New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 104 of 104
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Yes, i probably would not need to know the intent in this case to handle the situation. But it would be interesting anyway and it would not be harmful if i knew it was because the player thinks "Our maneuver is too fast for the enemy to exploit it", "It's a trap. I want them to attack", "You know, actually i like the other side more and that is the perfect opportunity to turn coat", "Eh, they are weakened and can't attack the flank anyway"

    As said, i would not need to know, but the GM is a player as well and might derive pleasure from deeper understanding of what is going on. Similarly, i sometimes tell my players afterwards what really happened and they missed, if they didn't find out.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    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 results of comparing the troop movements apply a bonus or penalty to the “results of the war” roll?
    Framing something as a task implies that you're not particularly concerned (from a mechanical perspective, at least) with any details finer than it. So a "win the war" task means folding years of intelligence-gathering, logistics, troop movements, supply-line raids, magic, etc into a single dice roll. It's the grand strategy equivalent of resolving a swordfight as an opposed Swords check.

    If you're actually commanding armies, moving troops, raiding supply lines, etc. as a player, then the war isn't won by a "Win the war" task, it's won by winning.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-11-04 at 12:00 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Yes, i probably would not need to know the intent in this case to handle the situation. But it would be interesting anyway and it would not be harmful if i knew it was because the player thinks "Our maneuver is too fast for the enemy to exploit it", "It's a trap. I want them to attack", "You know, actually i like the other side more and that is the perfect opportunity to turn coat", "Eh, they are weakened and can't attack the flank anyway"

    As said, i would not need to know, but the GM is a player as well and might derive pleasure from deeper understanding of what is going on. Similarly, i sometimes tell my players afterwards what really happened and they missed, if they didn't find out.
    Oh, definitely! It can certainly be fun to learn what people were thinking after the fact (if it doesn’t become obvious in play). It’s just not necessary to know in order to resolve the action.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Framing something as a task implies that you're not particularly concerned (from a mechanical perspective, at least) with any details finer than it. So a "win the war" task means folding years of intelligence-gathering, logistics, troop movements, supply-line raids, magic, etc into a single dice roll. It's the grand strategy equivalent of resolving a swordfight as an opposed Swords check.
    Pardon the stupid question, but… if it’s not “I pick the lock (base 75% success) with improvised tools (-50% success)”, if the math-affecting details don’t belong here… where do they belong?

    The roll is “the outcome of the war battle (oops)”, the modifiers are formulated from details that start with “I position my troops thusly”, and include interactions based on the proceeding moves.

    If it has been an “oops”, and I was just bluffing with my smile and refusal to change my deployment even when the error was pointed out to me, and the opposition has capitalized on that error, it would have been a huge penalty to the roll.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    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
    Pardon the stupid question, but… if it’s not “I pick the lock (base 75% success) with improvised tools (-50% success)”, if the math-affecting details don’t belong here… where do they belong?
    It's not a silly question, I phrased what I was saying pretty badly. Let's go back to the swordfight example:

    If the jarl is frantically trying to disarm his own champion -- before either the champion kills him or the jarl's berserkers arrive -- you could easily go with "both of you, roll Swords" and narrate an outcome depending on who wins and how decisively. Perhaps it's a minor defeat for the jarl, so the GM narrates him receiving a moderate wound and being unable to intervene as the berserkers burst into the room and execute his best friend right in front of him. You can certainly consider details -- maybe +2 dice for the champion since he's wearing armour, +1 because his Kriegsmesser has longer reach than the jarl's broadsword, and +1 because he is far more willing to harm his adversary, but you wouldn't be resolving individual moves or sword swings, or even D&D-style handwavey 'attacks'.

    If you instead turned to the game's combat system, there wouldn't be an opposed Swords check any more -- you'd see the Jarl fail a parry on round four, roll for injury yielding a moderate wound to the torso, and on round five the berserkers would arrive. Once you've broken out the combat system, the actions you declare become more limited in scope. The jarl's goals here are to survive and prevent his friend's death, but he's rolling for things like parries (Intent: turn aside my friend's attack without returning it. Approach: block my enemy's weapon with my own). Perhaps he tries to disarm his friend (Intent: my friend is no longer holding a sword. Approach: I try to close in and bind up his sword with my own, then wrest it from his hands). Perhaps he goes for a tackle (Intent: my friend falls to the floor, and hopefully loses his sword too. Approach: I want to slip past his blade, grab him, and throw him to the floor). But even if he fails the disarm, he can go for the tackle -- or even use a later round to try the disarm again.

