New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 104
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wyoming

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Honestly, as I read the thread I am surprised how many people have the GM narrate results rather than the players!

    I am surprised by that.
    *This Space Available*

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Not everyone wants to run a game where a check is inherently a narrative mechanic. DMs are free to describe the outcomes and consequences of a check in terms of a character or anything in the game world. Players, if it's not a narrative game, don't. That means if they describe outcomes at least, they're limited to outcomes related to something their character did right or wrong.

    And even then, it's very hard to restrict an outcome to the character only, because they're usually trying to affect the game world.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy e View Post
    Honestly, as I read the thread I am surprised how many people have the GM narrate results rather than the players!

    I am surprised by that.
    That's what fits (in 5e at least) the most basic game loop:

    Quote Originally Posted by 5e PHB Ch 1, How to Play
    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.
    Fundamentally, players do not narrate results. They only describe attempts. That may or may not be 1st person and may or may not be detailed. But players don't have the authority to say "Grog does <X>", they only have the authority to say "Grog tries to do <X>".

    DMs may delegate parts of step 3 to the player (a la "how do you want to do it?"), but that's still fully subject to their ultimate authority and responsibility for the description and the narration.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wyoming

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    That's what fits (in 5e at least) the most basic game loop:



    Fundamentally, players do not narrate results. They only describe attempts. That may or may not be 1st person and may or may not be detailed. But players don't have the authority to say "Grog does <X>", they only have the authority to say "Grog tries to do <X>".

    DMs may delegate parts of step 3 to the player (a la "how do you want to do it?"), but that's still fully subject to their ultimate authority and responsibility for the description and the narration.
    Thanks for sharing this and that explains a lot of how many D&D players have been conditioned to play TTRPGs.

    It is amazing to me how much the initial TTRPG experiences shape how players see the "right and wrong" ways to play TTRPGs. Instead, it is mostly learned behavior and preference. Fascinating.
    *This Space Available*

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Yes, it's a conditioned thing. But from my experience, it's also what the vast majority of players want. They generally don't want to control the world. They want the GMs to tell them what happens when they try to do something. Because as everyone has GMd knows, it's a lot of mental overhead.

    It's not global, and it's not universal even within those that generally want outcomes and consequences handled by the GM.

    Anyone who has GMd should be able to handle a narrative game. That doesn't mean they all want to, sometimes they need a break from it. But I'd expect they'd be more inclined to it, since their "conditioning" allows them to do it.

    And even those players that generally want to have the GM handle outcomes and consequences will often presuppose the success and effect when declaring an action, as opposed to just stating their intent and approach.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    GitP, obviously
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Yes, it's a conditioned thing. But from my experience, it's also what the vast majority of players want. They generally don't want to control the world.
    I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here, but this small part about players not wanting any control of the world doesn’t really feel right.

    I do think that most players are comfortable with this discussed sequence and outcome, but also than that (especially new players) don’t really know how to make their mark without stepping on the DM’s creativity proverbial toes.

    I specifically had a problem with this when I first started (and several other areas; I was a craptastic new player).
    Something Borrowed - Submission Thread (5e subclass contest)

    TeamWork Makes the Dream Work 5e Base Class Submission Thread




  7. - Top - End - #67
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    While I'm fine playing narrative games with shared world control, my default assumption is the GM controlling the world while the players control their PCs. And more often that not, that's what I'm looking for, because exploring the fictional world is one of my fun-sources in TTRPGs, and exploring something that you yourself are creating isn't really the same.

    That said, I think most people assume their character's success at simple actions ("I shout 'enough excuses!' and kick open the door!" vs "I attempt to shout 'enough excuses!' ... *wait for response* ... and then try to kick open the door.") because rollback is preferable to awkward pausing there.

    And for that matter, a lot of actions are phrased as completed with the understanding that the GM will treat it as an attempt. For example:
    Player: "I leap off the balcony and drive my spear into the dragon from above." (rolls a miss)
    GM: "You land squarely on the dragon, but your spear glances off its steel-like scales, barely leaving a scratch."

    Even though that's technically not phrased as an "attempt", most people would read that as a normal interaction, rather than as the player declaring that their attack must hit.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-31 at 04:46 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Yes exactly. And if you're not careful as a DM, or as a player in a narrative game, those declarations of assumed success lead to an assumption that if the roll fails, it's because of some (hilarious) blooper on the characters part.

