I was watching some guys play CoC on Youtube the other night (great bunch of roleplayers, really got into their characters on a level probably seldom seen at most tables) and I was startled by the way the player's rolls were handled. Ive seen various levels of player/GM interaction and responsibility where character actions were concerned but I think this may be the first time Ive seen the players take FULL responsibility for their own roll and its interpretation with very little GM input.
For example - and this is not a quote from the video only a generality from my memory.
GM - John, the kitchen window is about shoulder high and only opens about a foot or two. Are you going to still try and crawl in?
John - Yeah, Ill squeeze in best I can.
GM - Ok, climb roll please, make it a hard one, you've got nothing to stand on and its a tight squeeze.
John - Rolling and consulting his character sheet then frowning- Crap, I cant seem to get my legs under me and when grabbing for something I pull on the frame and break the glass. I come down in a heap with glass clattering all around me. Am I hurt?
GM - Abysmal failure huh? laugh..Hmm, make a luck roll.
John - Rolling and again looking at his sheet but this time looking relieved- Thankfully I only hurt my dignity and stand up shaking off the pieces of glass in my hair and collar.
The players never even announced their roll, their ability or any part of the mechanic for the most part but instead kept the focus on the roleplaying. The color and detail in their descriptions are normally provided by the GM in my experience but this subtle change was really effective. I admit that as GM you would have to really trust your player's knowledge of the game as well their own honest to let them handle it this way but it really lent itself to the roleplaying element. I was impressed.
That sounds fun for the GM since you get surprised by their interpretations. Some players like to have it described for them though since they're normally the ones fed information by the GM.
link?
Quote from: rgrove0172;938529I was watching some guys play CoC on Youtube the other night (great bunch of roleplayers, really got into their characters on a level probably seldom seen at most tables) and I was startled by the way the player's rolls were handled. Ive seen various levels of player/GM interaction and responsibility where character actions were concerned but I think this may be the first time Ive seen the players take FULL responsibility for their own roll and its interpretation with very little GM input.
We should all take a note from that. Players should be trusted with rolls, but it takes good gamers. I have played with people who roll loaded dice (not every roll), hiding rolls behind players screens (knowingly changing the outcome), and also from the GM side having them roll just to make a sound so their statement holds "the rule of chance". It would be nice if people took seriously the fact that the game is meant to be fun, not just a power trip for the player.
Quote from: rway218;938537We should all take a note from that. Players should be trusted with rolls, but it takes good gamers. I have played with people who roll loaded dice (not every roll), hiding rolls behind players screens (knowingly changing the outcome), ... ..... It would be nice if people took seriously the fact that the game is meant to be fun, not just a power trip for the player.
I far more often encounter DM's cheating than players.
But niether all that often.
I have no problem with it, but then again, we're playing Dungeon World of late--everything gets narrated, and I don't really care if a player narrates their own PCs failures (save in combat situations, where I have to make a hard move).
Interpretation of dice rolls in the world is the role of the referee, so no, I don't want players doing it.
Also, I don't play with people I don't trust, period.
(Cheating at a RPG? How fucking pathetic is that, anyway?)
I don't mind, it can add some interesting turns of events. If I needed to control the results of every die roll, then I don't really need players.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938529I was watching some guys play CoC on YouTube the other night
Yeah, a link would be cool.
QuoteI've seen various levels of player/GM interaction and responsibility where character actions were concerned but I think this may be the first time I've seen the players take FULL responsibility for their own roll and its interpretation with very little GM input.
It's not an approach I've encountered. And I'm probably "old-fashioned" in that respect - I prefer the GM to interpret the results of investigator actions, in game. Otherwise I'd feel like I'm sitting around the table with a group of Keepers, group-narrating a story together instead of immersing into my investigator.
When the system, and my players' familiarity with it, allow for such kind of playing, I prefer it:). (Of course, I must pay attention to the description and correct it if there's factors the players aren't aware of, but that's more or less to be expected from any Referee).
When either of them doesn't work for this, I play in the normal style, but I just prefer the above;).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938549Interpretation of dice rolls in the world is the role of the referee, so no, I don't want players doing it.
Also, I don't play with people I don't trust, period.
(Cheating at a RPG? How fucking pathetic is that, anyway?)
So you believe a tyrannical GM is ok in some circumstances, such as die interpretation. That's interesting. I don't mean that snarky either, I just mean that in light of some of your comments I would have thought you would have thought allowing the players some leeway to decide the details of their own actions would be a great idea. You surprised me!
Players interpreting success/failure (with Referee veto, if necessary) is stock standard role play from where I come from. A player's failure to add to the game while waiting for the Referee to imagine everything is considered a "warm seat" player. All dice are rolled in the open, though.
I would be a bit lost as a player if there was an expectation that I just shut up and roll dice. Hmmm....come to think of it, dropped out of a group with that expectation a couple years ago. Their game was boring.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938614So you believe a tyrannical GM is ok in some circumstances, such as die interpretation. That's interesting. I don't mean that snarky either, I just mean that in light of some of your comments I would have thought you would have thought allowing the players some leeway to decide the details of their own actions would be a great idea. You surprised me!
Saying "the window pulls out and shatters" is not describing a player action, it is telling the referee how the world works. "My fingers slip and I fall" is the player describing their actions.
Seems very clear to me, maybe others don't see it that way.
And "tyrannical GM"? Really? The referee runs the world, that's their JOB. What the hell is a "tyrannical GM?" When I fail as a player, I expect the referee to tell me the consequences of my failure, because that's what a referee DOES.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938529I was watching some guys play CoC on Youtube the other night (great bunch of roleplayers, really got into their characters on a level probably seldom seen at most tables)
and I was startled by the way the player's rolls were handled. Ive seen various levels of player/GM interaction and responsibility where character actions were concerned but I think this may be the first time Ive seen the players take FULL responsibility for their own roll and its interpretation with very little GM input.
1: Cant resist that little backhand comment can you?
2: Um... You mean the stuff various of us have mentioned doing in threads here? Yes. Its done. Some more than others. Depends alot on the back and fourth and what the players know or not. I tell the players the AC they need to hit or the skill DC they need to succeed usually. But there are times when I do not divulge that information since there are factors the players are unaware of yet.
example 1: Player is informed of the orc guards AC and can roll and act accordingly. But later they are not told the DC check or even why they are rolling since they dont yet know theres a goblin hiding in the bushes.
example 2: The player makes the roll like in your example and states they move through and land on the other side without any input from me. But I know that on the other side was a 20ft drop so either A: I correct the players assumption or B: they fell that distance and may take damage, or C: I ask for a stat check, or D: I totally revise the other side to accommodate. etc.
Though as mentioned in one of the other threads I have DMed for players that prefer the DM do the bulk of the descriptors. Action, sceenery, whatever.
As ever. Tons of variety in approaches that was there right out the gate.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938614So you believe a tyrannical GM is ok in some circumstances, such as die interpretation. That's interesting. I don't mean that snarky either, I just mean that in light of some of your comments I would have thought you would have thought allowing the players some leeway to decide the details of their own actions would be a great idea. You surprised me!
Its just a different style that grew from the simple fact that early on only the DM had dice. But also its part of the style of play where the DM has the data and the players dont. Which is fairly common.
You cant say "I swing and hit the orc!" if you dont know if you hit or not. Damage rolls is usually where players get more input and I've seen more than a few that like to read a high roll as a good solid attack that rattles the opponent.
Quote from: Omega;9386231: Cant resist that little backhand comment can you?
2: Um... You mean the stuff various of us have mentioned doing in threads here? Yes. Its done. Some more than others. Depends alot on the back and fourth and what the players know or not. I tell the players the AC they need to hit or the skill DC they need to succeed usually. But there are times when I do not divulge that information since there are factors the players are unaware of yet.
example 1: Player is informed of the orc guards AC and can roll and act accordingly. But later they are not told the DC check or even why they are rolling since they dont yet know theres a goblin hiding in the bushes.
example 2: The player makes the roll like in your example and states they move through and land on the other side without any input from me. But I know that on the other side was a 20ft drop so either A: I correct the players assumption or B: they fell that distance and may take damage, or C: I ask for a stat check, or D: I totally revise the other side to accommodate. etc.
Though as mentioned in one of the other threads I have DMed for players that prefer the DM do the bulk of the descriptors. Action, sceenery, whatever.
As ever. Tons of variety in approaches that was there right out the gate.
No backhand intended at all. These guys wore costumes and used accents and acting skills.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938632No backhand intended at all. These guys wore costumes and used accents and acting skills.
So, they were wannabe actors who weren't good enough to get into the local community theater. Gotcha.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938632No backhand intended at all. These guys wore costumes and used accents and acting skills.
linkage pls?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938634So, they were wannabe actors who weren't good enough to get into the local community theater. Gotcha.
No. Just getting into the spirit of it. Gahan Wilson mentions the same thing in his review of Call of Cthulhu way back.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938529I was watching some guys play CoC on Youtube the other night (great bunch of roleplayers, really got into their characters on a level probably seldom seen at most tables) and I was startled by the way the player's rolls were handled.
[snip]
The players never even announced their roll, their ability or any part of the mechanic for the most part but instead kept the focus on the roleplaying. The color and detail in their descriptions are normally provided by the GM in my experience but this subtle change was really effective. I admit that as GM you would have to really trust your player's knowledge of the game as well their own honest to let them handle it this way but it really lent itself to the roleplaying element. I was impressed.
That's the only way I role-play these days. 95% of tabletop gamers refuse to.
Notice how the player "failed forward", ie, the abysmal climbing roll did not result in "not entering the house successfully", but entering the house with _serious_ fallout.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938634So, they were wannabe actors who weren't good enough to get into the local community theater. Gotcha.
YouTube is the new community theater.
But you're right. It's a sit down LARP.
Quote from: Spinachcat;938650YouTube is the new community theater.
But you're right. It's a sit down LARP.
So you dont know anything about LARPs and have nothing to contribute about RPing in costume at the table. Which isnt a LARP. Got it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;938650YouTube is the new community theater.
But you're right. It's a sit down LARP.
So you dont know anything about LARPs and have nothing to contribute about RPing in costume at the table. Which isnt a LARP. Got it.
Not something I've ever seen done. While I do like flavorful descriptions from players, I'm not crazy about them deciding things outside of their character. The example you gave doesn't particularly bother me, but I suspect there are other cases where the players take much greater liberties with the world beyond their characters, so I doubt the style would sit well with me in general. As others have said, I'd like a link to the video (or at least the name of the group/channel) so that I can see a complete session and form a more informed opinion instead of going only off a single example.
I have, however, gone to the other extreme, of players stating their actions in plain English, then I (as the GM) rolled all the dice, worked out all the mechanics, and reported the result back to them in plain English, all without any mention of the rolls, abilities used, or other mechanical details. And before you cry "GM tyranny!", allow me to state that this arrangement was pushed on me by the players, not the other way around. They wanted to engage with the game from a more in-character standpoint without mechanical distractions, so I provided what they asked for.
Quote from: Telarus;938648Notice how the player "failed forward", ie, the abysmal climbing roll did not result in "not entering the house successfully", but entering the house with _serious_ fallout.
I did notice
and I cannot abide it. It is turning a botch "abyssmal failure" from a "No, And" into a "Yes, But." Never at my table and absolutely not what I look for when I play roleplaying games.
It is indeed badwrongfun and needs to burn in a tire fire. :mad: :D
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938634So, they were wannabe actors who weren't good enough to get into the local community theater. Gotcha.
No they were enthusiastic roleplayers playing a game they obviously enjoyed. I didn't say they were good actors either, only that they were trying to act their parts. "Roleplaying Game", you know? Go figure.
Quote from: Telarus;938648Notice how the player "failed forward", ie, the abysmal climbing roll did not result in "not entering the house successfully", but entering the house with _serious_ fallout.
Sharp cookie. I suppose the GM couldn't have overruled that but entering the house and making all that noise is so much more fun.
Quote from: Spinachcat;938650YouTube is the new community theater.
But you're right. It's a sit down LARP.
So you guys never speak in first person? You don't 'roleplay' while your playing a 'roleplaying game'? Seriously?
In general, players roleplay their characters, not the world around them. The way a window falls apart as they try to climb into it is part of the world, not the PC. They can add detail to what their character tries to do, and if they're clever about it, they can greatly improve their odds of different types of outcomes. For instance, they could carefully examine how the window is built, how sturdy it is, and put a blanket on the ground outside it or even on the other side to reduce the sound if glass breaks, and if they fall they can describe how they attempt to catch themselves or fall, or have friends to catch them, or whatever. But if they get to say what the window does when they fail, that's not roleplaying their PC - that's taking part of the GM's role of determining how the world responds to the PC's actions.
It also can violate the separation of player knowledge from GM knowledge in ways that don't make sense. If the player tries to invent things about the world and how things happen, and it violates something the GM knows about the world that the players don't, the GM will need to correct the player's invention and quite possibly in ways that will reveal information that there is no logical way the PC would know about. It also allows a new out-of-character way for players to test whether something about the world has been detailed or thought about by (or is important to) the GM. That's another type of issue with letting players invent the results of their actions.
I sometimes allow minor such suggestions by players, when it isn't important, but I'm aware of the weaknesses it introduces in areas like I mentioned, so I tend to stick to traditional separation of PC and GM, or even more in the other direction. As nDervish described, I have also gone further in the opposite direction, by providing an English translation of game mechanics, and other experiments.
Quote from: Skarg;938726In general, players roleplay their characters, not the world around them. The way a window falls apart as they try to climb into it is part of the world, not the PC.
This. Exactly and precisely this.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938718So you guys never speak in first person? You don't 'roleplay' while your playing a 'roleplaying game'? Seriously?
Think he was talking about the costumes.
However, to be talking about this for 3 pages now without a link after being asked for it three times now, can easily point to "bullshit that didn't happen that I'm making up to try and prove my point".
You might be talking about the Invictus Stream, they are more narrativey and dress up, but I have no way to be sure.
As far as players narrating though, their narration stops with their intent. Once they roll the die, the system and I interpret the results of anything external to the character. If they are just interested in roleplaying, then they shouldn't have any desire to "create or alter scenes". If they are interested in both storytelling and roleplaying, then they're not my players. :D
Quote from: rgrove0172;938718So you guys never speak in first person? You don't 'roleplay' while your playing a 'roleplaying game'? Seriously?
Nearly all players that still play D&D don't role-play.
My friends roleplay that way, when they remember to. Other times it breaks off into OOC discussion about what to do.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938634So, they were wannabe actors who weren't good enough to get into the local community theater. Gotcha.
This is how flatworlders image what role-play is.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;938871Nearly all players that still play D&D don't role-play.
Yep. You are still a gibbering idiot.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938845Think he was talking about the costumes.
However, to be talking about this for 3 pages now without a link after being asked for it three times now, can easily point to "bullshit that didn't happen that I'm making up to try and prove my point".
You might be talking about the Invictus Stream, they are more narrativey and dress up, but I have no way to be sure.
As far as players narrating though, their narration stops with their intent. Once they roll the die, the system and I interpret the results of anything external to the character. If they are just interested in roleplaying, then they shouldn't have any desire to "create or alter scenes". If they are interested in both storytelling and roleplaying, then they're not my players. :D
Yes it was Invictus. I've been trying to find the specific scene but it's buried in a 10 part series. Can't recall where. Apologies if it seemed I was ignoring you.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938845However, to be talking about this for 3 pages now without a link after being asked for it three times now, can easily point to "bullshit that didn't happen that I'm making up to try and prove my point".
You might be talking about the Invictus Stream, they are more narrativey and dress up, but I have no way to be sure.
As far as players narrating though, their narration stops with their intent. Once they roll the die, the system and I interpret the results of anything external to the character. If they are just interested in roleplaying, then they shouldn't have any desire to "create or alter scenes". If they are interested in both storytelling and roleplaying, then they're not my players. :D
1: I think I know the one hes talking about or simmilar. But I cant find it now on YT.
2: I assume its not Invictus who are teleconferencing. (Guess it was as Grove notes above. oops)
3: Thats what Im used to as well as a DM and player. "The players do stuff and the DM makes stuff happen because of that." Rather than "The players do stuff and make stuff happen because of that." Whats the point then of having a DM if everyones a mini DM? Pretty much what Universalis is about. With an added bidding system in case you dont agree with what someone else is making happen.
Though I think we are also re-hashing that old thread about someone jumping behind the bar and grabbing a shotgun. When no shotgun behind the bar was ever established. As opposed to saying the jump behind the bar and asking if they see anything useful.
Role-play by players has not died, but it has diminished. Too many games I've been involved in have these statements:
1) It's a _________ so we need ___________ weapon or it won't be hurt (says the 1st level fighter).
2) I read that module, and I think we take a left.
3) I know I wasn't in the room, but can I roll to just know that information?
Use of above board or outside game information would be a cause to avoid letting players describe scenes and roll. I may know the only way to kill a tarasque, but my character may not.
Quote from: Omega;938902Though I think we are also re-hashing that old thread about someone jumping behind the bar and grabbing a shotgun.
In the words of Master Yoda, "Noticed that, did you?"
Quote from: Omega;938655So you dont know anything about LARPs and have nothing to contribute about RPing in costume at the table. Which isnt a LARP. Got it.
You got me! After 3 decades of playing and running LARPs, I don't know anything about LARPs.
Beyond LARPs, I've done plenty of RPing in costume at the game table, especially as the DM. I've even had a "costume assistant" at a convention so I could change scene to scene ala Liberace.
And it's all been sit down LARP.
Except we did it long before FeedMyEgoTube and instead of spanking it for clicks, likes or views, we did it for the fun of the game.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938718So you guys never speak in first person? You don't 'roleplay' while your playing a 'roleplaying game'? Seriously?
So Black Vulmea was right and you're just a bizarro troll.
[
BV, sorry for doubting your observation]
WTF does "speaking in first person" have to do with a bunch of wannabe actors in a staged video?
Those fucknuts aren't playing a RPG. They are making a video. It's not a hidden camera. It's not capturing an event without the knowledge of the participants. It's the zero budget version of a reality show with an equal lack of veracity.
Quote from: Omega;938902Though I think we are also re-hashing that old thread about someone jumping behind the bar and grabbing a shotgun. When no shotgun behind the bar was ever established. As opposed to saying the jump behind the bar and asking if they see anything useful.
A little late then because we already did that (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35826-How-To-Handle-PC-Interaction-With-the-World-in-a-Regular-RPG&p=937865&viewfull=1#post937865) :)
Quote from: rgrove0172;938632No backhand intended at all. These guys wore costumes and used accents and acting skills.
Aside from the costumes (since I don't LARP), using "accents and acting skills" describes every player I know. One of my players actually is a successful voice actor.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938901Yes it was Invictus. I've been trying to find the specific scene but it's buried in a 10 part series. Can't recall where. Apologies if it seemed I was ignoring you.
4 pages and still no link.
Did you make this video up?
Quote from: Telarus;938648Notice how the player "failed forward", ie, the abysmal climbing roll did not result in "not entering the house successfully", but entering the house with _serious_ fallout.
Erm, actually, no, I don't notice that in the OP. As recounted there, the player never says which side of the window he ended up on and, given that he described it as "I can't get my feet underneath myself, then grab the window frame in an attempt to break my fall", I take that as meaning that he failed to get himself up to the window, thus he fell on the outside of the house.
Quote from: rgrove0172;938718So you guys never speak in first person? You don't 'roleplay' while your playing a 'roleplaying game'? Seriously?
There's more to roleplaying than just speaking in first person. I frequently see people playing their characters' roles (i.e., thinking and responding as if they were that character) while speaking in third person. Conversely, I've also seen plenty of people speaking in first-person while not playing the role (e.g., putting completely out-of-character jokes into the character's mouth).
Quote from: Tristram Evans;9389734 pages and still no link.
Did you make this video up?
He's confirmed CRK's guess that it might be Invictus Stream. But no link? Here, LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Invictus+Stream).
Quote from: nDervish;938980He's confirmed CRK's guess that it might be Invictus Stream. But no link? Here, LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Invictus+Stream).
Even you can't link to something like a normal person.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;938971A little late then because we already did that (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35826-How-To-Handle-PC-Interaction-With-the-World-in-a-Regular-RPG&p=937865&viewfull=1#post937865) :)
Again no less.
Quote from: Spinachcat;938960You got me! After 3 decades of playing and running LARPs, I don't know anything about LARPs.
Well at least you admit your ignorance. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Spinachcat;938960So Black Vulmea was right and you're just a bizarro troll.
[BV, sorry for doubting your observation]
Stopped clocks, blind squirrels, and me.
Quote from: Omega;938994Again no less.
And from a reposted archival blog no less :P
Still, the point isn't the gun or the bottle, but what the player assumes exists so they don't ask about. So am I being out of line if I assume there's a bottle behind the bar. Am I out of line for assuming I can jump behind it in the first place?
Quote from: rgrove0172;938529I was watching some guys play CoC on Youtube the other night (great bunch of roleplayers, really got into their characters on a level probably seldom seen at most tables) and I was startled by the way the player's rolls were handled. Ive seen various levels of player/GM interaction and responsibility where character actions were concerned but I think this may be the first time Ive seen the players take FULL responsibility for their own roll and its interpretation with very little GM input.
For example - and this is not a quote from the video only a generality from my memory.
GM - John, the kitchen window is about shoulder high and only opens about a foot or two. Are you going to still try and crawl in?
John - Yeah, Ill squeeze in best I can.
GM - Ok, climb roll please, make it a hard one, you've got nothing to stand on and its a tight squeeze.
John - Rolling and consulting his character sheet then frowning- Crap, I cant seem to get my legs under me and when grabbing for something I pull on the frame and break the glass. I come down in a heap with glass clattering all around me. Am I hurt?
GM - Abysmal failure huh? laugh..Hmm, make a luck roll.
John - Rolling and again looking at his sheet but this time looking relieved- Thankfully I only hurt my dignity and stand up shaking off the pieces of glass in my hair and collar.
The players never even announced their roll, their ability or any part of the mechanic for the most part but instead kept the focus on the roleplaying. The color and detail in their descriptions are normally provided by the GM in my experience but this subtle change was really effective. I admit that as GM you would have to really trust your player's knowledge of the game as well their own honest to let them handle it this way but it really lent itself to the roleplaying element. I was impressed.
The players in my online games are more prone to this that the face to face. I think one reasons is that its faster in the venue instead of making a roll, post it to the gm then wait for his interpretation. Its has happened in face to face play but its often phrased more as suggestion for an interesting outcome. Exalted is the exception since Stunts essentially require the player to set up the action and I guess it feels more natural to complete the follow through for most folks?
Quote from: rgrove0172;938718So you guys never speak in first person?
Speaking in 1st person is pretty common for us though some prefer 3rd person narration usually if those with the characters are very different from themselves likr a different gender or very different species. Lengthy or proposed actions are some times narrated as third person too. I thought that was pretty common.
Pretty common here too. Though my current player group shifts back and fourth. One for example tends to go in first person. "I look around." But on rare occasion shifts to 2nd person.
But I've RPed with ALOT of people who use 2nd person. And at least two who used some sort of 0ot person where they didnt refer to their character at all.
My groups have never been hard core role players, shifting in and out of character as many have mentioned here. Occasionally a particular scene will lend itself to dialogue however and we may continue in strict character mode for a good while.
Quote from: K Peterson;938556It's not an approach I've encountered. And I'm probably "old-fashioned" in that respect - I prefer the GM to interpret the results of investigator actions, in game. Otherwise I'd feel like I'm sitting around the table with a group of Keepers, group-narrating a story together instead of immersing into my investigator.
That's my mileage: The technique works great for many storytelling games. It creates dissociation and other headaches when used in an RPG.
Simple example: That window wasn't made out of glass. It was made out of transparent aluminum and that temporal anachronism is a significant part of the scenario. Now we have to deal with the disconnect between what you've narrated and what the game world actually is.