    The same sort of thing goes for a battle. If you're resolving a battle quickly without breaking out any mass combat rules, then you give a brief description of what you want to achieve and the GM considers all apparently relevant details to decide what you need to roll and come up with an idea for what the consequences might be (if you were exposing your army's flank in this scenario, you absolutely would need to call attention to it, because this simply isn't that precise a resolution method and things like that would normally just be glossed over). At least to me, the example of deploying your army with an exposed left flank strongly implies that you have broken out the mass combat rules, from which it follows that the tasks you're defining are much more limited in scope -- "send troops to hold this position"; or "relieve the right flank with a cavalry charge", for example.

    Also, I've never even held a sword, so apologies if the swordfight is nonsensical.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-11-04 at 07:25 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    "I attack X" has both implied Intent (do damage/effects to x) and implied Approach (with your weapon). The GM can then Resolve using any system combat rules, before moving on to Outcomes (damage/effects) and Consequences (maybe they run away, attack you back, ignore your pitiful attack and move to clobber an ally, etc).

    It's just a really simple process that flows through the process easily with (usually) predefined Resolution.

    As soon as you start getting into universal systems like Ability Checks or Skills, this usually goes out the window. Because "I persuade X" doesn't give either Intent (what?) or Approach (how?). The GM may not be able to apply the universal system, especially if it has assumptions like:
    1) don't roll if it's automatically successful or failure
    2) GM chooses resolution method from a variety of options depending on Intent and especially Approach.

    Your "I persuade" may not require a roll, or might not even include the ability check/skill/resolution method you were thinking would apply when you declared the activity. (For example it might actually be an attempt to Deceive, or Perform, or Orate, or Fellowship, or even something not normally socially related.)

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Yeah, a parry or a disarm doesn't necessarily need to be explained beyond "I try to parry" or "I try to disarm him". In the swordfight example above, a GM would hopefully also realise from the context that they should check before turning it into a potential lethal riposte or counterattack. I doubt I'm the only player of TTRPGs who isn't really sure precisely how you'd use a sword to disarm an opponent who was wielding a much larger one (although to be fair, when I wrote the disarm, I probably had them wielding similar blades), so this is pretty helpful.

    As for "I persuade him", it might be acceptable, if the context makes it clear what you want to persuade 'him' of, but I'd probably want to hear at least a little more than that.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    “I persuade my mommy to feed me… by crying my hungry cry.” vs “I cry my hungry cry”.

    “I confirm that they have ‘seemingly omniscient’ knowledge of the battlefield… by leaving my left flank exposed (when they shouldn’t be able to notice that through conventional means).” vs “<actions that leave my left flank exposed>”.

    “I trick them to deploy the units I need to wipe out first… by leaving my left flank exposed (in a scenario where those units would be best suited to capitalizing on that ‘mistake’)” vs “<actions that leave my left flank exposed>”.

    “I attempt to get arrested, buying time for my team to deal with the assassin that is after me… by attacking <someone>” vs “I attack <someone>”.

    “I attempt to clue in a faction that I’m forbidden to interact with directly (and that maybe wouldn’t believe me if I told them)… by taking an out of character action of attacking <someone>” vs “I attack <someone>”.

    “I get my opponents to stop actively searching for their missing friends (after making sure that the plan will continue without my further involvement)… by letting myself get captured” vs “I stand and fight”.

    “I attempt to keep my friend the jarl alive… by utilizing nonlethal incapication methods like ‘disarm’ and ‘grapple’” vs “I respond with playbook [disarm, grapple, <strike to subdue>, <movie head trauma>]”

    I find it optimal when I don’t need to state the intent, when the outcome flows naturally from the stated actions. Yes, sometimes you have to state the intent, but I always consider that suboptimal. Whether because the GM is clueless, I am clueless (see “never even held a sword before, don’t know what moves would cause what “), there’s bad communication between myself and the GM, or the scenario just isn’t adequately fleshed out and 3-dimensional enough to be interacted with, needing to state Intent is a sign of the suboptimal.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2022-11-05 at 06:36 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    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
    I find it optimal when I don’t need to state the intent, when the outcome flows naturally from the stated actions. Yes, sometimes you have to state the intent, but I always consider that suboptimal. Whether because the GM is clueless, I am clueless (see “never even held a sword before, don’t know what moves would cause what “), there’s bad communication between myself and the GM, or the scenario just isn’t adequately fleshed out and 3-dimensional enough to be interacted with, needing to state Intent is a sign of the suboptimal.
    I don't particularly disagree with this statement.

