Character Flaws: Crunch vs. Fluff [Archive] - Page 2

Alteiner

2021-07-16, 01:48 PM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting to occasionally push characters out of the comfort zone and see what happens if the heavily armored fighter have to be sneaky or the smelly barbarian have to be charming, or whatever. It shouldn't be done too often, but now and then I think it's quite fun.

Ensuring that their preferred method has consequences can also be interesting, but I don't see why it'd be automatically preferable to the above.

This is not something I have ever bothered doing as a player. No. I am not going to go out of my way to try and do something when I know for a fact I will not succeed. I'm going to force the way I do things to apply to the situation, no matter how messy it makes things. I play broadly-competent characters whenever I can, encourage the rest of my group to do the same, and let people who are good at things do the things they're good at while avoiding the things I know I'm bad at. My heavily-armored warrior isn't sneaking anywhere. That isn't his job. He's walking in through the back door and shoving his sword inside of the first person who sees him before they can call for help, and the next and the next. That's his version of stealth. You don't need to go unseen. You just need to incapacitate anyone who sees you before they can get reinforcements. Are they good people? Do they deserve to be stabbed to death? Don't know; don't care. Is it going to be hard? I don't know, probably. But it'll be easier than trying to sneak through, which is what matters here. I didn't invent the material conditions of the situation. The GM did, and if I'm expected to resolve it the best that I can, then anything that happens from trying to force a square peg to pretend to be a triangle is on them.

Like, I know what happens when a character I'm playing has to do something they're not good at: they fail. I've done the math, I've run the numbers, and I've known how this situation will go since before the game started. It isn't interesting or amusing; it's just annoying. Interesting desperate acts of necessity arise from natural circumstances; not from contrivances. If it's do or die time and the guy who's supposed to do this is incapacitated or indisposed, I'll bite the bullet and do what needs doing. But if I see the hand of the author, then I'm sinking my teeth in. You can't ask an axe to do a lockpick's job and not expect the door to be demolished. If you want the door to be open and intact, then either wait for the lockpick to get here or prepare to be disappointed.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-16, 01:57 PM

This is not something I have ever bothered doing as a player. No. I am not going to go out of my way to try and do something when I know for a fact I will not succeed. I'm going to force the way I do things to apply to the situation, no matter how messy it makes things. I play broadly-competent characters whenever I can, encourage the rest of my group to do the same, and let people who are good at things do the things they're good at while avoiding the things I know I'm bad at. My heavily-armored warrior isn't sneaking anywhere. That isn't his job. He's walking in through the back door and shoving his sword inside of the first person who sees him before they can call for help, and the next and the next. That's his version of stealth. You don't need to go unseen. You just need to incapacitate anyone who sees you before they can get reinforcements. Are they good people? Do they deserve to be stabbed to death? Don't know; don't care. Is it going to be hard? I don't know, probably. But it'll be easier than trying to sneak through, which is what matters here. I didn't invent the material conditions of the situation. The GM did, and if I'm expected to resolve it the best that I can, then anything that happens from trying to force a square peg to pretend to be a triangle is on them.

Like, I know what happens when a character I'm playing has to do something they're not good at: they fail. I've done the math, I've run the numbers, and I've known how this situation will go since before the game started. It isn't interesting or amusing; it's just annoying. Interesting desperate acts of necessity arise from natural circumstances; not from contrivances. If it's do or die time and the guy who's supposed to do this is incapacitated or indisposed, I'll bite the bullet and do what needs doing. But if I see the hand of the author, then I'm sinking my teeth in. You can't ask an axe to do a lockpick's job and not expect the door to be demolished. If you want the door to be open and intact, then either wait for the lockpick to get here or prepare to be disappointed.

But what about checks you make involuntarily? You're on a boat, and it hits a bad wave. Make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check[1] to stay on your feet. You're climbing, and a big wind comes up. Make a Strength check[1] to stay on the wall and not fall. You're riding a horse, and something spooks it. Make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to keep it under control. You're playing bodyguard at a party for your more fancy colleague and someone influential comes up to you and starts trying to talk to your principal while he's occupied. You don't want to piss him off, but you can't let him distract your party member. Make a Charisma (Social) check. Etc.

These are things that in the normal case don't require any kind of check or roll (at least in 5e D&D). But something happens, and now you need to try to save the situation. Not every action is initiated by the players--you don't get to choose what happens all the time. And no one can save you--you can't just substitute in a different party member on the fly in every case.

[1] or a DEX/STR saving throw, depending on the situation.

Batcathat

2021-07-16, 02:26 PM

Cluedrew

2021-07-16, 06:25 PM

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.Its an interesting situation to put a character in that will never come up if they always play to their strengths. Which also a situation I would like to see to but I'm just assuming that will come up frequently.

There is a difference between weak-attributes, things that can go negative and everyone has, where this weakness is part of the character and weak-skills, things that start at zero or does not apply, where this weakness is just something the character does not have. And there are also weak-traits, aka flaws that start at does not apply and goes negative with explicit buy in, but in terms of this they are kind of like weak-attributes.

I understand both actually. Sometimes there is nothing interesting to say about a character in that regard (narratively or mechanically) so why invest points into it? Other times the fact you haven't invested points into it is the interesting thing.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-16, 06:37 PM

Its an interesting situation to put a character in that will never come up if they always play to their strengths. Which also a situation I would like to see to but I'm just assuming that will come up frequently.

There is a difference between weak-attributes, things that can go negative and everyone has, where this weakness is part of the character and weak-skills, things that start at zero or does not apply, where this weakness is just something the character does not have. And there are also weak-traits, aka flaws that start at does not apply and goes negative with explicit buy in, but in terms of this they are kind of like weak-attributes.

I understand both actually. Sometimes there is nothing interesting to say about a character in that regard (narratively or mechanically) so why invest points into it? Other times the fact you haven't invested points into it is the interesting thing.

I'm a believer that opportunity costs matter. Both what you choose to invest in and what you choose (as a result) not to invest in (for things where those aren't the same decision) matter.

So being a D&D fighter and not having Sneak Attack isn't an interesting thing--it was a branch and you chose one path, not the other. But choosing to put the "extra" ability score points (ie the tertiary+ stats) into INT instead of WIS or CHA (or vice versa) is an interesting statement. Often more interesting than the choice to have a high STR (or DEX for that type of fighter)--that's just part of the base class, almost baked in.

And especially if you're doing some form of point buy and decide to dump multiple stats. The baseline in 5e (at least) is that you generally have (before racials) 2 +2s, 2 +1s, 1 +0, and a -1. Where you put that -1 is interesting. And if you choose instead to have e.g. 3 +2s, 2 +1s, and two -1s, that's an interesting statement.

Tanarii

2021-07-16, 10:57 PM

If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.
Making decisions based on trying to avoid your weaknesses is exactly roleplaying them.

Trying to game the GM to avoid making a roll while still getting all the successes of something that requires a roll is not roleplaying.

That's mostly a point on people using the term "Roleplaying" to mean "talky-time without rolling" instead of "making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment", as opposed to disagreeing with the sentiment of what you wrote.

Zuras

2021-07-17, 10:23 AM

Making decisions based on trying to avoid your weaknesses is exactly roleplaying them.

Trying to game the GM to avoid making a roll while still getting all the successes of something that requires a roll is not roleplaying.

That's mostly a point on people using the term "Roleplaying" to mean "talky-time without rolling" instead of "making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment", as opposed to disagreeing with the sentiment of what you wrote.

I agree with your argument about players trying to act eloquent when their character isn’t, but is that really a min-max problem? It feels like a table problem when it comes up for me—usually an eloquent player sees a less eloquent player who’s trying to play a high-CHA character struggling in a scene and tries to help/take over (which one varies by their level of personal maturity/empathy).

Same issue when the player who solves math problems and riddles for fun but chose to play a dumb barbarian this campaign helps the party solve puzzles. Is it even a problem? Usually it’s hard to tell without feeling the dynamic around the table.

The idea that bad stats or flaws should be periodically targeted for “balance” simply doesn’t pan out in most cases. Most of the time, the entire party ends up paying for one character’s mistake when the clanky fighter blows a stealth check or the uncouth barbarian offends a countess. If the GM is looking at these as punishments rather than handy levers to use to propel the plot forward it can be a bad dynamic (especially if the other players feel they’re being punished for someone else’s flaws).

It’s a complex issue, because a modest level of flaws adds to the tactical complexity—in D&D keeping the squishy wizard in the back and knowing the dumb fighter can’t see through illusions is part of the fun.

Batcathat

2021-07-17, 10:38 AM

If the GM is looking at these as punishments rather than handy levers to use to propel the plot forward it can be a bad dynamic (especially if the other players feel they’re being punished for someone else’s flaws).

Well, yeah. I think the GM doing pretty much anything as punishment towards the players is questionable at best. There might be situations I can't think of right now where I'd be okay with it, but it feels like a slippery slope.

Which shouldn't be confused with the GM not letting the players/characters suffer the consequences of their actions, which can seem very similar. I'm fine with "you did X so now Y happens as a logical consequence" but not "you didn't do as I intended, now feel my wrath".

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-17, 10:50 AM

Well, yeah. I think the GM doing pretty much anything as punishment towards the players is questionable at best. There might be situations I can't think of right now where I'd be okay with it, but it feels like a slippery slope.

Which shouldn't be confused with the GM not letting the players/characters suffer the consequences of their actions, which can seem very similar. I'm fine with "you did X so now Y happens as a logical consequence" but not "you didn't do as I intended, now feel my wrath".

This. It's not punishment, it's just a recognition that not all events are under the players' control. And that I, as the DM, won't twist things to avoid your weaknesses. Nor will I generally[1] aim at your weaknesses. But a manufactured weakness that never comes up is just free points.

[1] the exception is intelligent enemies who have seen the weaknesses in action and choose to target them. But they can (and often are) wrong--trying to fear the party, even though they're protected by heroes' feast, or trying to grapple the little unarmored guy...only to find out that he's really a monk. Etc.

Zuras

2021-07-17, 11:23 AM

Batcathat

2021-07-17, 11:29 AM

Sure, but even logical consequences for the party as a whole can be problematic if they’re the result of events triggered by “it’s what my character would do” behavior.

Perhaps, but that seems like it has less to do with the GM creating consequences for actions and more to do with players taking actions not deemed acceptable by the table. If the group is okay with a character randomly stabbing an important NPC or whatever, they shouldn't be upset when the city guard comes looking.

kyoryu

2021-07-19, 12:00 PM

Agreed. I think this is a lesser part of a general design pattern that I've learned to dislike - what I'd call 'go fish' style. Basically a game where the player has to guess before the adventure what things will be needed, followed by the GM calling for checks, saves, or required thresholds in specific areas.

I generally prefer a 'if you pay for something, it adds a new option to your toolkit' kind of design these days, where checks and skill levels and such either primarily come into play in response to something the player initiates, or they're common enough to come up every session so there's no guessing about whether it's going to be relevant.

In general, I prefer character builds to determine what options you have available to you, rather than the build being a significant determinant of success and failure itself.

Like, in general, I think if you look at a baseline of a player reasonably informed on the system, but not an expert, as operating at 100% efficiency, then I'd expect a player who was new to the system but made reasonable choices based on logic to be at 80-90% efficiency, a well informed player to be maybe 110% or so, a skilled optimizer to be in the 120% range, and someone abusing every illogical choice to be in the like 130% range.

Xervous

2021-07-19, 01:30 PM

But what about checks you make involuntarily? You're on a boat, and it hits a bad wave. Make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check[1] to stay on your feet. You're climbing, and a big wind comes up. Make a Strength check[1] to stay on the wall and not fall. You're riding a horse, and something spooks it. Make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to keep it under control. You're playing bodyguard at a party for your more fancy colleague and someone influential comes up to you and starts trying to talk to your principal while he's occupied. You don't want to piss him off, but you can't let him distract your party member. Make a Charisma (Social) check. Etc.

These are things that in the normal case don't require any kind of check or roll (at least in 5e D&D). But something happens, and now you need to try to save the situation. Not every action is initiated by the players--you don't get to choose what happens all the time. And no one can save you--you can't just substitute in a different party member on the fly in every case.

[1] or a DEX/STR saving throw, depending on the situation.

Now I’m deathly curious what example DCs would be for the DEX and STR checks. Are we on a part of the D20 range where the proficient Barbarian no-rolls the check while climbing, or do we see high roll wizard staying put while the barbarian tumbles on a low roll?

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-19, 03:18 PM

Now I’m deathly curious what example DCs would be for the DEX and STR checks. Are we on a part of the D20 range where the proficient Barbarian no-rolls the check while climbing, or do we see high roll wizard staying put while the barbarian tumbles on a low roll?

The options (in 5e are):
DC 5 (probably shouldn't even call for a check here) -- something that an unskilled person should succeed on the vast majority of the time.
DC 10 -- something that's about a 50/50 shot for an unskilled person
DC 15 -- something that's about a 50/50 shot for a beginning, but skilled, character (ie low-level proficiency + decent ability score)
DC 20 -- something that's about a 50/50 shot for an advanced and skilled (but not expert) character (ie high level proficiency + good ability score OR high-level double-proficiency + a low ability score)

The exact details depend on the situation. But my gut says that I'd rarely call for such things in the DC 5 or 20 range, so either 10 (the barbarian with athletics proficiency is unlikely to fail, while the no-proficiency STR -1 wizard has a 50/50 shot) or 15 (the barbarian can fail, but only rarely, while the wizard can succeed, but only rarely).

Checks never should be called (for an individual) where success is overwhelmingly likely or actually impossible[1] for that character. Checks exist to resolve uncertainty--if there's no uncertainty, there's no check. Relatedly, if the consequences for failure are meaningless, there's also no need for a check, because checks exist to keep the narrative moving in the face of uncertainty. And "nothing happens, try again" or "you don't make progress" are meaningless unless time matters at a resolution of seconds.

[1] yes, there's asymmetry here. On purpose--the characters are heroic, so they can do things that are really hard, but shouldn't have to worry about things that only have a tiny chance of failure[2]. Generally, I don't call for checks of lower than DC 10, unless conditions are special. Or if I do, they're color checks (clacking of math rocks without real purpose) or degrees of success (success is guaranteed, but how well you do determines how much you find out or how quickly you find out, etc).

[2] with the caveat that extremely unlikely failure, combined with extremely costly failure, might require a check. But generally you're better off avoiding those kinds of situations entirely. Falling as you get out of bed and killing yourself because you hit your head is rarely a heroic way to die.

Talakeal

2021-07-19, 11:02 PM

In general, I prefer character builds to determine what options you have available to you, rather than the build being a significant determinant of success and failure itself.

Like, in general, I think if you look at a baseline of a player reasonably informed on the system, but not an expert, as operating at 100% efficiency, then I'd expect a player who was new to the system but made reasonable choices based on logic to be at 80-90% efficiency, a well informed player to be maybe 110% or so, a skilled optimizer to be in the 120% range, and someone abusing every illogical choice to be in the like 130% range.

That's not how math works!

Joking aside, there are two problems with this.

The first is that every line is arbitrary, where you put 100%, what the appropriate level of tactics, what the appropriate win rate is, and where you draw the line between punishment and reward are all really subjective and depend on the mindset of the group as a whole.

Second, if you are playing in a game with even a bit of verisimilitude, lots of things will be situational. Benefits in some situations, drawbacks in others, and most of them time just free / wasted points that don't come up at all.

I mean, I like the sentiment that the gap between player characters should be smaller, but its really hard to do, especially when you also factor in the player's skill at playing the build on top of just making the builds.

Quertus

2021-07-20, 08:31 AM

That's not how math works!

Joking aside, there are two problems with this.

The first is that every line is arbitrary, where you put 100%, what the appropriate level of tactics, what the appropriate win rate is, and where you draw the line between punishment and reward are all really subjective and depend on the mindset of the group as a whole.

Second, if you are playing in a game with even a bit of verisimilitude, lots of things will be situational. Benefits in some situations, drawbacks in others, and most of them time just free / wasted points that don't come up at all.

I mean, I like the sentiment that the gap between player characters should be smaller, but its really hard to do, especially when you also factor in the player's skill at playing the build on top of just making the builds.

Heck, I hand two people the exact same characters, and you'll see more variance than that (just imagine if they were both role-playing "a gamer making a D&D character":smallwink:).

In fact, as a proponent of CaW, who believes that encounters should be able to go from "impossible" to "cakewalk" based on the characters' actions, I all but demand a much higher level of variance in outcomes.

But, yes, it would be nice if *every* build could produce that much variance - if there wasn't so much variance in ability to create variance.

NichG

2021-07-20, 09:11 AM

Heck, I hand two people the exact same characters, and you'll see more variance than that (just imagine if they were both role-playing "a gamer making a D&D character":smallwink:).

In fact, as a proponent of CaW, who believes that encounters should be able to go from "impossible" to "cakewalk" based on the characters' actions, I all but demand a much higher level of variance in outcomes.

But, yes, it would be nice if *every* build could produce that much variance - if there wasn't so much variance in ability to create variance.

Well, you can have that variance from decisions only, from build only, from both...

