Questing Beast - The real problem with "Rulings Not Rules" in DnD (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEEzVZQb3M0&list=TLPQMTIwMzIwMjSfgvw_LT9yZw&index=6)
Bit of a clickbait title, but an interesting video about the approach, how to make it work in systems that weren't originally built for it, and some thoughts that are applicable regardless of system. I do like the observations about magic items that can facilitate this kind of play, though it isn't exactly ground breaking. I definitely see this approach in his own games, Knave2e is full of those kind of interesting utility spells. That's one of the things I like about it.
I think this is a good starting place for people that are starting to get into the OSR style, especially if they're used to the post 3e approach and having trouble getting into the old school.
"problems without solutions"
You mean like real life. Most modern GMs rely so much on published stuff, they cannot conceived of a problem that has a solution other than the one written down in a book somewhere. I have encountered this so many times in recent years I just decided it wasn't worth simply rolling dice against some skill and "solving" the problem, which is what they expected. Creativity wasn't even allowed unless you rolled...it's really dumb and infuriatingly boring. If you're engaging in a riddle game with Gollum, then obviously there's a correct answer to his questions, but you could always just stab the little bastard, too. Real RPGs make zero assumptions about what the PCs will do when presented with a problem; but this isn't strictly a modern issue, either. Once TSR published the first modules for D&D, it was all over and creativity went right out the window. Making shit up, the cornerstone of fantasy roleplaying, was replaced with buying published works and rules-lawyering.
So basically, this isn't OSR as much as it is originalism for RPGs.
Quote from: Brad on March 14, 2024, 03:09:07 PM
"problems without solutions"
You mean like real life. Most modern GMs rely so much on published stuff, they cannot conceived of a problem that has a solution other than the one written down in a book somewhere. I have encountered this so many times in recent years I just decided it wasn't worth simply rolling dice against some skill and "solving" the problem, which is what they expected. Creativity wasn't even allowed unless you rolled...it's really dumb and infuriatingly boring. If you're engaging in a riddle game with Gollum, then obviously there's a correct answer to his questions, but you could always just stab the little bastard, too. Real RPGs make zero assumptions about what the PCs will do when presented with a problem; but this isn't strictly a modern issue, either. Once TSR published the first modules for D&D, it was all over and creativity went right out the window. Making shit up, the cornerstone of fantasy roleplaying, was replaced with buying published works and rules-lawyering.
So basically, this isn't OSR as much as it is originalism for RPGs.
Indeed. ;D
8) I make a clever decision, GM likes it! :) GM says I must roll for the dice's permission. :o Oh shit, the dice said no! :( Aw, GM and I have a big sad now...
Consulting to failure, a.k.a. consulting unnecessarily often, is just tempting the odds of fate. Sometimes good ideas need no added sauce. Imagination is bigger than permissions, no? ;)
Quote from: Opaopajr on March 14, 2024, 03:38:25 PM
Indeed. ;D
8) I make a clever decision, GM likes it! :) GM says I must roll for the dice's permission. :o Oh shit, the dice said no! :( Aw, GM and I have a big sad now...
Consulting to failure, a.k.a. consulting unnecessarily often, is just tempting the odds of fate. Sometimes good ideas need no added sauce. Imagination is bigger than permissions, no? ;)
Quite so, something that Gillespie says a lot in the dragonslayer book, the players job is to, as much as possible, keep the die out of the hands of the DM. Every time the DM rolls the dice, there's a chance it goes bad for the PCs, better to come up with a plan such that no dice are needed. And the corollary to this is DMs that roll for things that really shouldn't need one. That's something that I'm really trying to get away from myself, since I started out playing PF, which had a lot of that "roll for everything" DNA
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on March 14, 2024, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr on March 14, 2024, 03:38:25 PM
Indeed. ;D
8) I make a clever decision, GM likes it! :) GM says I must roll for the dice's permission. :o Oh shit, the dice said no! :( Aw, GM and I have a big sad now...