    However, 'intent' in this context doesn't quite have its ordinary meaning, and doesn't need to be explicit. It's specifically referring to a goal that's being used to 'close' a test. If I'm asking you for a Command test to move your soldiers, you might get an "Are you sure you want to do that? You'll leave this flank unprotected", but I can 'close' the test easily without needing an explanation of why that flank was left unprotected.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-11-05 at 05:28 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    However, 'intent' in this context doesn't quite have its ordinary meaning, and doesn't need to be explicit. It's specifically referring to a goal that's being used to 'close' a test*.
    Indeed. If the player can't communicate to the GM what it is they are trying to accomplish, it is not possible for the GM to choose the correct resolution method, Outcomes, or Consequences. Unless the player is executing a specific hard-coded rules button-press 'action' that has at least implied intent built in, with defined Outcomes. (The Consequences still may be difficult to determine though. Many rules don't consider that part.)

    Nothing against hard-coded rules button-press where appropriate ... but we're talking about social skills in this thread. Systems with hard-coded rules button-press for social are far and few between, and they don't seem to be very popular.

    And even outside social skills, there are tons of systems where hard-coded rules button-press don't exist at all, or don't exist outside of combat rules. So understanding the necessity of Intent, built in or not, is critical to understanding Resolution.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Indeed. If the player can't communicate to the GM what it is they are trying to accomplish, it is not possible for the GM to choose the correct resolution method, Outcomes, or Consequences. Unless the player is executing a specific hard-coded rules button-press 'action' that has at least implied intent built in, with defined Outcomes. (The Consequences still may be difficult to determine though. Many rules don't consider that part.)

    Nothing against hard-coded rules button-press where appropriate ... but we're talking about social skills in this thread. Systems with hard-coded rules button-press for social are far and few between, and they don't seem to be very popular.

    And even outside social skills, there are tons of systems where hard-coded rules button-press don't exist at all, or don't exist outside of combat rules. So understanding the necessity of Intent, built in or not, is critical to understanding Resolution.
    Almost every one of the examples I gave had a social component.

    So what skill roll would you have the player roll to determine whether their berserkers killed their unconscious / disarmed / disabled Jarl? How is that better than roleplaying the berserkers?

    What skill roll would you have the players roll to determine if they get arrested for assault? How is that better than roleplaying the police?

    What skill roll would you have the players roll to determine whether and how their left flank gets attacked? How is that better than roleplaying the opposition?

    I’m not understanding how the GM cannot “choose the resolution method” for “I disarm my Jarl” / “I attack <person>” / “I move my troops in accordance with the rules”.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I’m not understanding how the GM cannot “choose the resolution method” for “I disarm my Jarl” / “I attack <person>” / “I move my troops in accordance with the rules”.
    The first two are a statement of Intent.

    If there are hard-coded button-push rules for Disarm and Attack, and those rules have sufficient implied Intent that all that's needed is the key word and Intent of the target, the DM invokes those rules for Resolution.

    If there no rules, the DM may require more information. Or the Intent already provided, activity and target, may be sufficient.

    The last one is the player skipping Intent to invoke the movement rules. That may be fine as long as nothing in the movement rules requires explicit Intent, only be embedded implied Intent of "I want my character to end up here" for the GM to resolve. Or it might require additional information.

    Tying back in to Social: "I persuade X" is almost never sufficient Intent, nor Approach. Certainly not in any version of D&D.

    Edit: I skipped your other questions because they aren't relevant to a Intent, Approach, Resolution, Outcomes and Consequences discussion. Any of those scenarios will require some combination of resolution cycle and making decisions (Roll vs Role) throughout. The Resolution cycle will likely be invoked multiple times, although it might not result in any dice being rolled (automatic success/failures).

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    I don't think anybody is arguing that declaring Intent is some kind of platonic ideal. I think people are arguing that given the coarseness of systems, and the amount of back and forth that often happens at below the "tick rate" of games, that it is often the best way to deal with those imprecisions.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Question Re: Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

    I mean, I'd say the opposite. Declaring Intent (and Approach) is a necessary part of activity adjudication in any system where the process is: player declares what they do, GM Resolves Outcomes and Consequences.

    Some systems just have enough hard-code rules button-push Actions with embedded Intent (and often Approach) that players can instead declare the Action without an Intent (or Approach), or with minimal additional information (e.g. target, end point of a move, etc).

  14. - Top - End - #104
    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 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?
    I've told you the angles my character's arm bends - are you telling me you cannot honestly cannot move his throwing axe without knowing my intent?

Posting Permissions

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