There's also a way of thinking about this where it isn't at all about the absolute efficiency, but rather about resonance between a character and a player's ability to play that character - so things which are equally effective, but one 'feels good to play' for a particular player; and freedom in build is basically the ability for a player to seek out the things that feel best to play rather than a method of acting on the game world or garnering agency.

kyoryu

2021-07-20, 11:09 AM

That's not how math works!

Joking aside, there are two problems with this.

The first is that every line is arbitrary, where you put 100%, what the appropriate level of tactics, what the appropriate win rate is, and where you draw the line between punishment and reward are all really subjective and depend on the mindset of the group as a whole.

Second, if you are playing in a game with even a bit of verisimilitude, lots of things will be situational. Benefits in some situations, drawbacks in others, and most of them time just free / wasted points that don't come up at all.

I mean, I like the sentiment that the gap between player characters should be smaller, but its really hard to do, especially when you also factor in the player's skill at playing the build on top of just making the builds.

Yeah, this is a rough guideline, and doesn't take tactical choices into account. The point is not to create a scientific expectation that can be rigorously tested - it's to give an idea of the level of variance I'd like to see specifically from build choices.

georgie_leech

2021-07-21, 05:13 AM

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

I mean, we don't complain that the wizard doesn't jump into melee in D&D in most cases.

Melee does sometimes come to the Wizard though. In the same way, sometimes characters are gonna be in situations where they need to react to something they're not especially good at.

NichG

2021-07-21, 05:23 AM

Melee does sometimes come to the Wizard though. In the same way, sometimes characters are gonna be in situations where they need to react to something they're not especially good at.

I'm curious, for people who like this sort of 'make sure characters are sometimes rolling checks for things they're not good at', would a rule where those characters simply automatically fail and take the consequences of that failure without any check being called for also provide the thing that is good about that for you?

Example 1: Okay, the party all has to make a Constitution check DC 15 to continue on this grueling, high-altitude march through the mountains without rest. Fyodor, you have a -3 Con modifier, so you need an 18 or higher...

Example 2: Okay, the party is on a grueling, high-altitude march through the mountains. Each day you can only walk for 4 hours + the lowest Con modifier in the party before you have to stop for rest.

Max_Killjoy

2021-07-21, 08:10 AM

I'm curious, for people who like this sort of 'make sure characters are sometimes rolling checks for things they're not good at', would a rule where those characters simply automatically fail and take the consequences of that failure without any check being called for also provide the thing that is good about that for you?

Example 1: Okay, the party all has to make a Constitution check DC 15 to continue on this grueling, high-altitude march through the mountains without rest. Fyodor, you have a -3 Con modifier, so you need an 18 or higher...

Example 2: Okay, the party is on a grueling, high-altitude march through the mountains. Each day you can only walk for 4 hours + the lowest Con modifier in the party before you have to stop for rest.

Mine is less "make sure" and more "don't contrive to avoid".

Your example number 2 is a very workable alternative to rolls that are likely to fail.

kyoryu

2021-07-21, 09:45 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-21, 09:55 AM

Sure. 1)But usually GMs don't contrive to put the players in that position, and 2) nobody complains when the wizard's player tries to avoid it.

1) uh, what? "Gank the squishy" is a central tactic. And I'm not very tactically-minded.
2) but they have to react to it. We're contrasting that with the "well, I don't do social, so I never have to make a social check" scenario, where you don't even have to try to avoid it--it just never comes up.

It'd be like, in combat, the enemies only ever attack or are attacked by the "combat guys"; the rest of the party just fades out and only the "combat guys" do anything. No, in combat, they go after everyone they can. Including (and especially) those that appear weak. Same rules should apply out of combat--you don't get a special exemption from social or exploration things just because you decided you wanted to dump those at character creation.

You chose your weaknesses; for that to actually matter, in order for you to have agency in that choice, there must be consequences for your choices. That's the flip side of agency--choices must have consequences. Positive, negative, whatever. You having dumped <XYZ> must matter, otherwise it wasn't a meaningful choice. And it must matter separately from the benefits, otherwise opportunity cost isn't a thing.

NichG

2021-07-21, 10:22 AM

1) uh, what? "Gank the squishy" is a central tactic. And I'm not very tactically-minded.
2) but they have to react to it. We're contrasting that with the "well, I don't do social, so I never have to make a social check" scenario, where you don't even have to try to avoid it--it just never comes up.

It'd be like, in combat, the enemies only ever attack or are attacked by the "combat guys"; the rest of the party just fades out and only the "combat guys" do anything. No, in combat, they go after everyone they can. Including (and especially) those that appear weak. Same rules should apply out of combat--you don't get a special exemption from social or exploration things just because you decided you wanted to dump those at character creation.

You chose your weaknesses; for that to actually matter, in order for you to have agency in that choice, there must be consequences for your choices. That's the flip side of agency--choices must have consequences. Positive, negative, whatever. You having dumped <XYZ> must matter, otherwise it wasn't a meaningful choice. And it must matter separately from the benefits, otherwise opportunity cost isn't a thing.

So for me, that's something very different than opportunity cost...

Opportunity cost would be something like "Here's a situation where, if you had invested in social stuff, you could have pursued this potentially beneficial path X. But if you invested in social stuff instead of what you did invest in, you could pursue the X path but not this other Y path which is now available for you."

Whereas "You chose not to invest in social stuff, so now when it comes to this situation which you don't have the option to route around or avoid, you suffer a penalty." seems like something very different. Opportunist cost is in the fact that you recognize that if you go to the ball with a negative Diplomacy modifier you're going to get thrown into the dungeon, so you stay home and miss the chance to talk with a visiting scholar of magic. I'm not sure what to call it if instead its 'you must go to the ball and make a Diplomacy check, and if you fail (which you're likely to), there will be some complication or difficulty that is created'.

Telok

2021-07-21, 10:24 AM

1) uh, what? "Gank the squishy" is a central tactic. And I'm not very tactically-minded.
2) but they have to react to it. We're contrasting that with the "well, I don't do social, so I never have to make a social check" scenario, where you don't even have to try to avoid it--it just never comes up.

It'd be like, in combat, the enemies only ever attack or are attacked by the "combat guys"; the rest of the party just fades out and only the "combat guys" do anything. No, in combat, they go after everyone they can. Including (and especially) those that appear weak. Same rules should apply out of combat--you don't get a special exemption from social or exploration things just because you decided you wanted to dump those at character creation.

You chose your weaknesses; for that to actually matter, in order for you to have agency in that choice, there must be consequences for your choices.

Sort of?

Your item #1 is predicated on things like fireballs & flashy healing (pop-up or 100%), the ability to identify the caster, and a minimum level of tactics & coordination. A D&D illusionist or enchanter could run, hide, and then cast spells with effects that aren't obviously caused by them. In other games the person in the back wearing a flak jacket and carrying a med-kit may not be shot at unless there's some indication that they're the source of the portals, or unexplained bad luck. Or of course sometimes nobody really wants to run past four guard skeletons, through a bunch of caltrops, and then try to sword the person wreathed in fire/electricity like a giant bug zapper.

Now, consequences for choices are great for game balance. But games like D&D, as currently written, do push the "all PCs do combat, only specialists do everything else" paradigm. For your second paragraph to matter you have to change how those games work or implement your own unsupported hacks to fix non-combat.

Xervous

2021-07-21, 11:18 AM

1) uh, what? "Gank the squishy" is a central tactic. And I'm not very tactically-minded.
2) but they have to react to it. We're contrasting that with the "well, I don't do social, so I never have to make a social check" scenario, where you don't even have to try to avoid it--it just never comes up.

It'd be like, in combat, the enemies only ever attack or are attacked by the "combat guys"; the rest of the party just fades out and only the "combat guys" do anything. No, in combat, they go after everyone they can. Including (and especially) those that appear weak. Same rules should apply out of combat--you don't get a special exemption from social or exploration things just because you decided you wanted to dump those at character creation.

You chose your weaknesses; for that to actually matter, in order for you to have agency in that choice, there must be consequences for your choices. That's the flip side of agency--choices must have consequences. Positive, negative, whatever. You having dumped <XYZ> must matter, otherwise it wasn't a meaningful choice. And it must matter separately from the benefits, otherwise opportunity cost isn't a thing.
If I’m being told that my in game choices won’t matter for interactions related to a deficient capability the logical conclusion seems to be avoiding the trigger case for the unerring “here’s how you suck” moment. Play a Jack of all trades and have no outliers that can be so targeted.

This is addressing the apparent logic of “you have a low social skill THUS you will have a forced social interaction regardless of your preparations.” The alternate case where the whole party is subject to an event is, on the surface, not likely to produce the aforementioned response. Something that affects Joe, Bob, Sally and the pack mule produces a contrast with the whole party being on stage. Singling out a character to detail “this is how you suck” is fine as a consequence, but placing that as a goal will teach players to flinch when you raise your hand.

kyoryu

2021-07-21, 12:45 PM

So for me, that's something very different than opportunity cost...

Opportunity cost would be something like "Here's a situation where, if you had invested in social stuff, you could have pursued this potentially beneficial path X. But if you invested in social stuff instead of what you did invest in, you could pursue the X path but not this other Y path which is now available for you."

Whereas "You chose not to invest in social stuff, so now when it comes to this situation which you don't have the option to route around or avoid, you suffer a penalty." seems like something very different. Opportunist cost is in the fact that you recognize that if you go to the ball with a negative Diplomacy modifier you're going to get thrown into the dungeon, so you stay home and miss the chance to talk with a visiting scholar of magic. I'm not sure what to call it if instead its 'you must go to the ball and make a Diplomacy check, and if you fail (which you're likely to), there will be some complication or difficulty that is created'.

A big part of this is the way some systems (cough D&D cough) are designed - social skills are fairly limited as to who tehy get them, and getting them to a usable level requires a lot of investment.

In some skill-based games, picking up basic/moderate levels of social skills is pretty easy, and of course you don't send the uncouth barbarian to negotiate with the nobles.

it's not really like "in combat, which is something the wizard is expected to deal with, the wizard has to be cognizant of the fact that they are weak in melee range, a fact that is designed into the system with counters across multiple classes in many ways."

It's more like "don't make the wizard sign up for an anti-magic melee-only gladiator tournament, because they're going to be terrible at it and it won't be much fun."

I mean, again, maybe the wizard has to deal with melee in combat - but nobody sets up situations explicitly designed to make wizards depend solely on their own melee combat abilities, and nobody thinks it's weird if the wizard does everything they can to avoid melee combat.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-21, 01:18 PM

If I’m being told that my in game choices won’t matter for interactions related to a deficient capability the logical conclusion seems to be avoiding the trigger case for the unerring “here’s how you suck” moment. Play a Jack of all trades and have no outliers that can be so targeted.

This is addressing the apparent logic of “you have a low social skill THUS you will have a forced social interaction regardless of your preparations.” The alternate case where the whole party is subject to an event is, on the surface, not likely to produce the aforementioned response. Something that affects Joe, Bob, Sally and the pack mule produces a contrast with the whole party being on stage. Singling out a character to detail “this is how you suck” is fine as a consequence, but placing that as a goal will teach players to flinch when you raise your hand.

It's about consequences.

For clarity, I should say that I'm very strong on the "don't split the party, except in downtime where no real 'conflict' will happen" camp. For a few reasons--
1) my sanity as a DM. Splitting the brain means splitting my already stretched attention. The chances of me missing something important explode when that happens. And my ability to portray things well drops.
2) engagement. It's a macro level case of "everyone should be participating"--I want everyone to have the chance to participate
3) curbing metagaming. This is especially true of cases where the absent person really wants to chime in (OOC or not), which influences the ones "on scene". That causes fictional issues and sometimes ends up with people effectively puppeting other characters (telling them what to say, etc). That's not cool.
4) reducing issues with playing telephone and players not knowing what their character would know. Or vice versa.

And this extends to scouting--I'm likely to just fast-forward and do the report, instead of playing it out in detail.

So if the scene is "attending the diplomatic ball", the default is everybody's there, in some capacity. If the scene is "fighting the boss while trying to get the door open", everyone is there.

And once you're there, you're fair game, just like you are in combat. You can try to avoid it (maybe by acting all stern and forbidding). But, just like trying to avoid melee combat for a wizard, that's a set of choices with consequences (you might offend someone, or more often you might miss something you'd have been able to get). But it's an active choice, not a "I (as the player) just sit here and watch for the next half a session".

And none of the DCs are high enough that you need to be a specialist to have an appreciable chance of success or to avoid making things worse, as long as you haven't actively anti-optimized those areas. Heck, even people with a +0 CHA and no particular proficiency manage to persuade people. No need to be a diplomancer to contribute.

I strongly believe in avoiding "one and done" situations. That means splitting things up. You no longer make one check to convince the king to send aid to NoNamia, which is threatened by orcs (which could either succeed or fail as a lump sum)--instead you have a series of related tasks, the success or failure of each one influencing the overall outcome as well as the following checks. And different characters, even those without traditional "Social Skills" may have radically different chances of success on different parts.

E.g:
1. Persuade the king and advisors that the orcs are really a threat. Here, the scout can speak directly with sure knowledge, and in the language the king is used to hearing from the scouts. He can speak to the military advisors much more credibly than the foppish bard or the ivory-tower-looking sorcerer. Succeeding here makes the next parts easier, failure may mean that the sent aid is smaller (because they aren't as convinced that it's a big threat). A big gruff fighter throwing down a bag of orc ears makes an impression, even if they can't speak fancy words.
2. Persuade the king and advisors that NoNamia can't handle it alone. Here, someone with the right background, class training, proficiency, or history can do a threat assessment. If the party hasn't found this information, that weakens their case. Just BS'ing your way through it won't be as successful, and the advisors will trust people who can properly play the part over fast-talking types.
3. Scale the requested aid to the threat. Here, intellectual and planning types shine.
4. Persuade the court that the consequences of not responding appropriately are worse than the risks of sending troops out to the hinterlands. This may take political maneuvering and knowledge of the other threats. Here the diplomatic specialist shines.

Everyone can contribute, and different strengths (and choices of spokesmen and tactics) matter, just as they do in combat. Similar things happen in exploration events--no single ability or action solves the issue, but each one can contribute. Just as weakness in an area impedes progress.

BRC

2021-07-21, 01:23 PM

So for me, that's something very different than opportunity cost...

Opportunity cost would be something like "Here's a situation where, if you had invested in social stuff, you could have pursued this potentially beneficial path X. But if you invested in social stuff instead of what you did invest in, you could pursue the X path but not this other Y path which is now available for you."

Whereas "You chose not to invest in social stuff, so now when it comes to this situation which you don't have the option to route around or avoid, you suffer a penalty." seems like something very different. Opportunist cost is in the fact that you recognize that if you go to the ball with a negative Diplomacy modifier you're going to get thrown into the dungeon, so you stay home and miss the chance to talk with a visiting scholar of magic. I'm not sure what to call it if instead its 'you must go to the ball and make a Diplomacy check, and if you fail (which you're likely to), there will be some complication or difficulty that is created'.

I mean, there's two parts of it.

One part is the opportunity cost: Some options are unavailable to you, or far riskier, because of the weaknesses you chose.

Another part is the penalty: Sometimes you are are forced into a situation that your weakness makes you bad at handling.

Another way to think about it is that your weaknesses effect how you interact with a Scenario, rather than a specific situation, and "You cannot do X thing because of your weaknesses" affects the Scenario as a whole.

Let's talk about Combat. You are a squishy wizard who wants to stay out of melee. That is your Weakness.

The fighter is at risk of being mobbed by Orcs, it would help if somebody stood next to them in melee to stop them being surrounded.

But, since you're a squishy wizard, you can't do that job. If you wanted to try, you would probably do a Bad Job of it.

So you choose to hang back and let the Fighter get swarmed. Your weakness has come into play. Let's call this an Indirect application of your weakness. By avoiding a situation where your weakness directly applies, you have changed how you interact with the scenario.

One of the Orcs gets past the Fighter and charges you, now you're stuck in melee anyway. Let's call this a Direct Application. You are in the situation that your weakness makes you bad at handling.

If Talkgud the Barbarian dumps all social stats and skills, and so they spend every conversation looming in the background, that's an Indirect Application of their weakness. It may seem like their weakness "Never comes up", since they're just playing around it, but playing around it IS the weakness coming up. Everytime they WOULD have talked, but don't because they're bad at it, the weakness is relevant.

Quertus

2021-07-21, 05:00 PM

Well, you can have that variance from decisions only, from build only, from both...

There's also a way of thinking about this where it isn't at all about the absolute efficiency, but rather about resonance between a character and a player's ability to play that character - so things which are equally effective, but one 'feels good to play' for a particular player; and freedom in build is basically the ability for a player to seek out the things that feel best to play rather than a method of acting on the game world or garnering agency.

Having builds… lost your words… open (and close) different doors facilitates differentiating characters. But, yes, I like there to be plenty of "everyman" doors, as well.

But "feel"? Oh, yeah, very important. It's… well, I don't know how to explain the difference between games that facilitate vs fail to facilitate the feel that I want in characters very well, but people I've played both RPGs and videogames with often comment that my builds facilitate playstyles different than their own. Also that I seem to enjoy more builds and more different playstyles than most gamers.