    Ideally before calling for a check, a GM should known the Intent and Approach based on the players declaration, and know the Outcomes and Consequences of success/failure (and possibly critical success/failure, or incremental success, etc). But of course we don't always do that. Half the time we're winging it, because players declare the damndest things.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Half the time we're winging it, because players declare the damndest things.
    Half? You're being generous.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Stonehead's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy e View Post
    Honestly, as I read the thread I am surprised how many people have the GM narrate results rather than the players!

    I am surprised by that.
    I wonder if everything that's said after the dice hit the table is considered part of the "results" or not. Because a player describing how their character smashes down the door with a headbutt is different than a player describing what they see on the other side of the now smashed door.

    Consider the following example:
    Player: "I want to jump the chasm."
    DM: "Ok, roll Acrobatics."
    *nat 20*
    DM: "Crit success"
    Player: "I do a backflip across to show off to the other party members."
    DM: "After landing safely on the other side, you see..."

    Would anyone here consider that the player narrating the results? The player still doesn't have any control over the game world, only over their character.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Stonehead View Post
    Would anyone here consider that the player narrating the results? The player still doesn't have any control over the game world, only over their character.
    Agreed. That's a good example. But the downside to that is that a failure always means the PC has to describe how they messed up. It can't be something outside the character.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    In the case of diplomacy, it'd usually make more sense for the GM to describe the outcome rather than the player, because although it's a roll for the player it's really the NPC's reaction that's relevant - the same speech could convince one person but not another.

    And I find that it's usually not necessary to assume the PC did anything stupid when they fail, it's just that the person they're trying to convince is too cautious/suspicious/stubborn, or happens to be unreceptive to them in particular. I guess if they rolled extremely badly that could represent a notable screw-up.

    The roll can really be considered as a guide for how to interpret their argument as the NPC. Enough to make them friendly? Interpret things in a positive light, ignore mistakes when possible, etc. Low, they're unfriendly or even hostile? Assume anything they say is potentially a lie, and that they may well be fools or have ill intent.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-11-02 at 05:37 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Half? You're being generous.
    Which reminds me, did anyone get adopted last time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Agreed. That's a good example. But the downside to that is that a failure always means the PC has to describe how they messed up. It can't be something outside the character.
    Some players really get into that, and some don't.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-11-02 at 07:19 AM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Ideally before calling for a check, a GM should known the Intent and Approach based on the players declaration, and know the Outcomes and Consequences of success/failure (and possibly critical success/failure, or incremental success, etc).
    So… while I agree in the general case, I don’t actually agree for “ideal”. IMO, in the idea circumstance, the GM needn’t know the Intent at all, and can simply run game physics on the stated actions, and get to be surprised at the results. “Down, Down, Up, B? But that’s the standing backflip. Why would you want to do a standing back flip at the edge of the chasm?”

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So… while I agree in the general case, I don’t actually agree for “ideal”. IMO, in the idea circumstance, the GM needn’t know the Intent at all, and can simply run game physics on the stated actions, and get to be surprised at the results. “Down, Down, Up, B? But that’s the standing backflip. Why would you want to do a standing back flip at the edge of the chasm?”
    I disagree with that, simply because no game system has fine enough resolution to really handle that level of detail.

    I mean, that works great for situations that match up with the "arrow model" of action resolution - the PC has a lot of uninterrupted control of the setup of the action, they perform some action, and then some result unfolds.

    Lots of actions - maybe most - aren't like that. If you're trying to grapple someone near a cliff, for instance. Maybe you want to toss them off a cliff, maybe you don't. Either way, lots of things are happening during the resolution of that action, and the ultimate intent of the character is going to impact those things. No system can really capture all of those little things... perhaps one could give the player control over what results they get, but these systems are also accused of being "meta".

    Conversations, especially, are exchanges. They're a back and forth. You say stuff, see how people respond, and then adjust to get closer to your desired outcome.

    The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wyoming

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Excellent point about "exchanges" and conversations. That is what goes on when you let a player narrate results, but the GM has ultimate say in setting the final reality.

