It really comes down to the manner in which the GM chooses to make judgment calls, and through that, how skilled, pertinent, the GM is, and how much trust the players put in his adjudication. Given that game systems make a whole slew of assumptions on who the players and GM are, how they ought to play the game, and so on, so forth, no amount of rules will ever override this basic component of role playing (unless of course, the game in effect ceases to be a role playing game).

Quote from: Benoist;420500It really comes down to the manner in which the GM chooses to make judgment calls, and through that, how skilled, pertinent, the GM is, and how much trust the players put in his adjudication. Given that game systems make a whole slew of assumptions on who the players and GM are, how they ought to play the game, and so on, so forth, no amount of rules will ever override this basic component of role playing (unless of course, the game in effect ceases to be a role playing game).

Well put and all true.
Still...given rule '0' being the final answer...
Some GM's do not "fudge" the reso.mech. at all so having a solid resolution mechanic based on PC choices as directed by Att./Skills that could be ignored/interprited is a good place to start and for the sake of NuB's to get an idea of their characters potentials.If the group/player is a veteran RPer and enjoys the dialogue exchange (not all do) then some of this can be handled in a free form manner.

This discusion also reminds me of some of the OD&D vs Xed. stuff in regards to combat feats or whatever they are now called. Sure an OD&D DM could interprit/allow any "hit" to have an effect other than -hp. according to the players stated desire not covered by the rules.
Some find the game more enjoyable and immersive to have specific rules that provide for this sort of choice so everything is kept in "balance" and gives players a chance to develope certain routines based on their understanding of the characters background/training so to speak.
And lets face it not all RPers have the imagination to come up with on the fly ideas while staying in character!

The main issue I have is when multiple rolls are required for actions.Best to keep the rolls to a minimum and at the start of an exchange.Though some would posit that the rolls themselves are an integral part of the "fun",remember not all players care so much about "immersion" in all instances. Games must be designed with specific goals in mind and support  those goals to be successful IMO.

Quote from: boulet;420490I like your open approach where players choose what type of resolution works for them. But it can be played, at a meta-level. Example: an eloquent player who didn't make his character socially sharp (to invest all in combat or what not) but knows it doesn't matter because he will push for the "pure talk" resolution all the time.

Sure. But what is the practical result at the game table? An eloquent person spends more time talking. Eloquence is entertaining. And we're there to be entertained, that is after all the purpose of a game. So that seems to me a good result.

Anyway, the same goes for tactics. Not only fighters in the party plan an ambush.

But most of us as players will play to our strengths, anyway. The tactically-minded players will tend to choose to have characters with martial skills, the social and outgoing players characters with social skills, and so on.

Quote from: TristramEvans;420480Without responding to the rest of your post just yet, I'm going to have to challenge this basic assumption. while I agree that in general, IC dialogue is a huge step towards Immersion, I know there are people, myself included, for whom IC dialogue actually removes me from the Immersive experience, for one reason or another. I'm currently involved in 3 games, all of which include a fellow player who is a professional voice actor. His in-character dialogue is amazing, and when he GMs, his NPcs are incredibly entertaining and I definitely envy his ability to control and manipulate his voice.

I, OTOH, have a very hard time with public speaking, even in a game enviornment, and could not affect a believable accent if my life depended on it. In my head, I know how my characters sound. But to try to speak in a mock-variation of my character's voice I find incredibly unrewarding and distracting. For example, in one game I am playing an Irish Catholic nun. At best I will sprinkly my IC comments with a few pseudo-gaelic contractions and Eirean turns-of-phrase, but I am instantly removed from the game in an immersive sense whenever I hear my deep gravelly man-voice stumbling over her dialogue.

OTOH, I have no problem whatsoever listening to the "gist" of what any character or player is saying and in my own head instantly translating that into the voice of the in-game character. Just as I can watch subtitles on a foreign film and interpret from the sentance construction the conceptual understanding that the person is speaking in another language with it's own rules of grammer, syntax and lexicon. I prefer this to roughly-translated English dubbed over the OL.

I don't need a fellow player or myself to speak IC only to maintain Immersion, as my imagination will almost automatically "fill in the blanks" as to what's happening or being said in my mind's eye view of the gameworld. And unless the player speaking is actually talented at voices like my friend, hearing a botched or imperfect ad-hoc speech is more likely than not to disrupt my immersion in the game reality.

I'd say "description" for me can be much more of an aid to immersion than forcing everyone to speak in-character constantly.

Play characters whose mindsets, voices and mannerisms you can adopt to your own satisfaction. What's the point of immersively roleplaying a character you can't fully immerse yourself in? This leaves a huge range of characters open to you; the restrictions on your freedom of character choice should be minimal, at least if the game is not narrowly historical with strong local accents inevitable.

For this same reason I tend to avoid playing native English speakers from outside the British Isles (can't do the accents convincingly) and girls (can't do the voice convincingly, can't convincingly adopt the mindset, and maybe don't really want to feel all that effeminate!). Playing these parts as GM is fine as the purpose is to entertain the players, and NPCs often only have walk-on, walk-off roles. But as a PC - what's the point? (Rhetorical question. Obviously the point is to immerse yourself in the part. But if you find that too difficult to do intensely, why not prefer an easier and more immersive option?)

I'm not saying you don't roleplay immersively. I'm just saying - narrow your focus slightly and enhance your experience of it, maybe.

Quote from: Benoist;420483They are a tool for randomization of outcomes. ...

Inadequate explanation. If just a tool for randomisation of outcomes, why have stats at all? Why not just use a dice-roll with no mods? Why not just a deck of Chance cards?