1. Persuade the king and advisors that the orcs are really a threat. Here, the scout can speak directly with sure knowledge, and in the language the king is used to hearing from the scouts. He can speak to the military advisors much more credibly than the foppish bard or the ivory-tower-looking sorcerer. Succeeding here makes the next parts easier, failure may mean that the sent aid is smaller (because they aren't as convinced that it's a big threat). A big gruff fighter throwing down a bag of orc ears makes an impression, even if they can't speak fancy words.
2. Persuade the king and advisors that NoNamia can't handle it alone. Here, someone with the right background, class training, proficiency, or history can do a threat assessment. If the party hasn't found this information, that weakens their case. Just BS'ing your way through it won't be as successful, and the advisors will trust people who can properly play the part over fast-talking types.
3. Scale the requested aid to the threat. Here, intellectual and planning types shine.
4. Persuade the court that the consequences of not responding appropriately are worse than the risks of sending troops out to the hinterlands. This may take political maneuvering and knowledge of the other threats. Here the diplomatic specialist shines.

Everyone can contribute, and different strengths (and choices of spokesmen and tactics) matter, just as they do in combat. Similar things happen in exploration events--no single ability or action solves the issue, but each one can contribute. Just as weakness in an area impedes progress.

This example, while great, is, afaict, about everyone leaning on their strengths, and avoiding their weaknesses. Not at all about forcing the foppish Bard to seem credible, or having the academic Wizard drive home the threat with a bag of Orc ears.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-21, 05:30 PM

This example, while great, is, afaict, about everyone leaning on their strengths, and avoiding their weaknesses. Not at all about forcing the foppish Bard to seem credible, or having the academic Wizard drive home the threat with a bag of Orc ears.

Sure, happy path. It was an aside on how you can have everybody involved despite being weak at "traditional" talking. But the party still has to decide who addresses which part. And they can fail at that, making things harder on themselves in the process. And no one person can handle everything, so everyone has to figure out how to play it to their capabilities and avoid their weaknesses. Edit: or have to react to other people's success/failure or play off of what the other person said. Which is what I care about, having to confront the consequences of your choices and react to events. If everyone just turns to the face for all of this, only one person has agency; only one person matters. I want everyone to matter in as close to every situation as I can. Because being involved is how people have fun in this game, IMX.

This is in contrast to the "I can avoid my flaws entirely as if they don't exist" position, where either the face can do it all without anyone else or the player's fast talking makes up on a regular social roll for their character's weaknesses.

I'm not trying to say "weakness = bad person, let's laugh at them." I'm using their choices to present them with further choices that depend on those earlier choices. Because that's what agency is about. Making interesting choices and having them matter.

False God

2021-07-21, 07:32 PM

...If everyone just turns to the face for all of this, only one person has agency; only one person matters. I want everyone to matter in as close to every situation as I can. Because being involved is how people have fun in this game, IMX.

I still don't really understand why you think this way though.

If "the party" understands that Joe the Face is best at the Face stuff and wants him to do the Face things and win all the Face prizes...aren't they involved by choosing to utilize their most effective tool? Aren't you denying them agency by refusing to allow their choice in utilizing Joe to his fullest? Aren't you denying Joe his agency in specific because when the thing comes up that he really likes, that he's built for, that he's best at, you insist that all the other people who clearly don't want to do the thing also be involved?

You talk a lot about "player involvement", but forced involvement isn't fun, and denial of player agency to delegate to another player who is better and enjoys this thing, does not in my mind seem to increase agency.

"Agency" is about choice. Not involvement. A torture scene where every character is beaten with a stick is involvement. The choice to take the beating in silence for a chance of a lesser punishment or to spit in the face of the Inquisitor is agency.

Cluedrew

2021-07-21, 08:22 PM

But games like D&D, as currently written, do push the "all PCs do combat, only specialists do everything else" paradigm.This is actually one of the main things that made me drop D&D. It just forces way to much into combat for my tastes.

If "the party" understands that Joe the Face is best at the Face stuff and wants him to do the Face things and win all the Face prizes...aren't they involved by choosing to utilize their most effective tool?Theoretically, say there is another member who is better spoken and has the same position than you. Are you involved in this thread if you DM them asking to post in this thread and never post yourself? Maybe you feel you are but I wouldn't feel like I am.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-21, 08:35 PM

I still don't really understand why you think this way though.

If "the party" understands that Joe the Face is best at the Face stuff and wants him to do the Face things and win all the Face prizes...aren't they involved by choosing to utilize their most effective tool? Aren't you denying them agency by refusing to allow their choice in utilizing Joe to his fullest? Aren't you denying Joe his agency in specific because when the thing comes up that he really likes, that he's built for, that he's best at, you insist that all the other people who clearly don't want to do the thing also be involved?

You talk a lot about "player involvement", but forced involvement isn't fun, and denial of player agency to delegate to another player who is better and enjoys this thing, does not in my mind seem to increase agency.

"Agency" is about choice. Not involvement. A torture scene where every character is beaten with a stick is involvement. The choice to take the beating in silence for a chance of a lesser punishment or to spit in the face of the Inquisitor is agency.

By that argument, any decision that doesn't let the party do exactly what they want is "denying agency". You can always choose what to do, you just can't choose the consequences. When you choose to play the game, you choose to play all of the game. Especially since the fiction makes the multi-headed hydra approach look really really weird, especially when you get outside the very simplest things.

In the scenario I outlined, they can always choose to let the loquacious one do all the talking. It's just...suboptimal. By design. Just like letting the fighter do all the fightering is sub-optimal by design compared to everyone pitching in, even if he's (theoretically) best at it. The choice still exists. As do the consequences, which follow directly from the fiction.

And let me ask you this. If a character has a flaw, but that flaw never manifests, never causes them any trouble, do they really have that flaw? It's an informed attribute. And I'll say this. Mary Sues and Marty Stues are full of informed flaws. That just so happen never to really matter. Choosing to have a flaw, choosing to have a weakness beyond the baseline[1] is a choice. And choices, to be meaningful, must have consequences.

icefractal

2021-07-21, 08:55 PM

I think there's a big difference between having PCs end up in situations that aren't their forte as a natural result of in-game events, and the GM forcing/pushing such situations. The former is fine, the latter I significantly dislike.

Also, if you watch a team / ensemble focused show, the entire team doesn't get involved in every single task. Scouting, researching, hacking, building/repairing things, piloting - these are more often than not handled by a single character, or two of them, not the entire crew.

Even talking to someone is often just 1-2 people, although there is the meta-game factor that if it's going to take a significant amount of real-time in the session, it's not great for everyone else to sit out. But actually I find that letting the party decide which one them rolls promotes letting the less-socially-skilled members be involved in conversation. If the GM demands a roll from everyone involved, it means they're sabotaging the party by not finding an excuse to be absent - bad incentive!

And as far as "choices require consequences" ... there are a huge number of possible skills and abilities in D&D. Most characters don't even have 10% of them. It's easy, as a GM, to pick the one that stands out as a glaring weakness and focus on it, but is it a realistic consequence, or is it the GM enforcing their aesthetics? Personally, I'd call an obstacle more "legit" if the GM put it in the situation without knowing what's on the PCs' character sheets.

False God

2021-07-21, 08:57 PM

By that argument, any decision that doesn't let the party do exactly what they want is "denying agency". You can always choose what to do, you just can't choose the consequences. When you choose to play the game, you choose to play all of the game.
But you, the DM, are choosing who gets to do what. Players, by their design choices and vocalizations, are telling you what parts of the game they most want to play. No game forces every player to participate in every scene. YOU made that choice for them, when they passively (by role and build choices) actively said(ya know, by saying so) they didn't.

Especially since the fiction makes the multi-headed hydra approach look really really weird, especially when you get outside the very simplest things.
In your opinion. The idea that people do what they're good at and don't do things they're not good at seems to work out pretty well IRL. I mean there's a reason if an engine breaks you go to a mechanic and not a psychologist.

In the scenario I outlined, they can always choose to let the loquacious one do all the talking. It's just...suboptimal. By design. Just like letting the fighter do all the fightering is sub-optimal by design compared to everyone pitching in, even if he's (theoretically) best at it. The choice still exists. As do the consequences, which follow directly from the fiction.
You've only said it's suboptimal. Everyone else has, on the other hand, demonstrated with numbers how is isn't.

Joe with the +16 Diplomacy and +5 Charisma is always going to roll better than Sue with the +2 Diplomacy and the +2 Charisma. Even if Sue regards herself as fairly charismatic (and as a DM I would) she simply isn't diplomatic. There's no purpose to her participation in the Diplomacy check. And before you say "well there are other approaches", lets just say, for example, that Sue has put 2 points in all her social skills. In D&D at least, even Intimidation is a charisma-based check.

There's nothing "theoretical" about Joe's chances of success. There's nothing "more optimal" about people who can't (or at at best highly unlikely to) pass the checks participating at all. Letting the barbarian whose mouth is more closely related to a blunderbuss "contribute" is more akin to shooting Joe in the foot than providing him assistance.

The "consequences" of non-participation sound more like punishments handed out from the DM because the people who weren't so good at a thing didn't do a little dance when you demanded it of them. That's all "group participation" is. You've saddled an effective character with a bunch of ineffective ones and somehow come to the conclusion that 1 successful roll is less effective than 4 failed rolls and 1 successful roll.

And let me ask you this. If a character has a flaw, but that flaw never manifests, never causes them any trouble, do they really have that flaw? It's an informed attribute. And I'll say this. Mary Sues and Marty Stues are full of informed flaws. That just so happen never to really matter. Choosing to have a flaw, choosing to have a weakness beyond the baseline[1] is a choice. And choices, to be meaningful, must have consequences.
I don't know why we're back to talking about flaws now.

But the long and short (and I've seen this expressed in previous responses) is that this "Flawed Person" is manifesting their flaw at all times: by actively taking steps to avoid it popping up. More than likely their flaw will manifest in missed opportunities rather than active times they're forced to engage with their flaw.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-21, 09:27 PM

But you, the DM, are choosing who gets to do what. Players, by their design choices and vocalizations, are telling you what parts of the game they most want to play. No game forces every player to participate in every scene. YOU made that choice for them, when they passively (by role and build choices) actively said(ya know, by saying so) they didn't.

Who said anything about force? It's merely more in keeping with their characters. You can choose to delegate to one person. It's just...rather meta most of the time. Because in reality, most people want to be involved in things.

And if someone presented a character who said "I don't get involved in social things", I'd say "great. Build a different character or know that there will be times when that will cost the party." It's part of the "bring a character who wants to adventure" ground rule. Social stuff is part and parcel of adventuring. A character who doesn't want to leave his comfortable home and has to be dragged out, one who resists plot hooks[1], one who runs at the sight of combat--these are great book characters. But they're crappy in a team-focused adventuring game. Bring someone else or change the character.

I will say that if the player expresses OOC discomfort with certain areas, I won't make it a big deal. I'll actively work with them to find areas where they are comfortable engaging. But there won't be any mechanical (or otherwise) bonuses for that flaw.

In your opinion. The idea that people do what they're good at and don't do things they're not good at seems to work out pretty well IRL. I mean there's a reason if an engine breaks you go to a mechanic and not a psychologist.

So if an NPC comes up and talks to one person, it's totally normal for someone across the room to suddenly appear in front of them and start talking and they take it like nothing happens? The party is not the same entity. They're not physically in the same place, they don't fade out when someone else starts talking. If the NPC is talking to the soldier, the bard butting in is likely to draw a "hey, I wasn't talking to you" reaction, probably resulting in at minimum disadvantage, and likely automatic failure. You've pissed someone off by trying to substitute. That's just plain rude by any standards. The party doesn't control the NPCs--they can't demand that all requests go through the face. Or well, they can, but the NPCs will react according to their individual natures to that kind of demand. Some may accept, some may not. Depends on the fiction.

Choices have consequences, the choice to only have one person who can talk has consequences as well. And they might not be the ones you wanted.

You've only said it's suboptimal. Everyone else has, on the other hand, demonstrated with numbers how is isn't.

Joe with the +16 Diplomacy and +5 Charisma is always going to roll better than Sue with the +2 Diplomacy and the +2 Charisma. Even if Sue regards herself as fairly charismatic (and as a DM I would) she simply isn't diplomatic. There's no purpose to her participation in the Diplomacy check. And before you say "well there are other approaches", lets just say, for example, that Sue has put 2 points in all her social skills. In D&D at least, even Intimidation is a charisma-based check.

There's nothing "theoretical" about Joe's chances of success. There's nothing "more optimal" about people who can't (or at at best highly unlikely to) pass the checks participating at all. Letting the barbarian whose mouth is more closely related to a blunderbuss "contribute" is more akin to shooting Joe in the foot than providing him assistance.

The "consequences" of non-participation sound more like punishments handed out from the DM because the people who weren't so good at a thing didn't do a little dance when you demanded it of them. That's all "group participation" is. You've saddled an effective character with a bunch of ineffective ones and somehow come to the conclusion that 1 successful roll is less effective than 4 failed rolls and 1 successful roll.

I don't remember putting any numbers on things. But really, I'd say that approach matters way more than numbers, because numbers only come into play if there's uncertainty. If the scout who knows how to talk the language drops a bag of orc heads and describes what he saw, that's likely to be straight up automatic success. Which is a darn sight better than even a +16 (which, in the context of 5e, is a level 17+ character with expertise and high charisma[2], not someone who is even doing this particular kind of thing) against a DC 20 or DC 25.

And it may not even be a Charisma (Persuasion) check at all. Stage one might be a Wisdom (Perception) check. Or any number of other types of checks. Only really stage 4 is a classic Charisma (Persuasion) check. And 5e (which is what I play) explicitly allows the DM to choose what kind of check is called for. Players don't call for checks--the DM does.

Generally, putting the right person in play at the right time with the right type of approach is way bigger an effect on success than having the right mechanical buttons to push. Because character matters more than mechanics, fiction is more important than numbers. Give someone what they want and they probably won't make you work for it; there's no need to haggle when you pay the asking price.

I don't know why we're back to talking about flaws now.

But the long and short (and I've seen this expressed in previous responses) is that this "Flawed Person" is manifesting their flaw at all times: by actively taking steps to avoid it popping up. More than likely their flaw will manifest in missed opportunities rather than active times they're forced to engage with their flaw.

A choice to dump your X skills (speaking generally) into the gutter is exactly the same as a flaw. It's a choice. And choices must have consequences, and those consequences must appear in play. Otherwise it wasn't a choice, it was free points. Unless opportunities are actively missed and thus it affects the flow of play, it's an informed flaw, not something real at all. Flaws are plot eyebolts, permission for the DM to engage with the character on those points. That goes for things labeled "Flaw" as well as for places where you intentionally decided to diminish your capabilities[2].

[1] subject to negotiation in session 0. But if you've set up a plot eyebolt and then you refuse to engage because it's "mechanically sub-optimal", that's not fair play in my book.
[2] a Champion fighter not being able to cast spells is not a weakness in this sense--it's part and parcel of the package. A fighter who chooses to dump his WIS into the ground and tank his WIS saves because that lets him get more STR, however, has chosen to create a weakness. And one that enemies will exploit (if they find out). A Big Dumb Barbarian who chooses to dump CHA into the ground for better AC (via higher DEX) and doesn't pick up any CHA skills won't be very good at intimidation most of the time, and if the time comes where he is put on the spot, the consequences are entirely on his head. Eg a "traditional" (ie tribal) barbarian who, with the party, goes to a local tribe that knows him. He's the one the people will naturally talk to, not the others (no matter how charismatic). Because they trust him, he knows their ways (having not been killed in infancy). The bard butting in is likely to get them all in trouble. The rogue who chooses to put expertise in all his DEX skills and doesn't shore up his STR weakness with Athletics is going to suffer if he really needs to grab someone or swim in choppy waters. That's not punishment, that's natural consequences for choices made.

icefractal

2021-07-21, 10:06 PM

Ok, so IRL I have some skills I'm good at, and others I'm pretty bad at.
I have a job oriented around some of the skills I'm good at. There are some possible career advancement paths that potentially pay more, but involve a shift to primarily focusing on skills that I'm not good at (and don't enjoy), so I don't go in those directions. That's an opportunity cost, but it manifests in not doing things rather than failing at doing things.
Similarly, I'm not good in certain types of social activities. The effect is much more often that I don't participate in those kind of activities (again, opportunity cost) than that I make an ass of myself.

Does this mean that according to your metrics I'm a Mary Sue? That the "realistic" course of action I should take is to switch to a job I'm bad at, and then get fired? I would submit that any definition which says that how most people IRL live their lives is "unrealistic" is a bad definition.

And yes, I more often want to play a realistic-feeling character than I do a maximally-drama-oriented one. So when you say:
Flaws are plot eyebolts, permission for the DM to engage with the character on those points. That's not how I make characters. If I have low skill at something, it's probably because I think it fits the character, not because I'm trying to get subplots based around it.

Agreed that there's no hard line between things specifically called "flaws" and emergent weaknesses though. The most recent Pathfinder character I've played has both an official Flaw and some areas he's really not good in due to having poor stats/skills there, and the latter has a much bigger impact in play than the former.

False God

2021-07-21, 10:22 PM

Who said anything about force? It's merely more in keeping with their characters. You can choose to delegate to one person. It's just...rather meta most of the time. Because in reality, most people want to be involved in things.
Do they? Or are you assuming they do and projecting that upon your players?