    Here is how it has worked for me in the past. *Long winded example ahead*

    Player: I want to jump the chasm.
    GM: Great, that is an acrobatics check
    Player: <Rolls dice> I got a 17
    GM: That is a success.
    Player: Great, I step back a few feet, take a running start, and leap across the chasm with a single stride. When I get to the other side, I attach a rope and throw it back across to my team on the other side.
    GM: Great, you do manage to leap across the chasm. However, when you get to the other side, you slide on the loose rock and barely manage to keep your feet. So, you want to look for a place to secure a rope?

    Or:

    Player: <Rolls dice> I got a 9.
    GM: That is a failure.
    Player: Urgh, I do not want to fall into the chasm. Ummm.... I guess a I take a few steps back, start my run, but just as I get ready to jump I loose my nerve and pull up. I tip toe to the edge and look over the edge, and then say, "Heck no am I jumping that" as I point down.
    GM: Ha, ha. Nice. Okay, you lurch to a stop just before getting to the edge. However, your momentum carries you a bit too far, and your torch falls from you hand and down into the blackness below..... and it keeps falling.
    Player: "Heck no am I jumping that!"
    GM: Great, now what?
    *This Space Available*

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Stonehead's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Agreed. That's a good example. But the downside to that is that a failure always means the PC has to describe how they messed up. It can't be something outside the character.
    I would hardly consider that a downside, but my tastes aren't universal.

    I will say though, I don't think it means you always have to. If the player doesn't have any additional input on how their character jumps the chasm, they just keep quiet and the GM goes straight into describing the other side. Similarly, if the player doesn't want to describe their character's failures, the GM can go straight into describing the consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I disagree with that, simply because no game system has fine enough resolution to really handle that level of detail.

    I mean, that works great for situations that match up with the "arrow model" of action resolution - the PC has a lot of uninterrupted control of the setup of the action, they perform some action, and then some result unfolds.

    Lots of actions - maybe most - aren't like that. If you're trying to grapple someone near a cliff, for instance. Maybe you want to toss them off a cliff, maybe you don't. Either way, lots of things are happening during the resolution of that action, and the ultimate intent of the character is going to impact those things. No system can really capture all of those little things... perhaps one could give the player control over what results they get, but these systems are also accused of being "meta".

    Conversations, especially, are exchanges. They're a back and forth. You say stuff, see how people respond, and then adjust to get closer to your desired outcome.

    The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.
    I 100% agree with this. Actions are "inputted" through language, which is famously vague and imprecise. The "Game Physics" are handled by peoples' imaginations, and sometimes some math. It's never going to be a purely deterministic system because people are inconsistent creatures.

    Understanding the player's intent is important to cover the gaps between what the player meant by the words they said, and what the GM assumed those words meant. Same thing in reverse for the game world.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I disagree with that, simply because no game system has fine enough resolution to really handle that level of detail.

    I mean, that works great for situations that match up with the "arrow model" of action resolution - the PC has a lot of uninterrupted control of the setup of the action, they perform some action, and then some result unfolds.

    Lots of actions - maybe most - aren't like that. If you're trying to grapple someone near a cliff, for instance. Maybe you want to toss them off a cliff, maybe you don't. Either way, lots of things are happening during the resolution of that action, and the ultimate intent of the character is going to impact those things. No system can really capture all of those little things... perhaps one could give the player control over what results they get, but these systems are also accused of being "meta".

    Conversations, especially, are exchanges. They're a back and forth. You say stuff, see how people respond, and then adjust to get closer to your desired outcome.

    The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.
    Deliberately want to hide information from the GM? Definitely. Adversarial GM? Not so much.

    Explaining how I’m moving troops, I don’t tell the GM that I left my left flank exposed (or whether I did so on purpose); I let them roleplay the opponents’ reaction. (The GM in question actually pointed out my “error”, and I just smiled in response, and did not take the opportunity they gave me to change my declared actions. Good times.)

    In a conversation, I don’t tell you whether I said something “stupid” to check whether you were paying attention, to evaluate whether you’re the type to correct me (and how), as a way to ask your opinion on the topic, because I misspoke, because it’s secretly not as dumb as it sounds, or because I really am just that dumb. I just take the “say something stupid” action, and you respond accordingly, in ignorance of my intent.

    Cris Johnson certainly didn’t tell Liz Copper that he let himself get beat up on purpose, let alone why.