Consulting to failure, a.k.a. consulting unnecessarily often, is just tempting the odds of fate. Sometimes good ideas need no added sauce. Imagination is bigger than permissions, no? ;)
Quite so, something that Gillespie says a lot in the dragonslayer book, the players job is to, as much as possible, keep the die out of the hands of the DM. Every time the DM rolls the dice, there's a chance it goes bad for the PCs, better to come up with a plan such that no dice are needed. And the corollary to this is DMs that roll for things that really shouldn't need one. That's something that I'm really trying to get away from myself, since I started out playing PF, which had a lot of that "roll for everything" DNA
At that point you are playing yourself, not your character
Quote from: JeremyR on March 14, 2024, 08:37:53 PM
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on March 14, 2024, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr on March 14, 2024, 03:38:25 PM
Indeed. ;D
8) I make a clever decision, GM likes it! :) GM says I must roll for the dice's permission. :o Oh shit, the dice said no! :( Aw, GM and I have a big sad now...
Consulting to failure, a.k.a. consulting unnecessarily often, is just tempting the odds of fate. Sometimes good ideas need no added sauce. Imagination is bigger than permissions, no? ;)
Quite so, something that Gillespie says a lot in the dragonslayer book, the players job is to, as much as possible, keep the die out of the hands of the DM. Every time the DM rolls the dice, there's a chance it goes bad for the PCs, better to come up with a plan such that no dice are needed. And the corollary to this is DMs that roll for things that really shouldn't need one. That's something that I'm really trying to get away from myself, since I started out playing PF, which had a lot of that "roll for everything" DNA
At that point you are playing yourself, not your character
Playing your character means trying to think using your character's mindset, not relegating everything to skill rolls and game mechanics.
Quote from: Brad on March 14, 2024, 03:09:07 PM
"problems without solutions"
You mean like real life. Most modern GMs rely so much on published stuff, they cannot conceived of a problem that has a solution other than the one written down in a book somewhere.
wotc wishes!
The reality is that near everyone at this point knows that wotc modules are a mess and that the writers are lazy and expect the players to do their job and create the parts the writers could not be dicked to actually write.
Quote from: Brad on March 14, 2024, 03:09:07 PM
If you're engaging in a riddle game with Gollum, then obviously there's a correct answer to his questions, but you could always just stab the little bastard, too.
This reminds me of the last interview I had. I really wanted to do some stabbing...
Quote from: Omega on March 14, 2024, 09:40:17 PM
wotc wishes!
The reality is that near everyone at this point knows that wotc modules are a mess and that the writers are lazy and expect the players to do their job and create the parts the writers could not be dicked to actually write.
Well you're not wrong, but it's telling that a lot of 5th edition players I know lament the fact WotC is garbage and act like they can't play D&D anymore because of it. "Make it up" is almost an impossible concept for them to grasp. Sad!
Quote from: Brad on March 15, 2024, 09:38:26 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 14, 2024, 09:40:17 PM
wotc wishes!
The reality is that near everyone at this point knows that wotc modules are a mess and that the writers are lazy and expect the players to do their job and create the parts the writers could not be dicked to actually write.
Well you're not wrong, but it's telling that a lot of 5th edition players I know lament the fact WotC is garbage and act like they can't play D&D anymore because of it. "Make it up" is almost an impossible concept for them to grasp. Sad!
Two sides of the same coin. When the consumers of the module are able to fill in the gaps, the writer of the module can concentrate on putting out useful bit, not hand holding, fluff, filler, or even pure garbage. (Note the writer "can" not necessarily the writer "will.") When the consumers of the module are instead used to the hand holding, fluff, filler, and even pure garbage, it interferes with their ability to use their imagination, thus making them worse the next time. The opposite is also true.
I believe what we have here, is the fabled negative feedback loop.
Quote from: JeremyR on March 14, 2024, 08:37:53 PM
Quote from: Zenoguy3 on March 14, 2024, 04:48:03 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr on March 14, 2024, 03:38:25 PM
Indeed. ;D
8) I make a clever decision, GM likes it! :) GM says I must roll for the dice's permission. :o Oh shit, the dice said no! :( Aw, GM and I have a big sad now...
Consulting to failure, a.k.a. consulting unnecessarily often, is just tempting the odds of fate. Sometimes good ideas need no added sauce. Imagination is bigger than permissions, no? ;)
Quite so, something that Gillespie says a lot in the dragonslayer book, the players job is to, as much as possible, keep the die out of the hands of the DM. Every time the DM rolls the dice, there's a chance it goes bad for the PCs, better to come up with a plan such that no dice are needed. And the corollary to this is DMs that roll for things that really shouldn't need one. That's something that I'm really trying to get away from myself, since I started out playing PF, which had a lot of that "roll for everything" DNA
At that point you are playing yourself, not your character
As designed. Who is playing a game? Whose wits are being used to solve problems in that game? ( hint: it sure as hell isn't a character) Your character can't think, or reason without the player. The character is essentially some numbers and notes on a sheet of paper. It won't get offended if the player gets to solve problems in the game.
I've been "Rulings, not rules" for a long time.
People sometimes get confused to think you're just making it all up, which is not true.
Basically "rulings not rules" is used when if there is no rule or character class skill in the book, you make a ruling on the situation at hand.
But most importantly is you're fair and consistent afterwards with that ruling if and when it comes up again.
Quote from: Brad on March 15, 2024, 09:38:26 AM
Well you're not wrong, but it's telling that a lot of 5th edition players I know lament the fact WotC is garbage and act like they can't play D&D anymore because of it. "Make it up" is almost an impossible concept for them to grasp. Sad!
Part of that may be the fucked up dichotomy storygamers push that story and "rule of cool" are sooooo important. But god forbid the filthy DMs think for themselves. 6e will be pushing this if Perkins interview is any indicator.
You also have this weird disconnect of players demanding more rules and then bitching that there are so many rules.
In my experience, half the players who have only experienced "modern rpgs" balk when they encounter a GM who uses "rulings, not rules" and the other half are thrilled by the freedom.
And that's fine.
Of course, as a caveat, GMs must be conscious and vigilant to be FAIR (not "nice", but fair) when going for rulings, not rules.
Also, I have no problem with the PCs have a good idea and getting a bonus on die roll to see if their good idea actually works in the game world...and sometimes, the Dice Gawds will say NAY!
AKA, it's okay to have "good decisions" that have automatic success and sometimes those "good decisions" only nudge the odds in your favor.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 15, 2024, 10:15:01 AM
I believe what we have here, is the fabled negative feedback loop.
Ain't that the truth...when did people get so lazy? I remember spending hours writing up adventures when I was in school, just to have them dismantled in minutes during our lunchroom sessions. Whenever I finally came up with something the players couldn't overcome without insane amounts of effort, it was like I had beaten life.Modern RPG aesthetic just seems like an endless treadmill, the Southpark episode with guitar hero comes to mind...where's the fun in that? Leveling up is a reward for being badass, not the raison d'etre.
Why do you have a character sheet if you're not supposed to use it?
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 15, 2024, 10:27:44 AM
As designed. Who is playing a game? Whose wits are being used to solve problems in that game? ( hint: it sure as hell isn't a character) Your character can't think, or reason without the player. The character is essentially some numbers and notes on a sheet of paper. It won't get offended if the player gets to solve problems in the game.
Why is there a character statistic called intelligence?
Quote from: Domina on March 25, 2024, 12:01:34 AM
Why is there a character statistic called intelligence?
Because character vs player knowledge is a thing. For instance, players do not know fantasy languages while characters may.
If the character's problems solving ability, common sense or social ability are derived entirely from the player's ability in these areas, you may as well remove mental stats like intelligence, wisdom or charisma from the game entirely. Just get rid of them. They are largely superfluous anyway. For systems where players spend resources like allocating scores or spending points for stats, they become trap options since the player is spending resources on stats that don't really do anything. It also encourages players to dump these stats as hard as possible since they don't really matter. Character knowledge like how many languages they know can be derived directly from the character's background. There's no need for an intelligence stat for this. If the character's mental ability is identical to the player's mental ability, then mental stats don't do anything and don't need to be in the game at all.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 25, 2024, 07:54:52 AM
If the character's problems solving ability, common sense or social ability are derived entirely from the player's ability in these areas, you may as well remove mental stats like intelligence, wisdom or charisma from the game entirely. Just get rid of them. They are largely superfluous anyway. For systems where players spend resources like allocating scores or spending points for stats, they become trap options since the player is spending resources on stats that don't really do anything. It also encourages players to dump these stats as hard as possible since they don't really matter. Character knowledge like how many languages they know can be derived directly from the character's background. There's no need for an intelligence stat for this. If the character's mental ability is identical to the player's mental ability, then mental stats don't do anything and don't need to be in the game at all.
I don't think you will find the player of a magic user in AD&D dumping intelligence. Spell failure and a low chance to learn new spells is not all that fun.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2024, 08:00:46 AM
I don't think you will find the player of a magic user in AD&D dumping intelligence. Spell failure and a low chance to learn new spells is not all that fun.
Get rid of that too. Base those things on background too or just dispense with them entirely. If the character's intelligence isn't related to the character's intelligence, then intelligence doesn't need to exist as a stat at all.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 25, 2024, 08:07:57 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2024, 08:00:46 AM
I don't think you will find the player of a magic user in AD&D dumping intelligence. Spell failure and a low chance to learn new spells is not all that fun.
Get rid of that too. Base those things on background too or just dispense with them entirely. If the character's intelligence isn't related to the character's intelligence, then intelligence doesn't need to exist as a stat at all.
Alternately, have a specific Magic attribute that guages your facility with magic. That would be something measurable. Paladins and other partial casters like Rangers would need certain minimums in that stat to be able to use their spellcasting ability.
Nothing wrong with a game where the core stats are Might (Str/Con), Agility (Dex) and Spirit (spellcasting/will saves) and leaving all the mental activities to the player.
Quote from: Brad on March 16, 2024, 09:30:13 PM
I remember spending hours writing up adventures when I was in school, just to have them dismantled in minutes during our lunchroom sessions.
I think for me the style of adventure has changed a lot. Back in the day, for me at least, much of an adventure was dungeon crawling so a lot of my time went into dungeon creation and filling it with monsters and traps and other obstacles for the players to overcome. Modern adventures seem to be all about a story arc and my players no longer are interested in the dungeon crawl. It's more like they are playing in a novel rather than in a sandbox.
One curious aspect of this is we have a YouTube video reacting to a blog post from eight years ago that was reacting to Finch's primer eight years before that. I don't know that you have to really put Rulings, not Rules under such a huge microscope.
When I first started playing the game, materials were pretty scarce. My cousins, brother and I shared books. Whipping out books during gameplay wasnt fun, so we typically just rolled with it. What was fun is when one of us would read some obscure paragraph Gary had written and the conversation we had, usually at the pool, doing yard work, or something else would go all over the place or have us laughing at our mistakes.
For every minute playing the game, I bet we spent five talking about it outside the game. But at the table (or on the floor) books tend to stay closed unless we were shopping or leveling up.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 25, 2024, 08:58:13 AM
Alternately, have a specific Magic attribute that guages your facility with magic. That would be something measurable. Paladins and other partial casters like Rangers would need certain minimums in that stat to be able to use their spellcasting ability.