And if someone presented a character who said "I don't get involved in social things", I'd say "great. Build a different character or know that there will be times when that will cost the party." It's part of the "bring a character who wants to adventure" ground rule. Social stuff is part and parcel of adventuring. A character who doesn't want to leave his comfortable home and has to be dragged out, one who resists plot hooks[1], one who runs at the sight of combat--these are great book characters. But they're crappy in a team-focused adventuring game. Bring someone else or change the character.
TO reference above, who said "force"? You did. Right there. "Do this or else." That's force. Don't try to argue it isn't.

I will say that if the player expresses OOC discomfort with certain areas, I won't make it a big deal. I'll actively work with them to find areas where they are comfortable engaging. But there won't be any mechanical (or otherwise) bonuses for that flaw.
Not really a flaw to say "I don't want to do social stuff."

So if an NPC comes up and talks to one person, it's totally normal for someone across the room to suddenly appear in front of them and start talking and they take it like nothing happens? The party is not the same entity. They're not physically in the same place, they don't fade out when someone else starts talking. If the NPC is talking to the soldier, the bard butting in is likely to draw a "hey, I wasn't talking to you" reaction, probably resulting in at minimum disadvantage, and likely automatic failure. You've pissed someone off by trying to substitute. That's just plain rude by any standards. The party doesn't control the NPCs--they can't demand that all requests go through the face. Or well, they can, but the NPCs will react according to their individual natures to that kind of demand. Some may accept, some may not. Depends on the fiction.
Realistically, a person who doesn't want to engage in conversation leaves it. If you're punishing a player for their character very rationally saying, in character "I'm sorry, perhaps you should take that up with Bob over there *points to the Face*." and attempts to exit the conversation, only to have the NPC insist that Joe continue the conversation with them or the party face penalties...then once again I'm going to refer back to your very first lines. Who said "force"? You did. Right there. By threatening the party with collective punishment if Joe doesn't engage the NPC in conversation that they are unqualified to do and don't want to do. That is the definition of force.

Choices have consequences, the choice to only have one person who can talk has consequences as well. And they might not be the ones you wanted.
This is what is called a "monopoly on violence". You, as the DM, have the absolute authority to hand out punishment for whatever you wish. The party's biggest stick is to walk away from the table. Otherwise, should they want to play, they have no recourse against you. These aren't "consequences" for "choices". These are "threats" and "punishments". "Do this or else." is not a "consequence". It is a threat. "You must engage in this scene because the NPC for no apparent reason will not talk to anyone else, nor accept any interjection on your behalf by your clear friends and associates."

Frankly, my honest reaction to some NPC getting up in the face of my friend who doesn't enjoy socialization would be to bop said NPC in the nose. That NPC getting all huffy that I stepped in on my friend's behalf can shove their attitude. If they can't do that, I'm more than happy to shove my fantasy sword where all their fantasy attitude should be.

But really, I'd say that approach matters way more than numbers, because numbers only come into play if there's uncertainty. If the scout who knows how to talk the language drops a bag of orc heads and describes what he saw, that's likely to be straight up automatic success. Which is a darn sight better than even a +16 (which, in the context of 5e, is a level 17+ character with expertise and high charisma[2], not someone who is even doing this particular kind of thing) against a DC 20 or DC 25.
Quite honestly your game sounds completely random and based largely on player competence rather than character. Which IMO, kinda defies the reason we have all these stats.

And it may not even be a Charisma (Persuasion) check at all. Stage one might be a Wisdom (Perception) check. Or any number of other types of checks. Only really stage 4 is a classic Charisma (Persuasion) check. And 5e (which is what I play) explicitly allows the DM to choose what kind of check is called for. Players don't call for checks--the DM does.
The players should still have some general sense of what might be coming up. If your checks are completely unpredictable and may rely on X stat today and Y stat tomorrow, I can hardly expect any player to be "capable". No wonder you demand more well rounded characters. Their next jump check might rely on charisma and their social roll might use constitution!

Game rules give us grounding for how to approach gameplay. If those are out the window, we might as well all play Calvinball.

Generally, putting the right person in play at the right time with the right type of approach is way bigger an effect on success than having the right mechanical buttons to push. Because character matters more than mechanics, fiction is more important than numbers. Give someone what they want and they probably won't make you work for it; there's no need to haggle when you pay the asking price.
So why even use rules at all?

A choice to dump your X skills (speaking generally) into the gutter is exactly the same as a flaw. It's a choice. And choices must have consequences, and those consequences must appear in play. Otherwise it wasn't a choice, it was free points. Unless opportunities are actively missed and thus it affects the flow of play, it's an informed flaw, not something real at all. Flaws are plot eyebolts, permission for the DM to engage with the character on those points. That goes for things labeled "Flaw" as well as for places where you intentionally decided to diminish your capabilities[2].

[1] subject to negotiation in session 0. But if you've set up a plot eyebolt and then you refuse to engage because it's "mechanically sub-optimal", that's not fair play in my book.
[2] a Champion fighter not being able to cast spells is not a weakness in this sense--it's part and parcel of the package. A fighter who chooses to dump his WIS into the ground and tank his WIS saves because that lets him get more STR, however, has chosen to create a weakness. And one that enemies will exploit (if they find out). A Big Dumb Barbarian who chooses to dump CHA into the ground for better AC (via higher DEX) and doesn't pick up any CHA skills won't be very good at intimidation most of the time, and if the time comes where he is put on the spot, the consequences are entirely on his head. Eg a "traditional" (ie tribal) barbarian who, with the party, goes to a local tribe that knows him. He's the one the people will naturally talk to, not the others (no matter how charismatic). Because they trust him, he knows their ways (having not been killed in infancy). The bard butting in is likely to get them all in trouble. The rogue who chooses to put expertise in all his DEX skills and doesn't shore up his STR weakness with Athletics is going to suffer if he really needs to grab someone or swim in choppy waters. That's not punishment, that's natural consequences for choices made.

If you're going to arbitrarily deny people the ability to be involved only out of some sense of "consequences", then I'm going to go right back to my original argument:

Everything you've said is about limiting player agency, not expanding it. You determine who does what and when. You determine what stats matte and when. You determine who has to face situations and who doesn't. That's not enabling player agency or encouraging player involvement. That's the bad kind of spotlighting.

Tanarii

2021-07-21, 10:50 PM

So if an NPC comes up and talks to one person, it's totally normal for someone across the room to suddenly appear in front of them and start talking and they take it like nothing happens? The party is not the same entity. They're not physically in the same place, they don't fade out when someone else starts talking. If the NPC is talking to the soldier, the bard butting in is likely to draw a "hey, I wasn't talking to you" reaction, probably resulting in at minimum disadvantage, and likely automatic failure. You've pissed someone off by trying to substitute. That's just plain rude by any standards. The party doesn't control the NPCs--they can't demand that all requests go through the face. Or well, they can, but the NPCs will react according to their individual natures to that kind of demand. Some may accept, some may not. Depends on the fiction.

Choices have consequences, the choice to only have one person who can talk has consequences as well. And they might not be the ones you wanted.
I'm reminded of an episode of Firefly where they make Simon the party 'face', even though he's out of his element. Because he's the one who looks the part. Later in the same episode, Jayne has to talk to an entire town, because he's the one they idolize.

Batcathat

2021-07-22, 12:12 AM

Ok, so IRL I have some skills I'm good at, and others I'm pretty bad at.
I have a job oriented around some of the skills I'm good at. There are some possible career advancement paths that potentially pay more, but involve a shift to primarily focusing on skills that I'm not good at (and don't enjoy), so I don't go in those directions. That's an opportunity cost, but it manifests in not doing things rather than failing at doing things.
Similarly, I'm not good in certain types of social activities. The effect is much more often that I don't participate in those kind of activities (again, opportunity cost) than that I make an ass of myself.

Right, you probably won't take a job or otherwise focus on skills you aren't good at (just as no one expects the frail wizard and the dumb barbarian to switch jobs with each other full time) but that (probably, I don't know you) doesn't mean you never have to put such skills to use.

Take me, for example. I'm pretty much the opposite of handy and as such I try to avoid having to do stuff like that and leave it to people with more skills in the area when I can. But sometimes circumstances or just a lack of time or alternatives force me to put my meager handyman skills to use.

I don't see why the same thing happening to a character in a game would be a bad thing.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-22, 12:35 AM

I'm reminded of an episode of Firefly where they make Simon the party 'face', even though he's out of his element. Because he's the one who looks the part. Later in the same episode, Jayne has to talk to an entire town, because he's the one they idolize.

Exactly. This is normal. People get thrust into situations where they find themselves doing things they're not suited for by nature, training, or inclination but have to deal with them one way or another. I'm not particularly social myself. But needs must. Nor am I particularly prone to physical exertion, left to my own devices. But I'll help people move, because that's more important to me.

The angry guy having to swallow his pride for the sake of the mission, the greedy guy having to choose between treasure and his friends, the coward between safety and stopping the enemy. The shy flower having to bloom under social pressure. These are all classic situations across games, movies, books, and stories of all types. If everybody gets to always do what they want, there's no drama, no purpose. You've "won"... At the cost of the game itself. Why even roll dice?

NichG

2021-07-22, 01:55 AM

And let me ask you this. If a character has a flaw, but that flaw never manifests, never causes them any trouble, do they really have that flaw? It's an informed attribute. And I'll say this. Mary Sues and Marty Stues are full of informed flaws. That just so happen never to really matter. Choosing to have a flaw, choosing to have a weakness beyond the baseline[1] is a choice. And choices, to be meaningful, must have consequences.

If a medusa never manages to petrify anyone because they all stay out of line of sight and use traps and spreading effects to defeat it, that doesn't mean the petrification ability didn't matter. Similarly, if someone has the flaw 'cannot speak' and just abstains from all social interactions, that fact that they don't interact is that flaw mattering. It might be contra-involvement, but that doesn't make it inconsequential.

I also find the insistence on this being about helping player choices matter unconvincing, unless the player actually has the reasonable choice to not have any flaws at all as well.

For me at least, I find the forced drama style pretty unpalatable (in fiction as well), but that's a matter of taste. I'd generally rather skip the awkward bumbling episodes that things always seem to want to have.

Batcathat

2021-07-22, 02:07 AM

For me at least, I find the forced drama style pretty unpalatable (in fiction as well), but that's a matter of taste. I'd generally rather skip the awkward bumbling episodes that things always seem to want to have.

While it is indeed a matter of taste, I'm not sure why you automatically consider it "forced". I find it far more realistic if characters occasionally have to do things they aren't good at. Of course, having it happen all the time would be forced, but so would having it never happen at all.

NichG

2021-07-22, 02:37 AM

While it is indeed a matter of taste, I'm not sure why you automatically consider it "forced". I find it far more realistic if characters occasionally have to do things they aren't good at. Of course, having it happen all the time would be forced, but so would having it never happen at all.

I mean, realism isn't the highest good for me, and selective focus and good use of time is a thing. Also I think this idea of 'having to do things they aren't good at' is kind of putting emphasis on one way of looking at how people deal with things they're bad at over all of the others. For me I'd rather just not have a roll and have an automatic failure than have a roll which is likely to fail.

E.g. to me its more interesting for a PC to say 'I know that if I have to plead my case in front of the courtroom then it's guaranteed that I will lose the court case and go to jail, so I must come up with a way through this scenario that does not rely on my oratory and legal skills at all - maybe I can bribe a juror, or make a plan to escape from prisoner transport, or mobilize my vast riches to hire a good lawyer, or ...' than for a PC to say 'Okay, I guess I have to plead my own case even if it's only a 25% chance of success on the die, lets see. Oh look, I failed.' Cleverness to avoid failure is inherently more interesting to me than just pushing through failure.

Batcathat

2021-07-22, 02:46 AM

I mean, realism isn't the highest good for me, and selective focus and good use of time is a thing.

True, though I find having some invisible hand always guiding the character away from ever having to use their weaker skills a little too unrealistic for my tastes. That said, if realism was my only concern I could live with the unrealism.

Also I think this idea of 'having to do things they aren't good at' is kind of putting emphasis on one way of looking at how people deal with things they're bad at over all of the others.

I don't think anyone's saying that should be the only way of dealing with a character's weak spots, just that it should be one of the ways.

E.g. to me its more interesting for a PC to say 'I know that if I have to plead my case in front of the courtroom then it's guaranteed that I will lose the court case and go to jail, so I must come up with a way through this scenario that does not rely on my oratory and legal skills at all - maybe I can bribe a juror, or make a plan to escape from prisoner transport, or mobilize my vast riches to hire a good lawyer, or ...' than for a PC to say 'Okay, I guess I have to plead my own case even if it's only a 25% chance of success on the die, lets see. Oh look, I failed.' Cleverness to avoid failure is inherently more interesting to me than just pushing through failure.

Again, no one's saying that there shouldn't be stuff like that in addition to occasionally having to actually try using their weaker skills. Just how a character can do their best to avoid open conflict but sometimes people just attack and the character has to deal with it to the best of their abilities.

NichG

2021-07-22, 03:04 AM

True, though I find having some invisible hand always guiding the character away from ever having to use their weaker skills a little too unrealistic for my tastes. That said, if realism was my only concern I could live with the unrealism.

I don't think anyone's saying that should be the only way of dealing with a character's weak spots, just that it should be one of the ways.

Again, no one's saying that there shouldn't be stuff like that in addition to occasionally having to actually try using their weaker skills. Just how a character can do their best to avoid open conflict but sometimes people just attack and the character has to deal with it to the best of their abilities.

I tend to resolve this at the level of system design rather than at the level of the campaign contents. Rather than designing the system for 'go-fish' rolls called for by the GM, I try to design systems where its more often (possibly always) the player calling for rolls, or where the skills/etc that the player has purchased for the character are active things that say 'you now have this move' or 'you can do this', rather than things which the player has to cover in case they will end up being needed. So that way you don't have to go out of your way to guide a character away from things they're bad at, because 'bad at' doesn't mean a forced bottleneck of a die roll, it just means an absence of beneficial super-powers.

Edit: Or, as in the example I gave up-thread, you can have strengths and weaknesses contribute statically to degree of success rather than through dice-based tests. So if a character has a movement speed of 25ft while everyone else has a movement speed of 30ft its still relevant, but the relevance is organic. This is why I'm making a distinction around the taste for drama - I think wanting a character to experience failure is a drama-driven consideration (which I don't care for at all) that is enhanced by having a roll to center that moment, whereas wanting there to be meaningful differentials in character abilities doesn't actually require centering that failure.

Batcathat

2021-07-22, 03:33 AM

NichG

2021-07-22, 03:45 AM

I'm not sure how much this will help the discussion, but I just realized I had a recent experience with what I'm talking about so I figured I might as well share it.

A couple of sessions ago, the party was a little spread out during combat and we had to move our space ship. But none of the trained pilots were in position at the time, so one of the characters that was tried doing it himself. His lack of skill, in combination with some unlucky rolls, led to some rather... unorthodox flying. It ended up not really mattering that much in the grand scheme of things but it was certainly more memorable than if one our regular pilots had done it or if the character had avoided it completely.

Does this mean that character should be forced to try flying every session? Of course not, but that he had to try in that one instance made the game more enjoyable.

There's some subtle differences here depending on details I think. If the player decided 'I suck at this, but I have an idea involving moving the ship so I wanna go for it' or 'I suck at this, but I have narrative resources to burn and I want to succeed, so I will pay a higher price than someone else would to have this moment' its different than if 'there was no choice but to try to move the ship'. The former is fine by me, because the attempt to use the thing the character is bad at originated from the player's decision to go that route. The latter strikes me as potentially kind of crass.

It might sound odd, but I think its especially crass if the breakdown is something like 'don't try / try something not involving the piloting checks: the ship is destroyed outright; try and fail: the ship is safe but the character does it in an embarrasing way/the ship takes inconsequential damage; try and succeed: the ship is safe'. Because that to me says that the point of the roll isn't even to determine a question of success or failure, its only there to highlight the character's flaw, and the high stakes of 'just don't try' is there to force the roll in lieu of 'I can't fly ships, so let me try to resolve this another way instead'

It's like, I've had DMs call for rolls to see if characters get teleportation nausea, food poisoning from bar food, etc. I understand that as a technique for establishing a feel for the realities of a setting different from one that the players have experience with, but its a technique I've grown to like less and less over time.

Xervous

2021-07-22, 07:11 AM

Am I the only one thinking it sounds like a FATE style of game implemented through an awkwardly fitting system (5e)? The former defines all the interaction points of characters as strengths and flaws, while the latter is much further down the simulation spectrum.

Max_Killjoy

2021-07-22, 09:23 AM

I think there's a big difference between having PCs end up in situations that aren't their forte as a natural result of in-game events, and the GM forcing/pushing such situations. The former is fine, the latter I significantly dislike.

Same here. There's a huge difference between the circumstances leading to a character facing something they're not good at... and the GM contriving to force it.

Ok, so IRL I have some skills I'm good at, and others I'm pretty bad at.

I have a job oriented around some of the skills I'm good at. There are some possible career advancement paths that potentially pay more, but involve a shift to primarily focusing on skills that I'm not good at (and don't enjoy), so I don't go in those directions. That's an opportunity cost, but it manifests in not doing things rather than failing at doing things.