    So, no, I don’t feel that stating “Intention” is part of optimal play. If your GM is good enough, actions can speak louder than words about those actions. But I otherwise agree that it’s good in the general case.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2022-11-02 at 12:00 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Stonehead View Post
    I 100% agree with this. Actions are "inputted" through language, which is famously vague and imprecise. The "Game Physics" are handled by peoples' imaginations, and sometimes some math. It's never going to be a purely deterministic system because people are inconsistent creatures.

    Understanding the player's intent is important to cover the gaps between what the player meant by the words they said, and what the GM assumed those words meant. Same thing in reverse for the game world.
    Even if you had a game system that was detailed and precise enough to actually just handle "input" sufficiently, and it was still fast enough to actually work, then it would end up requiring players to basically become experts in each skill (oh, I want to make this guy go down without moving further, which exact grab and takedown should I use, again?)

    Though, the PbtA-esque "okay, you succeeded, here's some options for what that means" is an interesting option as well. But a lot of people seem to feel that's narrative/meta/whatever for some reason. I think there's this idea that the "arrow model" of task resolution is actually an ideal universal model. And I just find it lacking.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    The only real reason that I can see, for any practical use, to prefer not declaring your intent is if you are presuming an adversarial GM and deliberately want to hide information from the GM.
    If the DM doesn't know the Intent as well as the Approach, they can't properly determine the Outcomes and Consequences. Depending on the system, they may not even be able to determine the method of Resolution.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    If the DM doesn't know the Intent as well as the Approach, they can't properly determine the Outcomes and Consequences. Depending on the system, they may not even be able to determine the method of Resolution.
    I’ve told you where I moved my chess piece - are you telling me you honestly cannot move your piece without me telling you my Intent?

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I’ve told you where I moved my chess piece - are you telling me you honestly cannot move your piece without me telling you my Intent?
    TTRPGs are not and cannot be chess. They are utterly different both conceptually and operationally. For one thing, the DM is not the opponent of the players. Not even when he is voicing the antagonists.

    Beyond that, chess has implied intent and closed rules (every possible interaction is defined in the rules and anything else is forbidden). Neither of those apply to a TTRPG.

    I reject the relevance of the analogy.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So… while I agree in the general case, I don’t actually agree for “ideal”. IMO, in the idea circumstance, the GM needn’t know the Intent at all, and can simply run game physics on the stated actions, and get to be surprised at the results. “Down, Down, Up, B? But that’s the standing backflip. Why would you want to do a standing back flip at the edge of the chasm?”
    "I take out my whittling knife and one of the logs and craft a..."

    Of course you often need intent. Or do you think, having detailed description of the log and every knife move and requiring both player and GM to have deep knowledge about whittling and properties of wood and wasting an hour of game time on details no one cares about would really be more ideal ?

    Rules tend to maintain a level of abstraction for good reasons. But that always also means that certain very different actions and different circumstances are handled the same rules-wise. And that different outcomes are also handled the same rules-wise (most crafting rules e.g. only care for price and quality if you have the needed materials and tools). Intend is necessary to decide what actually happens.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    "I take out my whittling knife and one of the logs and craft a..."

    Of course you often need intent. Or do you think, having detailed description of the log and every knife move and requiring both player and GM to have deep knowledge about whittling and properties of wood and wasting an hour of game time on details no one cares about would really be more ideal ?

    Rules tend to maintain a level of abstraction for good reasons. But that always also means that certain very different actions and different circumstances are handled the same rules-wise. And that different outcomes are also handled the same rules-wise (most crafting rules e.g. only care for price and quality if you have the needed materials and tools). Intend is necessary to decide what actually happens.
    Sigh. “Often” is not “always”. Never considered the possibility that I was being pedantic, and claiming that I considered it “optimal” when we were at those exceptions? Because the post I was referring to referenced “optimal”, and I said I agreed in the general case, just not in the optimal case.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    TTRPGs are not and cannot be chess. They are utterly different both conceptually and operationally. For one thing, the DM is not the opponent of the players. Not even when he is voicing the antagonists.

    Beyond that, chess has implied intent and closed rules (every possible interaction is defined in the rules and anything else is forbidden). Neither of those apply to a TTRPG.

    I reject the relevance of the analogy.
    You know, there’s a habit on these boards to find any difference between the example and the reality, and use that to reject the example, without actually demonstrating that the difference is relevant, or that the example isn’t still applicable. It’s like the thought version of an ad hominem.