Stats are there to mould the probabilities one way or another in favour of having a VARIETY of different outcome-patterns emerge through play to lend individuality to each character's abilities, rather than bland sameyness.

This then accomplishes many things, including an element of "game" (adding interest to aspects of "challenge"), but primarily it's about painting a more colourful picture of the world you immerse yourself in - because characters really are different in their capabilities.

An element of GM fiat within clear parameters of statistically different outcome-patterns seems to me to be acceptable as it does not eradicate the differences, at worst only tempers them, and equally might exaggerate them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;420488...
I run it like this. There are three ways to do it,

• "Just roll the skill" - whatever the dice say, that's what happens
• "Just talk" - forget the dice, roleplay it, say or do something awesomely cool or stupid, well you wear it
• "Describe more or less what you say, then roll the dice" - what you say gives a bonus, never a malus, otherwise see #1

...

I think your list is a very natural list for most roleplayers to come up with.

But my contention is your list could usefully be added to:-

 4. "Roll the dice wholly or partly in secret BEFOREHAND, get a secret result, and use it as a gentle steer for your NPC roleplay as GM or for hint-dropping to players, but never as a straitjacket"

Otherwise I agree with you.

#4 seems unnecessary. It's just saying, "oh yeah, the NPCs should have personalities, too, and this should influence how they react to the PCs, with a bit of randomness thrown in." That's just the GM roleplaying the NPCs. Something I tend to take for granted.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;420651#4 seems unnecessary. It's just saying, "oh yeah, the NPCs should have personalities, too, and this should influence how they react to the PCs, with a bit of randomness thrown in." That's just the GM roleplaying the NPCs. Something I tend to take for granted.

As well, it would be impossible to determine who the players decide to talk to before the session.  Players are notorious for spending an hour with the stableboy while virtually skipping the grizzled old timer in the tavern that was placed there to supply rumours and information.

Randomizing reactions gives NPCs the appearance of being regular folks without the DM having to be an Oscar nominee with several dozen possible scripts to use when the players 'go off the rails' and start talking to the lamplighters and street urchins because they have a 'hunch'.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;420651#4 seems unnecessary. It's just saying, "oh yeah, the NPCs should have personalities, too, and this should influence how they react to the PCs, with a bit of randomness thrown in." That's just the GM roleplaying the NPCs. Something I tend to take for granted.

I don't think it's necessary; I just like how it works when I'm GMing. That is, I have found that I like the effect of the "bit of randomness thrown in," and sometimes it's convenient to have a loose idea of the degree of that randomness compared to the rough contribution of the PC's "je ne sais quois;" e.g. a social skill score, Charisma stat, etc.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;420528...what is the practical result at the game table? An eloquent person spends more time talking. Eloquence is entertaining. And we're there to be entertained, that is after all the purpose of a game. ...

Very interesting point actually

Quote from: Cole;420678I don't think it's necessary; I just like how it works when I'm GMing. That is, I have found that I like the effect of the "bit of randomness thrown in," and sometimes it's convenient to have a loose idea of the degree of that randomness compared to the rough contribution of the PC's "je ne sais quois;" e.g. a social skill score, Charisma stat, etc.

It's all in finding the appropriate, i.e. most entertaining, balance for the particular group of people you've got around the table. Some people will want all random all the time. Others will see random stuff as spoiling the stuff they come up with in the game. Most of the time though, it'll be somewhere in between, where you'll want the dice to get out of the way some times, and will find that dice increase the tension by unexpected outcomes and other random bits at other times.

Quote from: Benoist;420940It's all in finding the appropriate, i.e. most entertaining, balance for the particular group of people you've got around the table. Some people will want all random all the time. Others will see random stuff as spoiling the stuff they come up with in the game. Most of the time though, it'll be somewhere in between, where you'll want the dice to get out of the way some times, and will find that dice increase the tension by unexpected outcomes and other random bits at other times.

This kind of segues into a comment I forgot to add earlier:  quasi-random NPC reactions also means you can't accuse the DM of intentionally being a dick.  While the results are sometimes a bit odd and need tweaking, random reaction rolls allow the DM a wider latitude of options besides 'failure' and 'success'.

It also is part of a very simple equation; in that players and games gravitate to what the rules are written for; and for what their characters are good at.  

A fighter is good at combat.  Combat is normally in most games.  Got a Magic user?  PLayers use magic, then.  Got a Magic-user with non-combat spells?  PLayers might use them.  If you don't have them, players don't.  Using thieves with hiding and trap speciallizations?  Players will use those skills.

And if you have some social mechanics, Players will want to use them.  Very simple.  

I also love to throw some random in their based on the reaction rolls, to be a little different.

Kyle's posts sum up pretty well who I run things.

Maybe I get lots of hate for this, but I don't expect everyone at my table to be a perfect immersive actor ready to go Stanislawski on their 1st level PC. If someone wants to RP his PC in 3rd person, I'm cool. If someone is less talkative, I let him have it.

The main goal is not immersion (though it is indeed a worthy goal), emulation of a genre (same), exploring some imaginary place or telling some dramatic story about people making hard choices. It is a game, and the goal is to be an enjoyable experience, which is something defined by the persons taking part of it.

So the Forgers are wrong, the OSRers are wrong, the immersion crowd is wrong and basically anyon who tries to narrow down the goal of this wonderful hobby to one simple factor is wrong. You can narrow it down once you take into account the concrete persons at the table.

Quote from: LordVreeg;421223It also is part of a very simple equation; in that players and games gravitate to what the rules are written for; and for what their characters are good at.  

...

And if you have some social mechanics, Players will want to use them.  Very simple.  

...

Useful point.