Similarly, I'm not good in certain types of social activities. The effect is much more often that I don't participate in those kind of activities (again, opportunity cost) than that I make an ass of myself.

Does this mean that according to your metrics I'm a Mary Sue? That the "realistic" course of action I should take is to switch to a job I'm bad at, and then get fired? I would submit that any definition which says that how most people IRL live their lives is "unrealistic" is a bad definition.

And yes, I more often want to play a realistic-feeling character than I do a maximally-drama-oriented one. So when you say:That's not how I make characters. If I have low skill at something, it's probably because I think it fits the character, not because I'm trying to get subplots based around it.

Fully agreed.

I'm making a person-who-could-be-real, not a "drama cog".

The whole "Oh what are your character's weaknesses and flaws, that's obviously something I should make sure gets picked on" approach doesn't pull me in, it makes me want to build a character with no flaws, weaknesses, or shortcomings, so that there's nothing for the adversarial GM to target. (And yes, I consider this sort of GMing adversarial when it's clear that the player wants no part of the contrived drama.)

And yeah, to some gamers, actively avoiding engagement with the contrived drama and working to avoid failure -- especially by being "too" competent or widely competent -- makes a character a "mary sue".. in no small part because the term has been stripped of all meaning.

Max_Killjoy

2021-07-22, 09:24 AM

Batcathat

2021-07-22, 09:31 AM

And yeah, to some gamers, actively avoiding engagement with the contrived drama and working to avoid failure -- especially by being "too" competent or widely competent -- makes a character a "mary sue".. in no small part because the term has been stripped of all meaning.

So what is your definition of "contrived drama"? Any sort of drama that targets anything beside your character's strenghts? I realize I might sound provocative but I'm genuinely curious, since I agree that contrived drama is a bad thing but don't really see the connection between that and occasionally having to rely on your character's weaker sides.

Max_Killjoy

2021-07-22, 09:41 AM

So what is your definition of "contrived drama"? Any sort of drama that targets anything beside your character's strenghts? I realize I might sound provocative but I'm genuinely curious, since I agree that contrived drama is a bad thing but don't really see the connection between that and occasionally having to rely on your character's weaker sides.

Contrived drama is any drama deliberately created independent of the ongoing events of the campaign, or of the story in fiction.

Especially true when it happens beyond reasonable chance.

Sandman robs a bank, not contrived drama.

Sandman robs the bank that Aunt May or MJ use... getting fishy.

Sandman robs the bank that Aunt May uses while she's there... then robs the bank that MJ uses while she's there... then robs the bank that the editor at the Daily Buggle uses while they're there... 100% contrived and bordering on nonsense.

Xervous

2021-07-22, 09:42 AM

5e? "Simulation"?

:confused:

Again, spectrum. From what I gather of FATE things exist for the narrative and interactions. Meanwhile in 5e the rules are more structured, and more concerned with approximating this or that. In the grand spectrum of RPGs 5e is nowhere near the deep end of simulation, but it is a grand step in that direction when compared to FATE. And with that comes different expected use cases.

Max_Killjoy

2021-07-22, 09:49 AM

Again, spectrum. From what I gather of FATE things exist for the narrative and interactions. Meanwhile in 5e the rules are more structured, and more concerned with approximating this or that. In the grand spectrum of RPGs 5e is nowhere near the deep end of simulation, but it is a grand step in that direction when compared to FATE. And with that comes different expected use cases.

5e is far more "game for the sake of game" structure than trying to simulate anything... but that's always been true of D&D to the earliest roots.

Batcathat

2021-07-22, 10:09 AM

Contrived drama is any drama deliberately created independent of the ongoing events of the campaign, or of the story in fiction.

Good, it sounds like we're on the same page about that, at least.

But I still don't get what it has to do with what we're talking about. Every enemy knowing about and using your character's super specific and obscure weakness? Sure, that's contrived. Your character occasionally having to do things they aren't great at? That seems less contrived. In fact, characters only ending up in situations where they can use their strongest skills and abilities seem far more contrived than the opposite.

NichG

2021-07-22, 10:39 AM

So what is your definition of "contrived drama"? Any sort of drama that targets anything beside your character's strenghts? I realize I might sound provocative but I'm genuinely curious, since I agree that contrived drama is a bad thing but don't really see the connection between that and occasionally having to rely on your character's weaker sides.

For me, coming from PhoenixPhyre's example, the place where it became contrived for me is that they were (for meta-game reasons) also requiring everyone to participate in all scenes.

Similarly, there was an example of not being physically strong, but still being called on to help people move. If you can say 'nah, I'm not physically strong, so I won't help you move', then its not contrived. If its assumed (or mandated) that of course you will help them move, therefore you must rely on your physical weakness, then that becomes a contrivance.

It would also be contrived if the situation were literally motivated by the intent that that choice would be made to matter - e.g. if the situation emerges not because that situation naturally followed, but because 'this player has picked this weakness, so therefore it must be made to matter and things which avoid it mattering should be avoided'.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-22, 11:15 AM

For me, coming from PhoenixPhyre's example, the place where it became contrived for me is that they were (for meta-game reasons) also requiring everyone to participate in all scenes.

Similarly, there was an example of not being physically strong, but still being called on to help people move. If you can say 'nah, I'm not physically strong, so I won't help you move', then its not contrived. If its assumed (or mandated) that of course you will help them move, therefore you must rely on your physical weakness, then that becomes a contrivance.

It would also be contrived if the situation were literally motivated by the intent that that choice would be made to matter - e.g. if the situation emerges not because that situation naturally followed, but because 'this player has picked this weakness, so therefore it must be made to matter and things which avoid it mattering should be avoided'.

I think I've been misunderstood. Or did not explain well. I don't require everyone to participate in all scenes. I enjoy and try to encourage (mainly by designing the scenes to give everyone a natural place to participate) everyone participating. Even if that's just flavor, setting the scene.

And avoiding your weakness is fine...as long as it requires actions that can have consequences.

Go hide in the library rather than attend the party? Great. The consequences for that are twofold
-- OOC, you're not going to get nearly as much attention. Because I don't have the spare brainpower to handle both, and most of the party is in one place.
-- IC, you might (and I want to stress that it's possible, not even probable and certainly not inevitable) that someone might remark "We invited four of you, but only three came. What's up with them?" A particularly annoying host might get slightly huffy that everyone didn't come to their fabulous party.

Someone comes up to talk to you and you say "go talk to <face>?" That's ok, that's an action with possible consequences. Those consequences would depend entirely on the purpose and nature and personality of the NPC. Was it just a flavor interaction? Meh. Probably nothing. Was it someone who had a plot hook for you (which would have been designed for your character)? You might have missed that hook. Or might not, depending on the situation. Generally, you'd miss out on something you could have gained, not faced an overall setback (ie end up at status quo ante at worst).

Someone comes up to talk to you and you punch them in the face? That's ok, that's an action with likely consequences. These consequences are likely to be negative, because that makes total sense for 99.99% of cases. Loss of reputation (for the party), getting kicked out, angering the host, being challenged to a duel, etc. It's even possible (under the right circumstances) that you could gain positive reputation.

Expecting the DM and the fiction to bend so that no one ever talks to you unless you want them to? That's not ok in my book. Because that's putting demands on the NPCs and worldbuilding that you just don't have the right to do. DMs have agency as well--the players do not control the NPCs. NPCs will do what fits their character. Anything else breaks the pre-existing fiction in ways I'm not willing to tolerate.

NichG

2021-07-22, 11:26 AM

I think I've been misunderstood. Or did not explain well. I don't require everyone to participate in all scenes. I enjoy and try to encourage (mainly by designing the scenes to give everyone a natural place to participate) everyone participating. Even if that's just flavor, setting the scene.

And avoiding your weakness is fine...as long as it requires actions that can have consequences.

The 'requires actions that can have consequences' bit here is still unclear to me. Does it become not fine if you figure out a clever way to avoid all consequences from the weakness - e.g. you take the weakness 'Blind' but you end up getting Blindsight from a class you were planning on taking anyways?

Go hide in the library rather than attend the party? Great. The consequences for that are twofold
-- OOC, you're not going to get nearly as much attention. Because I don't have the spare brainpower to handle both, and most of the party is in one place.
-- IC, you might (and I want to stress that it's possible, not even probable and certainly not inevitable) that someone might remark "We invited four of you, but only three came. What's up with them?" A particularly annoying host might get slightly huffy that everyone didn't come to their fabulous party.

Someone comes up to talk to you and you say "go talk to <face>?" That's ok, that's an action with possible consequences. Those consequences would depend entirely on the purpose and nature and personality of the NPC. Was it just a flavor interaction? Meh. Probably nothing. Was it someone who had a plot hook for you (which would have been designed for your character)? You might have missed that hook. Or might not, depending on the situation. Generally, you'd miss out on something you could have gained, not faced an overall setback (ie end up at status quo ante at worst).

Someone comes up to talk to you and you punch them in the face? That's ok, that's an action with likely consequences. These consequences are likely to be negative, because that makes total sense for 99.99% of cases. Loss of reputation (for the party), getting kicked out, angering the host, being challenged to a duel, etc. It's even possible (under the right circumstances) that you could gain positive reputation.

Expecting the DM and the fiction to bend so that no one ever talks to you unless you want them to? That's not ok in my book. Because that's putting demands on the NPCs and worldbuilding that you just don't have the right to do. DMs have agency as well--the players do not control the NPCs. NPCs will do what fits their character. Anything else breaks the pre-existing fiction in ways I'm not willing to tolerate.

This all seems fine to me.

Telok

2021-07-22, 11:46 AM

Honestly the whole thing is a spectrum. At one end there's the bad forms of skill challeges, group checks, and DMs picking on PCs for meta reasons. People object to that, with how much they object and their cutoff point being personal preferences. (Also somewhat genera/system dependent, supers games often have dependent NPCs getting regularly threatened to emulate the original tropes & the player chooses that knowing the trope will be invoked.)

For me, if the party boat capsizes and every needs to swim, including the PC with the "can't swim" flaw, that's just adventuring. If Mr. NoSwim has a potion of floating, uses awesome lasso skill to haul out, or has a compact self-inflating life raft, then that's the flaw making a mechanical and narrative difference. If the DM declares a swimming group check or skill challenge and requires Mr. NoSwimButHasAnOut to make swim rolls, that's not OK. If the DM just has Mr. NoSwim get pulled overboard because of the flaw, not because they're the logical target for the giant octopus or are trick balancing on the rail or something, that's also not OK.

That "socialize the barbarian with a -2 roll" stuff? If the player and/or party puts themselves in that situation by choice or accident it's OK. If the DM contrives the situation because the PC has a weakness or 'barbarian' written on the character sheet, not OK. If the DM nopes the player's attempt to move it to trial by combat, use a perform:constitution "look at my muscles" (that may not be the best example, but something like it), or even just call for help from another PC, that's also not OK.

kyoryu

2021-07-22, 01:20 PM

So let's look at combat vs. being at the ball.

In combat, everyone has something to contribute. They may not be able to contribute in every way, but they can contribute. In general, characters will try to minimize their weaknesses and utilize their strengths - they may have to deal with the weaknesses, and that's understood, but it's also considered Normal and Good to try to minimize how much they come up, and to have tactics and strategies to mitigate them.

A similar situation at the ball might be that there's a number of things happening at the ball. Sure, the silver-tongued bard is going to be best shmoozing with the nobles... but the barbarian might do well with the fighters and the bragadaccio youths. Unfortunately, many games don't handle this well. Presuming that the ball is just "talk to nobles", it's not like combat at all. It's like a melee-only gladiatorial contest. And a GM forcing a wizard into that would be a jerk.

Again, spectrum. From what I gather of FATE things exist for the narrative and interactions. Meanwhile in 5e the rules are more structured, and more concerned with approximating this or that. In the grand spectrum of RPGs 5e is nowhere near the deep end of simulation, but it is a grand step in that direction when compared to FATE. And with that comes different expected use cases.

Ehhhhhhh.... Fate is more traditional than it seems. While it does have some of those "narrative" elements, they're a comparatively small amount of play time. For the most part, it's just skills and actions, 90% of the time.

Honestly the whole thing is a spectrum. At one end there's the bad forms of skill challeges, group checks, and DMs picking on PCs for meta reasons. People object to that, with how much they object and their cutoff point being personal preferences. (Also somewhat genera/system dependent, supers games often have dependent NPCs getting regularly threatened to emulate the original tropes & the player chooses that knowing the trope will be invoked.)

For me, if the party boat capsizes and every needs to swim, including the PC with the "can't swim" flaw, that's just adventuring. If Mr. NoSwim has a potion of floating, uses awesome lasso skill to haul out, or has a compact self-inflating life raft, then that's the flaw making a mechanical and narrative difference. If the DM declares a swimming group check or skill challenge and requires Mr. NoSwimButHasAnOut to make swim rolls, that's not OK. If the DM just has Mr. NoSwim get pulled overboard because of the flaw, not because they're the logical target for the giant octopus or are trick balancing on the rail or something, that's also not OK.

That "socialize the barbarian with a -2 roll" stuff? If the player and/or party puts themselves in that situation by choice or accident it's OK. If the DM contrives the situation because the PC has a weakness or 'barbarian' written on the character sheet, not OK. If the DM nopes the player's attempt to move it to trial by combat, use a perform:constitution "look at my muscles" (that may not be the best example, but something like it), or even just call for help from another PC, that's also not OK.

For sure. It's the idea that we should consciously put the low social characters in high-stakes social situations requiring high levels of skill that I don't care for. It doesn't do much, except highlight their incompetency.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-22, 01:31 PM

The 'requires actions that can have consequences' bit here is still unclear to me. Does it become not fine if you figure out a clever way to avoid all consequences from the weakness - e.g. you take the weakness 'Blind' but you end up getting Blindsight from a class you were planning on taking anyways?

I'd be miffed a bit if I felt it was done entirely for mechanical advantage[1], but I'd rather fix the problem by playing in a system that doesn't have mechanical flaws that grant extra build points. If it's a legal build based on what the guidelines for the campaign were, and the character will be able to function within broad bounds of "normally", it's not a reason to reject the character.

If your character was supposed to be Daredevil (or an analogue), so it was just all part of the character? That's fine. I might try (but maybe not so hard) to find ways that in-fiction the fact that you're really blind (but can function due to <insert power here>) gets called out, because I dislike informed attributes. Not necessarily in a "here's something you suffer for" (or even a "here's something you get rewarded for") way (although those are possible if the fiction demands it), but something like "being able to function fine in darkness" or "not being affected by a Medusa's gaze" or something like that. Or maybe (depending on what the blindsight actually gives you) "not being able to see the color of that sign". Something to give color (pun intended) to the character, to tie them and their characterization into the world and the fiction.

[1] I have a personal dislike for cheese, being dairy-sensitive. Same applies to character optimization.

BRC

2021-07-22, 01:44 PM

I'd be miffed a bit if I felt it was done entirely for mechanical advantage[1], but I'd rather fix the problem by playing in a system that doesn't have mechanical flaws that grant extra build points. If it's a legal build based on what the guidelines for the campaign were, and the character will be able to function within broad bounds of "normally", it's not a reason to reject the character.

If your character was supposed to be Daredevil (or an analogue), so it was just all part of the character? That's fine. I might try (but maybe not so hard) to find ways that in-fiction the fact that you're really blind (but can function due to <insert power here>) gets called out, because I dislike informed attributes. Not necessarily in a "here's something you suffer for" (or even a "here's something you get rewarded for") way (although those are possible if the fiction demands it), but something like "being able to function fine in darkness" or "not being affected by a Medusa's gaze" or something like that. Or maybe (depending on what the blindsight actually gives you) "not being able to see the color of that sign". Something to give color (pun intended) to the character, to tie them and their characterization into the world and the fiction.

[1] I have a personal dislike for cheese, being dairy-sensitive. Same applies to character optimization.
Daredevil is a good example, because he's not "A blind guy who can see" in the comics. He has Radar Sense, sure, so he's more capable of sensing things than a sighted person, but he's got a distinct situation. For example, he can only read Braille.

That said, a lot of this depends on the function of weaknesses in the system. In something like HERO system, where part of the "Value" of a weakness is how often it comes up, something like "Can't see, but I have blindsense" explicitly doesn't count as a weakness (Instead you'd take some lesser weakness to represent that you can't read except for braille, can't see things on screens, ect). Never actually played or run HERO (my roomate did, and I followed that campaign pretty closely), there's specifically some wiggle room for "How much does this weakness actually affect you" when calculating the value.

In a system where "Flaws" are distinct effects that translate into more character points, gaining 20 points from blindness, but spending 10 of them on Blindsense would be against the spirit of the rules I'd say.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-22, 01:53 PM

Daredevil is a good example, because he's not "A blind guy who can see" in the comics. He has Radar Sense, sure, so he's more capable of sensing things than a sighted person, but he's got a distinct situation. For example, he can only read Braille.

That said, a lot of this depends on the function of weaknesses in the system. In something like HERO system, where part of the "Value" of a weakness is how often it comes up, something like "Can't see, but I have blindsense" explicitly doesn't count as a weakness (Instead you'd take some lesser weakness to represent that you can't read except for braille, can't see things on screens, ect). Never actually played or run HERO (my roomate did, and I followed that campaign pretty closely), there's specifically some wiggle room for "How much does this weakness actually affect you" when calculating the value.

In a system where "Flaws" are distinct effects that translate into more character points, gaining 20 points from blindness, but spending 10 of them on Blindsense would be against the spirit of the rules I'd say.

Yeah. And I'd be fine with that.

kyoryu

2021-07-22, 02:00 PM

In a system where "Flaws" are distinct effects that translate into more character points, gaining 20 points from blindness, but spending 10 of them on Blindsense would be against the spirit of the rules I'd say.

As a long-time GURPS player... why? That's super common.

You've effectively turned that 20 point Disad into a 10 point Disad. That seems reasonable.

BRC

2021-07-22, 02:10 PM

As a long-time GURPS player... why? That's super common.

You've effectively turned that 20 point Disad into a 10 point Disad. That seems reasonable.

Hrmm, you're right in that blind for blindsense is a bad example. That exchange turns into
"Can see in the Dark/through smoke, immune to gaze effects. Can't read printed words or use screens" which is decent (Maybe not worth net-zero points, but this isn't a balance discussion).

A better example would be something like
"I'm going to take a flaw that says I'm missing an arm" "Okay, that's 10 character points" "I'm going to use those character points to start with a really cool magic item" "Okay, what's the item"
"It's a magic superstrong robot arm that is better than an organic arm in every way!"

Now, a superstrong robot arm might have it's own disadvantages, but I'd say at that point you've managed to fully negate the original "Doesn't have an arm" disadvantage. Instead, you get no points from your missing arm, and instead get points from whatever disadvantages your robot arm brings with it.

icefractal

2021-07-22, 02:11 PM

Someone comes up to talk to you and you say "go talk to <face>?" That's ok, that's an action with possible consequences. Those consequences would depend entirely on the purpose and nature and personality of the NPC. Was it just a flavor interaction? Meh. Probably nothing. Was it someone who had a plot hook for you (which would have been designed for your character)? You might have missed that hook. Or might not, depending on the situation. Generally, you'd miss out on something you could have gained, not faced an overall setback (ie end up at status quo ante at worst).See, that sounds fine. I think what gave me a different (and negative) impression was the focus on "consequences", which made me imagine a scenario like:

Lord Stuffington: "So you're one those adventurer chaps, yes?"
Barbarian: *unskilled reply*
Lord Stuffington: "Ugh, what a boor! I'll make sure that an uncouth adventuring party like yours never gets access to the city's catacombs!"
GM: As he said, it's now going to be nearly impossible to search the catacombs. Should have put more points in Diplomacy, fool!

Which is what felt contrived, because one doesn't generally conduct important matters by approaching a random member of the group out of the blue, expecting them to speak for the entire group, and refusing to be directed otherwise.

But if it was like "Lord Stuffington was considering hiring the Barbarian (personally) to be his house's champion at the upcoming olympics-esque competition/festival, but decided not to after the uncouth reply" - that's entirely reasonable.

BRC

2021-07-22, 02:25 PM

See, that sounds fine. I think what gave me a different (and negative) impression was the focus on "consequences", which made me imagine a scenario like:

Lord Stuffington: "So you're one those adventurer chaps, yes?"
Barbarian: *unskilled reply*
Lord Stuffington: "Ugh, what a boor! I'll make sure that an uncouth adventuring party like yours never gets access to the city's catacombs!"
GM: As he said, it's now going to be nearly impossible to search the catacombs. Should have put more points in Diplomacy, fool!

Which is what felt contrived, because one doesn't generally conduct important matters by approaching a random member of the group out of the blue, expecting them to speak for the entire group, and refusing to be directed otherwise.

But if it was like "Lord Stuffington was considering hiring the Barbarian (personally) to be his house's champion at the upcoming olympics-esque competition/festival, but decided not to after the uncouth reply" - that's entirely reasonable.

The key here is the consider that "Consequences" rarely mean "The party suffers a crippling failure".

"Consequences" can mean "You offend Lord Stuffington at dinner and now he'll only hire you if you agree to a reduced reward". It can mean "The Barbarian needs to be kept away from Lord Stuffington during the negotiations, because otherwise he WILL mention the eyebrows".

It can mean that the party face has to spin an elaborate story about how the Barbarian is mute, having sworn to his people's war god never to speak except to shout war-cries against a worthy foe, War Cries that do NOT involve Lord Stuffington's Eyebrows.

It can even be something as simple as "The Barbarian needs to be left back in the inn while everybody who knows how to use a spoon goes to meet Lord Stuffington", thus meaning that they can't use the Barbarian's glorious musculature as proof that they can handle the job. Thus meaning that the Barbarian's player can't contribute ideas to the negotiations.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-22, 02:34 PM

The key here is the consider that "Consequences" rarely mean "The party suffers a crippling failure".

"Consequences" can mean "You offend Lord Stuffington at dinner and now he'll only hire you if you agree to a reduced reward". It can mean "The Barbarian needs to be kept away from Lord Stuffington during the negotiations, because otherwise he WILL mention the eyebrows".

It can mean that the party face has to spin an elaborate story about how the Barbarian is mute, having sworn to his people's war god never to speak except to shout war-cries against a worthy foe, War Cries that do NOT involve Lord Stuffington's Eyebrows.

It can even be something as simple as "The Barbarian needs to be left back in the inn while everybody who knows how to use a spoon goes to meet Lord Stuffington", thus meaning that they can't use the Barbarian's glorious musculature as proof that they can handle the job. Thus meaning that the Barbarian's player can't contribute ideas to the negotiations.

Exactly. I don't do high-stakes anything (at least high-stakes single interactions). It's part of wanting to involve everybody--spreading the "checks" and "consequences" around means that the individual pieces have to be smaller. No single points of failure[1]--I consider those to be bad design generally. You can piss off Lord Stuffington enough that he'll oppose you overtly...but it won't happen with a single interaction unless you really, intentionally, with malice aforethought, after warnings from the DM, try to do so. Instead, the consequences will be changes in how the rest of the event goes. And who knows--maybe insulting Lord Stuffington might even get you positive responses from people who think he's an unbearable bore! The important thing is that things change as a result of player actions. I don't care really which way.

[1] yes, that means I try to avoid rocket tag and save-or-die/hard crowd-control effects as a DM, no matter how "optimal" they are. I much prefer slow to power word: kill or hold person as a DM. They can still act, just hampered. I don't require that the party avoid them--I have more toys to play with in any given fight than they do, so taking out a few of them easily is much less of a deal.

Cluedrew

2021-07-22, 08:16 PM

So let's look at combat vs. being at the ball.I hit this point of "If more people in the group can contribute to combat than a social situation, those aren't characters, those are units. You are playing a wargame." Which I think actually speaks more to a ball being considered a single particular skill check and not a party with lots of people doing different things. Also every character can just... be themselves so if nothing else you can have some fun just playing the characters.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-22, 08:25 PM

I hit this point of "If more people in the group can contribute to combat than a social situation, those aren't characters, those are units. You are playing a wargame." Which I think actually speaks more to a ball being considered a single particular skill check and not a party with lots of people doing different things. Also every character can just... be themselves so if nothing else you can have some fun just playing the characters.

Yeah. A ball is a scene in and of itself. If it were combat, it'd be several different encounters. And participating can be anything, as long as you're taking actions (broadly speaking). Flexing for the ladies (or gents). Intimidating the would be suitors of the people the bard is trying to seduce by glaring impressively. Talking shop with the retired general. Or the court mage. Etc.

FrogInATopHat

2021-07-23, 04:18 AM

Exactly. I don't do high-stakes anything (at least high-stakes single interactions). It's part of wanting to involve everybody--spreading the "checks" and "consequences" around means that the individual pieces have to be smaller. No single points of failure[1]--I consider those to be bad design generally. You can piss off Lord Stuffington enough that he'll oppose you overtly...but it won't happen with a single interaction unless you really, intentionally, with malice aforethought, after warnings from the DM, try to do so. Instead, the consequences will be changes in how the rest of the event goes. And who knows--maybe insulting Lord Stuffington might even get you positive responses from people who think he's an unbearable bore! The important thing is that things change as a result of player actions. I don't care really which way.

[1] yes, that means I try to avoid rocket tag and save-or-die/hard crowd-control effects as a DM, no matter how "optimal" they are. I much prefer slow to power word: kill or hold person as a DM. They can still act, just hampered. I don't require that the party avoid them--I have more toys to play with in any given fight than they do, so taking out a few of them easily is much less of a deal.

Once again, I miss 'like' buttons on these forums.

Yours and BRC's posts both outline this position incredibly well.

FrogInATopHat

2021-07-23, 04:20 AM

Satinavian

2021-07-23, 04:31 AM

In combat, everyone has something to contribute. They may not be able to contribute in every way, but they can contribute. In general, characters will try to minimize their weaknesses and utilize their strengths - they may have to deal with the weaknesses, and that's understood, but it's also considered Normal and Good to try to minimize how much they come up, and to have tactics and strategies to mitigate them.
Honestly i hate that sentiment. I prefer if the system lets you proper civillians which best combat contribution is trying to hide/get out of the way.

The idea that combat is the thing where everone can shine is, what keeps so many RPGs shackled to wargaming.

Batcathat

2021-07-23, 05:09 AM

kyoryu

2021-07-23, 09:40 AM

Honestly i hate that sentiment. I prefer if the system lets you proper civillians which best combat contribution is trying to hide/get out of the way.

The idea that combat is the thing where everone can shine is, what keeps so many RPGs shackled to wargaming.

I tend to agree. Though obviously it depends on the focus of the game, I imagine playing a typical D&D campaign with a non-combatant might get pretty boring.

If you're going to have a game that is centered on combat (which I would strongly argue WotC-era, at least, D&D is), then it makes sense to have everyone able to contribute in combat.

If that's not the case, then it's not as necessary, and combat should run a lot faster as well. I tend to answer from a D&D-esque frame, since this is the Playground and D&D is the dominant game overall and especially here. I actually don't play that much D&D myself, and generally play less combat-centered games.

Personally, I like systems that are geared more towards letting everyone contribute all the time. In Fate, for instance, pretty much everyone can contribute to every scene - they might not be the "front line", but they can use their strengths to assist the people that are. So it handles "scholar and barbarian" not by giving each capabilities in the other area, but by allowing the skills to complement. While the scholar is negotiating, the barbarian hulks in the background adding some threat to the negotiation. And while the barbarian is squaring off, the scholar points out weaknesses and openings or other facts about the opponent that the barbarian can make use of.

They're both able, in this case, to contribute, but without taking them outside of their characterization.

I still do think, though, that a big part of problem is the degree of specialization we see in games. "Specialized vs dump stat" usually ends up with a frankly unrealistic level of differentiation. In reality, most of us can negotiate, or run, or do most common tasks. Specialists are just better. And while that works for some things (doing magic, advanced combat skills, lockpicking), that model is applied suuuuper broadly in many systems. I mean, most people that have been "adventurers" should pick up how to do typical first aid. That's somethign that most people doing outdoorsy, physical stuff learn in the real world, so why wouldn't adventurers do the same? But most systems do a poor job at expressing those types of learnings and "ambient skill pickup".

Also, add my voice to the chorus of "failures shouldn't be catastrophic except in either culminating moments, or as the result of a series of both dice and decision failures." That's actually one of my main arguments against death as the primary failure mode - it tends towards "you win, or catastrophe" model which i don't think is helpful, and ends up meaning that, practically, you win almost all of the time.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-23, 10:17 AM

If you're going to have a game that is centered on combat (which I would strongly argue WotC-era, at least, D&D is), then it makes sense to have everyone able to contribute in combat.

If that's not the case, then it's not as necessary, and combat should run a lot faster as well. I tend to answer from a D&D-esque frame, since this is the Playground and D&D is the dominant game overall and especially here. I actually don't play that much D&D myself, and generally play less combat-centered games.

Personally, I like systems that are geared more towards letting everyone contribute all the time. In Fate, for instance, pretty much everyone can contribute to every scene - they might not be the "front line", but they can use their strengths to assist the people that are. So it handles "scholar and barbarian" not by giving each capabilities in the other area, but by allowing the skills to complement. While the scholar is negotiating, the barbarian hulks in the background adding some threat to the negotiation. And while the barbarian is squaring off, the scholar points out weaknesses and openings or other facts about the opponent that the barbarian can make use of.

They're both able, in this case, to contribute, but without taking them outside of their characterization.

I still do think, though, that a big part of problem is the degree of specialization we see in games. "Specialized vs dump stat" usually ends up with a frankly unrealistic level of differentiation. In reality, most of us can negotiate, or run, or do most common tasks. Specialists are just better. And while that works for some things (doing magic, advanced combat skills, lockpicking), that model is applied suuuuper broadly in many systems. I mean, most people that have been "adventurers" should pick up how to do typical first aid. That's somethign that most people doing outdoorsy, physical stuff learn in the real world, so why wouldn't adventurers do the same? But most systems do a poor job at expressing those types of learnings and "ambient skill pickup".

Also, add my voice to the chorus of "failures shouldn't be catastrophic except in either culminating moments, or as the result of a series of both dice and decision failures." That's actually one of my main arguments against death as the primary failure mode - it tends towards "you win, or catastrophe" model which i don't think is helpful, and ends up meaning that, practically, you win almost all of the time.

I agree with this. My answers have been from the frame of 5e D&D, which is what I play. I'll say that I don't do combat as much as many--many of the best sessions didn't have any combat at all. Others had lots. But combat is one of the many things that people should be able to contribute to. In a game where combat was either way smaller a part or non-existent, sure. Not everyone needs to be a combat monster. From what I've heard, one guy with some kind of firearm skill in Call of Cthulhu is likely enough--if you're in combat, things have already gone pear-shaped.

And to me, death as a consequence is boring. Because either way, that character's story is at an end. And it's either trivially undone (resurrection, bringing in Bob #2 via DM fiat) or it's annoying to deal with (having to drag along and deal with alternate characters, having to sit out for a session or so). When overused, it just makes me not want to invest in the character. Yet many games do just fine without the meaningful threat of character death. Characters can lose, characters can fail, they just don't die. I think I've had 4 character deaths (2 permanent ones) in 14 groups over 6-7 years. One was a SoD (got revivified the next round), one was a conflux of being hurt already and then failing a save on something that dealt max damage (he had a one-off ability to self-rez), one was failing 3 saving throws and then getting hit with a critical Extract Brain from a mind flayer (permanent, they weren't high enough level for Resurrection or True Resurrection), and one was the player ignoring all the warnings and trying to solo a CR 9 dire yeti at level 2. After being warned explicitly "running is always an option" and having the rest of the party take one look and bail. But there has been plenty of drama and threat and tension.

Telok

2021-07-23, 11:13 AM

I still do think, though, that a big part of problem is the degree of specialization we see in games. "Specialized vs dump stat" usually ends up with a frankly unrealistic level of differentiation. In reality, most of us can negotiate, or run, or do most common tasks. Specialists are just better. And while that works for some things (doing magic, advanced combat skills, lockpicking), that model is applied suuuuper broadly in many systems. I mean, most people that have been "adventurers" should pick up how to do typical first aid. That's somethign that most people doing outdoorsy, physical stuff learn in the real world, so why wouldn't adventurers do the same? But most systems do a poor job at expressing those types of learnings and "ambient skill pickup".

Much of that can be attributed to the lack of granularity in non-combat skills in many games. You often see a generic "medicine" skill that's supposed to cover first aid, disease diagnosis, open heart surgery, pharmaceutical knowledge, and forensic science. Most of that is pretty specialized so "medicine" tends to end up as either some sort of 'trained only' skill where only an M.D. can even attempt to stop bleeding or the target numbers get all whacked out (too high, too low, insane spreads, etc.) and you get nonsense or lol-random results.

D&D 3.x actually had a solution to that with the "untrained can do trained only skills at DCs 10 or less", where first aid, identifying chicken pox, and checking for a pulse were 5-10 while surgery & drug compounding are locked behind training.

HERO had an interesting take with a three way split of "everyone skills", profession skills, and the heroic use skill. The "everyone skills" were a grouping of skill/ability that everyone in a society was expected to know (and not knowing them was a small point worthy disadvantage) like driving, reading, first aid, and such. Every character got those free at 11- (3d6, roll under) or something. Profession skills were really cheap and represented anything associated with a normal profession like doctor, taxi driver, etc. They were half price and covered a range of "skills" but only applied to normal stuff (normal surgery in a staffed operating room, normal traffic shortcuts). The "regular" skills were for heroic useage like first aid on an alien creature, stunt driving during combat, and field surgery with improvised equipment.

Satinavian

2021-07-23, 11:29 AM

Personally, I like systems that are geared more towards letting everyone contribute all the time. In Fate, for instance, pretty much everyone can contribute to every scene - they might not be the "front line", but they can use their strengths to assist the people that are. So it handles "scholar and barbarian" not by giving each capabilities in the other area, but by allowing the skills to complement. While the scholar is negotiating, the barbarian hulks in the background adding some threat to the negotiation. And while the barbarian is squaring off, the scholar points out weaknesses and openings or other facts about the opponent that the barbarian can make use of.Not a fan.

If it happens organically, fine. But as soon as it looks contrieved (which happens quite easily), i would rather the others sit out. But i am one of those that want immersion above all else.

I still do think, though, that a big part of problem is the degree of specialization we see in games. "Specialized vs dump stat" usually ends up with a frankly unrealistic level of differentiation. In reality, most of us can negotiate, or run, or do most common tasks. Specialists are just better. And while that works for some things (doing magic, advanced combat skills, lockpicking), that model is applied suuuuper broadly in many systems. I mean, most people that have been "adventurers" should pick up how to do typical first aid. That's somethign that most people doing outdoorsy, physical stuff learn in the real world, so why wouldn't adventurers do the same? But most systems do a poor job at expressing those types of learnings and "ambient skill pickup".
A lot of specialisation does happen. And i am not so sure about first aid. In real world professions that are accident prone like construction or professional sports you still have only a couple of people who can do it.
Aside from that particular example, D&D has always had horrible skill systems making amateur skill levels too costly in relation to professional ones and using level-appropriate DCs that basically mean "be specialist or go home". In TDE, or SR or GURPS or Splittermond i see significantly less overspecialisation because the first couple of points are cheap(er) and still often make a difference.

kyoryu

2021-07-23, 12:00 PM

Not a fan.

If it happens organically, fine. But as soon as it looks contrieved (which happens quite easily), i would rather the others sit out. But i am one of those that want immersion above all else.

Sure. in Fate, the presumption is "it has to make sense". So if it breaks verisimillitude, it doesn't happen. OTOH, the system does have a generalized way of allowing those types of assisting actions which works really well to support them where they do make sense.

A lot of specialisation does happen. And i am not so sure about first aid. In real world professions that are accident prone like construction or professional sports you still have only a couple of people who can do it.

I off-road, and probably half of the people that do so have taken some first aid training. Same with camping or hiking. There's probably some kind of formula around it, based on the number of people, the level of organization, etc - both construction sites and professional sports teams are highly organized affairs where having someone on hand that can patch you up for minor things can be assumed and is the responsibility of the organizer.

Hiking? Mountain biking? Off-roading? Not so much. And I think "adventuring" fits more into the second category.

Aside from that particular example, D&D has always had horrible skill systems making amateur skill levels too costly in relation to professional ones and using level-appropriate DCs that basically mean "be specialist or go home". In TDE, or SR or GURPS or Splittermond i see significantly less overspecialisation because the first couple of points are cheap(er) and still often make a difference.

For sure. A 1/2 point investment in GURPS can bring a skill to a usable level, while it might take 8 or 16 to advance a more developed skill. Definitely changes the cost/benefit in comparison to a system like D&D where skill increases are linear.

Tanarii

2021-07-23, 12:01 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-23, 01:19 PM

IMO it works fine as an alternative to those % based systems like warhammer that have every skill be stat + invested skill, but some are designated Trained Only. But some people get bent out of shape by it.

Same. I think it does require much more active DM involvement for filtering which actions even need checks. So there's a lot more DM discretion as to what triggers a check in the first place. Done right, and with trust, it works great for filtering out the "wait, what?" off-kilter events. Done wrongly and it appears to be entirely fiat. On the other hand, you don't need as many (exploitable) specific rules that themselves may cause verisimilitude breaks (if the DC to know anything meaningful about an animal is 10+level, and cows are level 1 creatures, commoners will generally only know anything about cows 50% of the time. Including that they eat grass and give milk. And since bears are stronger, there's even less likely-hood of knowing anything about bears.)

Tradeoffs.

Satinavian

2021-07-23, 01:26 PM

That is why i don't like single-dice resolution systems, no matter if D20 or D100. It just don't lend themself to getting sensible results by picking proper difficulties. It is always somewhat off for at least some part of the ability spektrum.

icefractal

2021-07-23, 02:01 PM

Sure. in Fate, the presumption is "it has to make sense". So if it breaks verisimillitude, it doesn't happen. OTOH, the system does have a generalized way of allowing those types of assisting actions which works really well to support them where they do make sense.Yeah - while it's possible to go gonzo in Fate and have "I slay the ogre by posing really dramatically!" be a valid action, it's not the default.

The big difference is that the same kind of things a non-combat-oriented character could do in D&D, (but wouldn't make much difference) are as effective as anything else in Fate. For example, "I watch the enemy, try to find a weakness in their defense, and signal Ulric when to strike."
D&D: Barring a class ability, that's Aid Other, usually not a very big effect and at higher levels may be totally moot.
Fate: That's Create Advantage probably, the same thing you would get with "I use my excellent swordplay to put the enemy off guard and make an opening in their defenses". So while you probably can't deal the finishing blow yourself, you have as much impact on reaching it as anyone else.

The downside to this is that both the players and GM need to actively maintain the internal consistency and the distinction between characters. Because by the mechanics alone, almost everything is fungible.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-23, 02:07 PM

Yeah - while it's possible to go gonzo in Fate and have "I slay the ogre by posing really dramatically!" be a valid action, it's not the default.

The big difference is that the same kind of things a non-combat-oriented character could do in D&D, (but wouldn't make much difference) are as effective as anything else in Fate. For example, "I watch the enemy, try to find a weakness in their defense, and signal Ulric when to strike."
D&D: Barring a class ability, that's Aid Other, usually not a very big effect and at higher levels may be totally moot.
Fate: That's Create Advantage probably, the same thing you would get with "I use my excellent swordplay to put the enemy off guard and make an opening in their defenses". So while you probably can't deal the finishing blow yourself, you have as much impact on reaching it as anyone else.

The downside to this is that both the players and GM need to actively maintain the internal consistency and the distinction between characters. Because by the mechanics alone, almost everything is fungible.

Side note: in 5e D&D that's the Help action, which grants advantage. Which is nice and scales ok, especially if you're Help'ing the rogue (fewer, bigger attacks). But doesn't stack with itself or other sources of advantage. It does cancel out any number of sources of disadvantage, which is nice.

Telok

2021-07-23, 02:28 PM

So there's a lot more DM discretion as to what triggers a check in the first place. Done right, and with trust, it works great for filtering out the "wait, what?" off-kilter events. Done wrongly and it appears to be entirely fiat.

Part of my issue with the current flavor of D&D is that all the new DMs seem to start at "done wrong" and it's just painful to play games where all non-fighting actions are basically coin flips and fiat.

(if the DC to know anything meaningful about an animal is 10+level, and cows are level 1 creatures, commoners will generally only know anything about cows 50% of the time. Including that they eat grass and give milk. And since bears are stronger, there's even less likely-hood of knowing anything about bears.)
Thats just choosing a stupid starting point and basing he DC increase on combat ability instead of available information. If the DCs went: common/famous=3, uncommon/talked about=9, rare/unusual=15, very rare/sages only=21, unknown=nope. Then nobody would be complaining. Plus the fact that "identify" and "know useful facts" got conflated into the same thing. Even if you don't know the life cycles or feeding habits pretty much everyone can distinguish between a bear and a cow.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-23, 02:40 PM

Thats just choosing a stupid starting point and basing he DC increase on combat ability instead of available information. If the DCs went: common/famous=3, uncommon/talked about=9, rare/unusual=15, very rare/sages only=21, unknown=nope. Then nobody would be complaining. Plus the fact that "identify" and "know useful facts" got conflated into the same thing. Even if you don't know the life cycles or feeding habits pretty much everyone can distinguish between a bear and a cow.

Sure. I was merely pointing out one known failure case, 4e's Bear Lore issue. I agree that having DCs that only scale based on the task, not the "level".

But there's a lot of gradiations there as well--what's well known in one area/among one group may be unknown to others. So the Outlander Barbarian from up in Dire Bear territory may know everything about them (DC 0), while the foppish wizard from the ivory tower in SafeLand may have only ever seen a (badly-done) drawing in a natural history book. Even though the wizard may know way more about other creatures (have a higher Intelligence (Nature) bonus). Being able to adjudicate these on the fly and decide which ones are foregone conclusions based on the characters, their history, etc. makes it much smoother with fewer oddities IMX.

Tanarii

2021-07-23, 03:33 PM

Same. I think it does require much more active DM involvement for filtering which actions even need checks. So there's a lot more DM discretion as to what triggers a check in the first place. Done right, and with trust, it works great for filtering out the "wait, what?" off-kilter events. Done wrongly and it appears to be entirely fiat. On the other hand, you don't need as many (exploitable) specific rules that themselves may cause verisimilitude breaks (if the DC to know anything meaningful about an animal is 10+level, and cows are level 1 creatures, commoners will generally only know anything about cows 50% of the time. Including that they eat grass and give milk. And since bears are stronger, there's even less likely-hood of knowing anything about bears.)

Tradeoffs.
This is true for e.g. warhammer frp as well. True even for many dice pool games. Lots of them have a clause that boils down to some combination of "only roll for important things" and "only roll for things that have a chance of failure and a chance of success".

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-23, 03:56 PM

Vahnavoi

2021-07-23, 04:36 PM

Thats just choosing a stupid starting point and basing he DC increase on combat ability instead of available information. If the DCs went: common/famous=3, uncommon/talked about=9, rare/unusual=15, very rare/sages only=21, unknown=nope. Then nobody would be complaining. Plus the fact that "identify" and "know useful facts" got conflated into the same thing. Even if you don't know the life cycles or feeding habits pretty much everyone can distinguish between a bear and a cow.

I agree that basing knowledge checks on HD was dubious, but hilariously, the end results were less unrealistic than one would think (or hope). For the longest time (up to this day, really), even people living with animals had abysmal knowledge of those animals and frequently replaced facts with superstition. Things like mistaking cows for bears happened and happen. It sounds more ridiculous than it actually is - they're both big hairy quadripeds, imagine coming across one when you've only ever seen illustrations and don't have the benefit of having the other around for comparison.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-23, 04:46 PM

I agree that basing knowledge checks on HD was dubious, but hilariously, the end results were less unrealistic than one would think (or hope). For the longest time (up to this day, really), even people living with animals had abysmal knowledge of those animals and frequently replaced facts with superstition. Things like mistaking cows for bears happened and happen. It sounds more ridiculous than it actually is - they're both big hairy quadripeds, imagine coming across one when you've only ever seen illustrations and don't have the benefit of having the other around for comparison.

The problem is that rarity and HD are...not at all connected. At least with any uniformity. And not just for animals--in a "DC = 10 + HD" world, knowing the king's champion's name and favorite dish is way harder than knowing about the owner of that little dive bar 3 cities over that you've never been to. Because one has 20 HD and the other has 2. And (in a 3e world), since you can't make untrained checks above DC 10, a commoner can't know either (can't even attempt a check unless the DM decides to fiat it). Even if they're the king's champion's mistress. Or the dive bar's waitress. Even if they're level 20, unless they put at least two points into Knowledge (Local) and/or Knowledge (Nobility) [depending on details].

Plus, 3e (and 4e) had this weirdness where having Knowledge (History) let you be equi-competent at knowing the history you grew up around as well as the history of some obscure village in the middle of nowhere. Unless the DM decides to add huge circumstance modifiers[1]...which is back to DM fiat.

[1] They have to be huge, because at the normal levels we're talking about here, +-2 is nothing.

Satinavian

2021-07-24, 02:18 AM

This is true for e.g. warhammer frp as well. True even for many dice pool games. Lots of them have a clause that boils down to some combination of "only roll for important things" and "only roll for things that have a chance of failure and a chance of success".
While those hints are not bad in itself, in many cases they are just a bandaid on a system failure. If i shouldn't have a chance of failure or success, the system should reflect that already instead of "Eh, we know our rules are not much different from a cointoss so just use them only when a cointoss would work as well".

The reason not to roll should be because a roll would be a waste of time leading to a foregone conclusion, not because a roll would lead to a result straining credibility.

NichG

2021-07-24, 05:29 AM

While those hints are not bad in itself, in many cases they are just a bandaid on a system failure. If i shouldn't have a chance of failure or success, the system should reflect that already instead of "Eh, we know our rules are not much different from a cointoss so just use them only when a cointoss would work as well".

The reason not to roll should be because a roll would be a waste of time leading to a foregone conclusion, not because a roll would lead to a result straining credibility.

I like the idea some systems (for example, 2ed 7th Sea) have been developing where a roll generates resources that can be spent to do things, since it leads to a more organic form of 'degrees of success' than purely descriptive systems (e.g. 'succeed and something good', 'succeed', 'succeed with a complication' types of thing).

For example you could have monster lore mechanics like:

- You can roll against a creature type you are actively researching or whose presence you are facing in some form, at most once per game. Rolls generate a certain number of successes (think WoD dice pools, or '1 success for every 5 points of your total result', or whatever.

- For a given creature type, you have a 'knowledge level'. This starts at a 'common knowledge' level of awareness which covers things known from e.g. corpses of others who faced the creature. Spend 1 success to upgrade to Hunter Lore (signs, variations within the species, combat behaviors, things a survivor would experience), 2 more successes to upgrade to Academic Lore (biology, weaknesses, origins), 3 more for Esoterica (secrets of this individual creature, it's history of actions). Upgrades are permanent and extend to future rolls against this creature type, though the Esoterica level only applies to that specific individual.

- Spend 1 success to ask a question at your current knowledge level.

- Spend one success to ignore a single confounding factor that would be misleading or deceptive. Confounding factors will be clearly indicated, and each one that is unaddressed produces a 50% chance of obtaining misleading information (multiplicative, not additive).

- Spend 1 success to add a bonus when party members target a weak point the next time you encounter the creature. Spend 1 success to prepare something that adds a bonus to resist one of the creature's abilities that you know about. At Hunter level and above, spend 1 success to design a mixture that would be attractive/repellent to the creature...

Max_Killjoy

2021-07-24, 08:02 AM

Cluedrew

2021-07-24, 08:19 AM

NichG

2021-07-24, 08:49 AM

To NichG: Wait, so doing really well on a roll (but not in game as you aren't spending those points on immediate results) makes all future roles easier? Is once per game this character existence or per session? Wait, is this 7th Sea's actual lore system or an example you just created? But roles generating resources is definitely an option, its popular in the Powered by the Apocalypse family.

That isn't how 7th Sea 2e in particular works, it's just an ad hoc system I came up with for degree of success based knowledge. Note that spending to upgrade your familiarity would still be creature type specific. So the first time you research zombies you will know less than the eighth time you research zombies, but not because you're being asked to spend build points. That doesn't help you with dragons or behirs or whatnot though.

7th Sea 2e has a thing where you roll dice once a PC-vs-environment scene has been established, such that a single success is always enough for you to accomplish your stated goal. But extra successes can pay off consequences or purchase side-effects. So an extreme example would be that you're sailing through the perilous straits to reach the hidden Isle. Zero successes means you can't get through. One means you get through but various things develop as the scene plays out: 1. Your crew dies, 2. Your ship is lost, 3. You are greviously injured, 4. Your enemies track you through, 5. There's an opportunity to salvage another vessel which foundered in the straits. You can spend successes to activate or deactivate those consequences, which might lead to sub-scenes, new rolls, etc.

Tanarii

2021-07-24, 09:16 AM

While those hints are not bad in itself, in many cases they are just a bandaid on a system failure. If i shouldn't have a chance of failure or success, the system should reflect that already instead of "Eh, we know our rules are not much different from a cointoss so just use them only when a cointoss would work as well".

The reason not to roll should be because a roll would be a waste of time leading to a foregone conclusion, not because a roll would lead to a result straining credibility.

That neatly sums up my objection to the "only roll when it's really really uncertain what the outcome will be" thing.

I can see not rolling when success or failure is a completely foregone conclusion, and degree of success doesn't matter. To use to extreme examples, rolling to unlock a working door with a working key you've used countless times before when there's no pressure or rush (success)... or jumping off the top of a tall building with no special equipment and no powers (no amount of success on the roll will save them from plummeting to their death).

But some of these systems are taking "only roll when" dictate an order of magnitude further, and using it as a fig leaf for their mechanics being unable to handle the full span of unknown outcomes. Not that it's shocking, many systems appear designed more with novelty or "cleverness" in mind, than sound math.
They're not a band-aid, they're a time saving device. Instead of having to calculate and include every circumstance modifier until you're outside the range of success or failure, you shortcut straight to only rolling if the possibility of success or failure are within that represented by the dice.

A complaint that the span of the dice is potentially insufficient is a different matter. But if a 1% chance of success or failure isn't precise enough for you, all I can say is you do you. Personally I don't care to waste table time on randomness that's more than a 5% chance of success of failure. I'll just assume it happens automatically and move on.

Similarly, "only roll for important things" is there to make sure GMs don't fall into the trap of wasting table time when something truly doesn't matter and it's a waste of table time to figure out the result, and it's better to just trust the DMs judgement. I'm all for the neutral-referee-arbiter GM, but sometimes they're job isn't to roll for if you trip and fall every ten feet of walking through the difficult terrain of the jungle, it's to describe it happening occasionally to the clumsiest of the group, and to wait until you're fighting something to make checks.

Cluedrew

2021-07-24, 12:03 PM

Note that spending to upgrade your familiarity would still be creature type specific. So the first time you research zombies you will know less than the eighth time you research zombies, but not because you're being asked to spend build points.I understand that part. I suppose discussing the details isn't so relevant if it is a theoretical system but I have two things I would like to say about it. First is with that sort of long term consequences it should probably be folded into some sort of downtime system so you can't repeat it too often. Second, improving your ability to research something comes at the cost of being able to find useful information this time? That might be balanced but it seems a bit odd in-universe. Maybe total successes (before you start spending) causes you to level up? Ah well, if someone wants to make it they can play-test it.

They're not a band-aid, they're a time saving device. Instead of having to calculate and include every circumstance modifier until you're outside the range of success or failure, you shortcut straight to only rolling if the possibility of success or failure are within that represented by the dice.Or are the dice a band-aid for when we can't figure out if it should succeed of fail just by looking at it? Either way my general position is the same: rules don't have to apply to every situation. That's why even systems with a unified resolution mechanic will almost always tack on extra rules for certain situations. You could argue this crosses the line from merely situational to a band-aid, but I'm not sure if there is a difference other than feel.

Satinavian

2021-07-24, 12:30 PM

A complaint that the span of the dice is potentially insufficient is a different matter. But if a 1% chance of success or failure isn't precise enough for you, all I can say is you do you. Personally I don't care to waste table time on randomness that's more than a 5% chance of success of failure. I'll just assume it happens automatically and move on.
It is not that 1% or 5% is not granular enough. It is more that %-systems are bad at e.g. "needs specialized training and is too much for most hobbyists but is a routine task for any professional that should never fail for them" or similar situations. No matter where you set the difficulty, the results are always off for some characters because e.g. a 30% skill gap (which is quite huge) simply doesn't reflect the situation. The problem lies more in using an equal distribution, especcially a wide range equal distribution.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-24, 12:39 PM

It is not that 1% or 5% is not granular enough. It is more that %-systems are bad at e.g. "needs specialized training and is too much for most hobbyists but is a routine task for any professional that should never fail for them" or similar situations. No matter where you set the difficulty, the results are always off for some characters because e.g. a 30% skill gap (which is quite huge) simply doesn't reflect the situation. The problem lies more in using an equal distribution, especcially a wide range equal distribution.

But things like that are easy to handle directly before you invoke the uncertainty resolution system at all. Uncertainty-resolution systems exist to resolve uncertainty. And in those cases, there is no uncertainty. Either you're trained and equipped, in which case you succeed, or you're not, in which case you fail.

Well-designed mechanics aren't there to simulate the actual task resolution. That's a fight you can't win--no system can do that without producing absurd results most of the time (unless you narrow the range of possible tasks down to a tiny box). They're there to help the DM and players figure out what happens when the fiction doesn't have a clear answer already. And do so in a sane, quick, playable manner. And at that, flat dice + pre-roll triage (is this something worth rolling for? Is there a clear answer otherwise?) does the job plenty well, at least IMO.

Satinavian

2021-07-24, 12:59 PM

Well, if it is enough for you, good for you. It is not enough for me.

NichG

2021-07-24, 01:08 PM

I understand that part. I suppose discussing the details isn't so relevant if it is a theoretical system but I have two things I would like to say about it. First is with that sort of long term consequences it should probably be folded into some sort of downtime system so you can't repeat it too often. Second, improving your ability to research something comes at the cost of being able to find useful information this time? That might be balanced but it seems a bit odd in-universe. Maybe total successes (before you start spending) causes you to level up? Ah well, if someone wants to make it they can play-test it.

It's perhaps a reaction on my part to distance from systems that try to be exceptionally careful to ensure that e.g. all Level X (or X point) characters have the same resources, and to instead embrace the idea that the things you do at the table should matter not just to the fiction but also to the character. So the idea that characters get random permanent bonuses from even minor stuff that happens on an adventure is actually an appealing idea to me rather than a concern. Rather than seeking to ensure balance I'd rather design to support imbalance, if that makes sense.

In terms of the in-universe interpretation of this, it'd be like choosing to read broad review articles and foundational materials rather than trying to beeline to a specific answer to a specific question. Like reading about what the different parts of plants are and their order of growth and how rain, temperature, and season generally impact plants; rather than looking up whether an orange sepal in June indicates a toxic mold infection.

Tanarii

2021-07-24, 01:24 PM

Or are the dice a band-aid for when we can't figure out if it should succeed of fail just by looking at it?
Yes. At it's heart, yes. At least, that's my personal view. Dice come out when as a DM you're not sure and there needs to be some tension.

I certainly didn't always feel that way.

Telok

2021-07-24, 03:32 PM

Similarly, "only roll for important things" is there to make sure GMs don't fall into the trap of wasting table time when something truly doesn't matter and it's a waste of table time to figure out the result, and it's better to just trust the DMs judgement.

Unfortunately I've see (and once upon a time was one of) too many DMs who couldn't always be trusted with that judgement. It's to the point that I've been turning down D&D games because they keep turning into "the three stooges visit FR". We can talk on the internet about how things "should" be done, but until the system changes or the books start successfully communicating it then D&D isn't worth my time any more

Cluedrew

2021-07-24, 08:18 PM

To NichG: Designing for imbalance sounds like it could be its own thread. Not this thread though so unless someone is in the mood to start a new thread that's all I'll say for now. And the explanation is works.

To Tanarii & Telok: I'm generally all for "system matters", use the right tool for the right job and maybe don't just run D&D. Use the right tool for the right job. Also use the tool right, which is why gaming advice is probably almost as important as the actual rules. Role-playing has to much fuzziness to be explained with hard rules alone.

Quertus

2021-07-25, 03:20 AM

Regarding cows and bears, I once had a co-worker concerned about the large cat sized rats¹. I thought for a moment, and asked if they were familiar with possums.

¹ and that was even more concerning when autocorrect had it as "large car sized rats" :smallamused:

-----

Regarding "when to roll" and coin flip systems…

I'm of the opinion that if "kid with rusty knife" can one-shot Superman, that's a failure of the system to model one or both of those, and "don't roll for it" is a poor bandaid.

I like…

GM: "make a Spellcraft, DC 15."

Me: "Quertus' bonus is triple digit. And you don't auto-fail skill checks on a 1."

GM: "OK, here's what you learn."

That is, I like when, whenever possible, the system correctly models, "there is no chance of failure" and/or "there is no chance of success", rather than, "well, by the math, I've got a 69% chance of success, but I auto-fail because it's not reasonable" or "I've got no skill in jumping, but on a natural 20, I jump to the moon".

And if someone presented a character who said "I don't get involved in social things", I'd say "great. Build a different character or know that there will be times when that will cost the party." It's part of the "bring a character who wants to adventure" ground rule. Social stuff is part and parcel of adventuring. A character who doesn't want to leave his comfortable home and has to be dragged out, one who resists plot hooks[1], one who runs at the sight of combat--these are great book characters. But they're crappy in a team-focused adventuring game. Bring someone else or change the character.

I will say that if the player expresses OOC discomfort with certain areas, I won't make it a big deal. I'll actively work with them to find areas where they are comfortable engaging. But there won't be any mechanical (or otherwise) bonuses for that flaw.

Generally, putting the right person in play at the right time with the right type of approach is way bigger an effect on success than having the right mechanical buttons to push. Because character matters more than mechanics, fiction is more important than numbers. Give someone what they want and they probably won't make you work for it; there's no need to haggle when you pay the asking price.

Hmmm… there's definitely a "right person for the job" concept. But leaning too hard on that, and forcing the need for participation, is known as "this looks like a job for Aquaman". Similarly, using your(?) example of convincing the court of the threat of an Orc invasion… it would feel really *contrived* if there were any reason for Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, to speak. Realistically, he should not be the right man for the job in that scene (beyond the credibility he gives the party simply by being there).

But Quertus not saying anything is *not* the same as me not being engaged.

Looked at more generally than "Quertus and the Orcs", there are plenty of player / character / scenario combinations where a character "engaging" would be actively detrimental ("bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre" comes to mind as a humorous example of this concept).

Actions have consequences, and, sometimes, the optimal play really is to do nothing. I've seen it not just in games, but IRL, where there's a definite "please just keep your mouth closed" moment.

This one-sided "act or detriment" feels like the same mindset that led to the design failure that was 4e skill challenges. In 4e, that was mistaking "rolling the dice" (instead of "making meaningful decisions") for "playing the game". In this case, it's mistaking "taking active actions" for "engagement".

"Listening" and "paying attention" are not only the most important factors to engagement, taking action is actually actively detrimental to them. It's hard to listen while you're talking. :smallwink: More seriously, the act of thinking of a response switches gears in your head, consumes mental resources for "production" rather than pure intake, and thereby detracts from your attention.

Sometimes, choosing to do nothing is the optimal play.

Many of my characters would much rather take what they learn from the conversation, and use it later, than pointlessly engage now. Or "be mindful of the living force", and watch events unfold, prepared to act if needed (the alert bodyguard, whose ideal scenario is that they do nothing, being a perfect example, but also "fact checking" - both in the normal sense, and in a "learning secrets of the adventure that we missed / didn't occur to us until I heard you say X" way ("yeah, why *do* the orcs have a white hand symbol?")).

Just because the bodyguard didn't do anything doesn't mean he wasn't engaged.

Also… Paladins who resist the plot hook of "assassinate the good and rightful king", noncom characters who don't get in the way in a firefight, grounded characters who ask, "should we really be doing this? Is there a better way?"? They all make great characters in a team-oriented game, IME.

Well, maybe not the Paladins. They're usually kinda like Kender. So… conceptual Paladins - "knights" or such - not the D&D thought police variety.

The *player* not wanting to talk is an interesting point to bring up in a discussion of flaws. Hmmm… if taking "Teleport" is viewed as communicating to the GM that we don't want "travel" themes… then choosing "antisocial" flaws could be viewed as communicating which parts of the game the player doesn't want to engage with.

Then again, *not* taking Teleport could communicate which parts of the game the player wants to struggle with, so social flaws could indicate that the player wants their character to struggle there.

Shrug.

I think the GM *not* paying attention to such things, and letting the game flow naturally, will better serve letting the player characterize their character.

But separating the player from the character, and having player actively communicate when *they* don't want something, sounds very healthy for table culture.

HERO had an interesting take with a three way split of "everyone skills", profession skills, and the heroic use skill. The "everyone skills" were a grouping of skill/ability that everyone in a society was expected to know (and not knowing them was a small point worthy disadvantage) like driving, reading, first aid, and such. Every character got those free at 11- (3d6, roll under) or something. Profession skills were really cheap and represented anything associated with a normal profession like doctor, taxi driver, etc. They were half price and covered a range of "skills" but only applied to normal stuff (normal surgery in a staffed operating room, normal traffic shortcuts). The "regular" skills were for heroic useage like first aid on an alien creature, stunt driving during combat, and field surgery with improvised equipment.

Which edition of Hero was this?

That is why i don't like single-dice resolution systems, no matter if D20 or D100. It just don't lend themself to getting sensible results by picking proper difficulties. It is always somewhat off for at least some part of the ability spektrum.

So, I'm assuming you realize that a multiple die bell curve follows laws of probability, and that those probabilities can be mapped, and used to create target numbers for a single die. In fact, I accidentally crafted such a single-die system once.

So what do you actually dislike here?

EDIT: oh, maybe I get it. So, what if a percentile system had things like,

Dr. Benson
Medicine: 650%

Where "doing surgery" was a "-500%" difficulty?

So, unlike less skilled individuals, they wouldn't even need to roll for trivial tasks like "put on a bandaid", and could probably still do so successfully while taking huge "____ing drunk" penalties.

icefractal

2021-07-25, 03:29 AM

The issue I have with "only roll when it's important" is that often it leads to vastly different competence depending on whether a roll is called for or not. For example:

Bob is an 'Expert' in electronics, and sometimes that means he can just automatically do things in line with that, no roll needed. But when he does roll, he only has a 60% chance to succeed at basic tasks, a 35% chance to do something complex, and a random guy off the street can end up doing better than him with unlucky/lucky rolls.

To me, this makes it feel more like "I succeed/fail based on the GM's mood" or "I succeed/fail based on whether I can manipulate the GM into not asking for a roll" rather than stemming from the character.

I realize this does emulate a trope in fiction where characters are super-competent in background / establishing scenes, but then when it's actually important they're always just on the edge of success/failure to keep things dramatic. However, I don't really like that trope, so, not much of a selling point.

Satinavian

2021-07-25, 03:50 AM

So, I'm assuming you realize that a multiple die bell curve follows laws of probability, and that those probabilities can be mapped, and used to create target numbers for a single die. In fact, I accidentally crafted such a single-die system once.
You actually can't do that or, to be more precise, any such kind of mapping would depend on the skill level-difficulty difference and not be universal.

But what i want is :
a) standard deviation small compared to skill impact and also small compared to range of results
b) circumstance modifiers changing usefulness depending on challenge.

to illustrate the latter :

assume you have an easy 2d10+mod against DC system. DC is 20. Now you have a characters A,B,C with mods 2, 10, 15. Chances are 6%, 55% and 15%

Now you get some costly "tool bonus" of 2. That one would give A an additional 9%, B an an additional 17 % and C also only 9%. Or to summarize, an amateur with good stuff is still an amateur and a real professional can do well under bad circumstances but expert with a challanging task profits most from extra preparation, good materials, and tools.

Your exapmle would solve the first part of point a. While that is really important, it easily leads to a system with nearly only automatic successes/failures. But as the whole reason to roll at all is introducing uncertainty, that might be too much.

Now there are also systems that allows players to influence the range of possible results. Usually in the form of "you can avoid any freak accidants but the extra time to doublecheck and keeping extra close to established patterns also kills your chance for spectacular success and lowers the average a bit". Which is also nice as it gives players choices and might provide routine sucesses for easy routine tasks on the way.

NorthernPhoenix

2021-07-25, 10:14 AM

It depends on the genre but generally, in a game about larger than life characters, i wouldn't personally chose to have detailed crunch be a thing for character flaws beyond the immediately obvious (i.e. if you are blind you literally cannot see, but i wouldn't fiddle with modifiers beyond that). Instead, i would prefer if people were rewarded in some way for playing to their character flaws.

kyoryu

2021-07-25, 12:25 PM

Well, if it is enough for you, good for you. It is not enough for me.

I think it comes down to one of two views:

1) The rules are the "physics" of the world. Interactions with the world should be done via rules, and rules drive the "machinery" of the game.

2) Rules exist to help resolve places of ambiguity. The "physics" of the game is primarily our imagination, and we use rules as aids to help when needed.

Both are valid, but they're pretty incompatible views.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-07-25, 01:11 PM

I think it comes down to one of two views:

1) The rules are the "physics" of the world. Interactions with the world should be done via rules, and rules drive the "machinery" of the game.

2) Rules exist to help resolve places of ambiguity. The "physics" of the game is primarily our imagination, and we use rules as aids to help when needed.

Both are valid, but they're pretty incompatible views.

And some systems lean harder into one than the other. I doubt that most Fate players think of the rules as the physics. The rules and mechanics are there to encourage and enable the type of genre and narrative the system wants, not to model anything physical.

Even editions of D&D have changed--the current 5e DMG has this to say on the matter:

Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.

[skip two sections on two different extremes, rolling for everything and rolling for as little as possible]

The Middle Path
Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.

Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

Dice and rules, by explicit RAW, are not in charge. They're tools to help keep the action moving. That's all. That's their role. To resolve uncertainty and to be used if and when needed.

The PHB, in the How to Play section of the introduction, has this to say:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment.

The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do.

Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

Note the phrasings "The DM...decides how to resolve those actions" and "the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die". Not always, not "the rules decide how to resolve an action", but "the DM decides, with the support of the dice if needed."

Other game systems take other paths. Which is fine. One is not better or worse globally, just for a certain group and a certain purpose.

Telok

2021-07-25, 08:00 PM

Which edition of Hero was this?

3rd. Although it may not be perfectly explicit, just the way I internalized the differences.

Even editions of D&D have changed--the current 5e DMG has this to say on the matter:

That's nice and all, but... My experience with that has been a flashback to the 80s when a bunch of teens were trying to run games with just the PH & MM. It's like...

You know how people like to compare the rules to a computer UI? Well there are ones that set default options and automatically do stuff for you, and others where you have to specify everything and have no guardrails. Save a file and the first type picks a unique name, and defaults to putting the file in a 'downloads' directory. Second type you have to enter the filename & location yourself, and it will overwrite existing files without warning. D&D 5e is more like the second, there's no safe & effective default behavior built into the system.

With an experienced DM I'm sure 5e is fine. With inexperienced DMs, if they don't know whether or not to roll the system says "roll when there is uncertainty" so they call for a roll. Then they need a DC. If they don't know what DC they look to the guidance, which is "choose easy, normal, or hard". Well they already didn't know so they choose the average/normal one. Keep in mind we can't assume any knowledge of statistics, I've had a DM tell me that three 30% chances equaled a 90% chance because that's how adding worked. They don't know when a system makes a check do 20% high level expert fails & 20% random 6 year old child succeeds.

Like when I write the UI for a new program component. I can't assume the users will really understand all the interactions or even read all the instructions. I have to make the default actions and options things that just work. In D&D the default of "DM doesn't know how to adjucate PCs something" is "roll a check at the listed DC", but in 5e that isn't the good option.