    And I already gave another example, of “I told you how I deployed my troops, I don’t need to point out that I left my left flank open, or whether it was by Intent, for you to roleplay the opposition, do I?”

    Given that that was an RPG, by all means, prove how ”I moved units” is substantially different from the chess example of “I moved units”, and that therefore your rejection of the chess example is valid. I’ll wait.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    TTRPGs are not and cannot be chess. They are utterly different both conceptually and operationally. For one thing, the DM is not the opponent of the players. Not even when he is voicing the antagonists.

    Beyond that, chess has implied intent and closed rules (every possible interaction is defined in the rules and anything else is forbidden). Neither of those apply to a TTRPG.

    I reject the relevance of the analogy.
    There are some people that want RPGs to be, effectively, Chess, and to remove any interpretive role of the GM. They believe that any time the GM has to interpret/make a ruling/etc. is a failure case of the game.

    Often, they accept that GM rulings are necessary given the current state of technology and time to run a game, but fervently desire that to not be the case.

    I'm.... not one of those people.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    And I already gave another example, of “I told you how I deployed my troops, I don’t need to point out that I left my left flank open, or whether it was by Intent, for you to roleplay the opposition, do I?”
    If the task is "giving an order to a military unit", the corresponding Intent is that the unit does what you want them to. A failure judged against that Intent would be the unit somehow misinterpreting your orders (e.g., by charging the wrong guns) or the unit refusing to carry them out.

    There might be a call for another check later, depending on the complexity of whatever you have planned for that flank.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-11-04 at 04:52 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    If the task is "giving an order to a military unit", the corresponding Intent is that the unit does what you want them to. A failure judged against that Intent would be the unit somehow misinterpreting your orders (e.g., by charging the wrong guns) or the unit refusing to carry them out.

    There might be a call for another check later, depending on the complexity of whatever you have planned for that flank.
    The task was “winning a war”. My method was “troop movements that left my left flank open” (though obviously not worded as such). Stating my Intent would have been as counterproductive as stating my Intent with a Chess move.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    In such a situation as GM i would still make sure there is no misunderstanding if a player seems to do something such risky. Additionally, if the character had high enough warfare skill (or rolled high enough), i would explicitly warn him that the left flank would be open if he did so.

    That is very different from chess, even if the rules handled unit movement pretty clearly.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    The task was “winning a war”. My method was “troop movements that left my left flank open” (though obviously not worded as such). Stating my Intent would have been as counterproductive as stating my Intent with a Chess move.
    In this context, 'task' is the specific thing you're rolling for, not the bigger objective you're doing that thing in support of. If you defined the task as "winning a war", your table wouldn't concern itself with specific troop movements or even battles -- it'd just be an opposed strategy check against the enemy faction and then you'd narrate the victory of whoever rolled higher.

    Intent is literally just "this is what I want to achieve with this specific dice roll". Without it, there is no way to determine what success and failure mean. It's true that you don't always need it, but the results aren't always good. For example, "I jump over the chasm to the ledge" -- natural 20 -- "That's a 45, so you land gracefully on the far side, completely avoiding the spiked wall behind it. What do you want to do next?" vs. "I jump over the chasm to the ledge" -- natural 20 -- "That gives you a jumping distance of 40 feet, which is far further than the width of the chasm and the ledge, so you slam face-first into the spiked wall behind it and die horribly. Roll a new character."
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-11-04 at 07:19 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    In such a situation as GM i would still make sure there is no misunderstanding if a player seems to do something such risky. Additionally, if the character had high enough warfare skill (or rolled high enough), i would explicitly warn him that the left flank would be open if he did so.

    That is very different from chess, even if the rules handled unit movement pretty clearly.
    That’s your good, and was the good of the GM in question.

    The difference there is that the entirety of “Chess” is encapsulated by the board state, whereas, in an RPG, communication and (theoretically) shared mental landscapes are involved. So the “checking for misunderstanding” is a property of how they differ; whereas “not needing to explain Intent” is a property of how they’re similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    In this context, 'task' is the specific thing you're rolling for, not the bigger objective you're doing that thing in support of. If you defined the task as "winning a war", your table wouldn't concern itself with specific troop movements or even battles -- it'd just be an opposed strategy check against the enemy faction and then you'd narrate the victory of whoever rolled higher.
    The results of comparing the troop movements apply a bonus or penalty to the “results of the war” roll?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •