on the divide between the player and the PC. The player might know that a troll could be stopped by fire (having encountered one in the last campaign), but the PC might not. So the player would have to determine if the PC had that knowledge- did their history, background, intelligence, and so on, mean that they would know this? Would a noble-born Cleric know it? How about a peasant fighter recently released from the army?
3. Finally, there is the concept of "dice play." With the advent of later parts of 2e, and especially 3e on, their was an increased emphasis on the use of dice to resolve non-combat situations.** Here, instead of looking solely at skilled play (what the player knew) or the role play (what the PC knew), the player would determine if the PC knew that information the same way that the player would determine if the PC hit an opponent; by rolling. This made it worthwhile to invest in an applicable skill to know, um, stuff.
This has consequences beyond 'what does my character know?' for example:
Searching a room:
1. The player describes the places the character looks and what they do to objects to manipulate them. No rolls are expected, the player did the right things or they didn't. Special abilities may apply like elves' innate ability to detect secret doors.
2. The player states that they would like to search the room and describes a general way to go about it possibly noting what they do with key objects. The DM determines if the PC found it or not based on how the player set about searching. Often the outcome is in doubt because the character has their own abilities and may also see more details than were given to the player. In that case the DM calls for a roll (in 5e often here Intelligence (Investigation) ability check).
3. The player states that they are making an investigation roll on the room.
I'm in the #2 camp and I believe this is how 5e was designed. It makes player interaction and involvement in the world meaningful while leaving room for both character ability and the excitement of uncertainty.