Nothing wrong with a game where the core stats are Might (Str/Con), Agility (Dex) and Spirit (spellcasting/will saves) and leaving all the mental activities to the player.
You could use it for spell casting checks in systems that do that rather than using points or slots. If a stat isn't actually used in play, it doesn't have any real reason to exist in the system. Just get rid of it.
Quote from: finarvyn on March 25, 2024, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: Brad on March 16, 2024, 09:30:13 PM
I remember spending hours writing up adventures when I was in school, just to have them dismantled in minutes during our lunchroom sessions.
I think for me the style of adventure has changed a lot. Back in the day, for me at least, much of an adventure was dungeon crawling so a lot of my time went into dungeon creation and filling it with monsters and traps and other obstacles for the players to overcome. Modern adventures seem to be all about a story arc and my players no longer are interested in the dungeon crawl. It's more like they are playing in a novel rather than in a sandbox.
We did tons of dungeons as well, but more than anything... Goblin villages. We snuck in, set fire, flooded, and generally speaking broke every Geneva convention against those little guys.
I also remember using B1 and creating all kinds of offshoots from that.
More recently, I love N4 Treasure Hunt as a good kickoff.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 25, 2024, 07:54:52 AM
If the character's problems solving ability, common sense or social ability are derived entirely from the player's ability in these areas, you may as well remove mental stats like intelligence, wisdom or charisma from the game entirely. Just get rid of them. They are largely superfluous anyway. For systems where players spend resources like allocating scores or spending points for stats, they become trap options since the player is spending resources on stats that don't really do anything. It also encourages players to dump these stats as hard as possible since they don't really matter. Character knowledge like how many languages they know can be derived directly from the character's background. There's no need for an intelligence stat for this. If the character's mental ability is identical to the player's mental ability, then mental stats don't do anything and don't need to be in the game at all.
Yes. The converse is also true. That initial "if" is doing a lot. What we usually get in game design, however, is something in the middle. The mental stats are doing some lifting, are somewhat related to what is happening, but not to the same degree as stats in other areas. (It happens with non-mental/non-social stats occasionally as well, just not as often.)
I also find that analyzing such things in many designs, that the model has moved substantially without an underlying change to the stats. When there are no skills, for example, such as B/X (without RC optional secondary skill rules), we used that Int/Wis stat to make rulings on what a player could try and what the chances were. Of course, Cha got used the same way, on top of its already built in functions. And then AD&D added to the Int/Wis mechanics. Adding skills
really changes what your stats should or should not be.
The INT stat serves as point of reference for the intellect of the character. Calling for an INT check in order for the character to remember something that was discovered in play by the player 4 or 5 months ago in real time is another use for the stat. It might have only been a few days for character in game time.
Well, I've had asshole GMs who use 'Player Knowledge = Character Knowledge' like a rhetorical bludgeon. My Mechwarrior may be a Kung-fu Motherfucker, but I'm not. And I had a GM that ruled because I personally didn't know the exact technique I wanted to use to disarm my opponent, I was therefore free to be shot in the encounter instead since I wasted my action on a move I didn't personally know. 'Player Knowledge' can be used both ways.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on March 25, 2024, 01:20:24 PM
Well, I've had asshole GMs who use 'Player Knowledge = Character Knowledge' like a rhetorical bludgeon. My Mechwarrior may be a Kung-fu Motherfucker, but I'm not. And I had a GM that ruled because I personally didn't know the exact technique I wanted to use to disarm my opponent, I was therefore free to be shot in the encounter instead since I wasted my action on a move I didn't personally know. 'Player Knowledge' can be used both ways.
GM's like that should be left in the dust. When no one shows up at their table they will either adapt or they will not play games and instead come to online forums to tell everyone how things should be done.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2024, 12:05:30 PM
The INT stat serves as point of reference for the intellect of the character. Calling for an INT check in order for the character to remember something that was discovered in play by the player 4 or 5 months ago in real time is another use for the stat. It might have only been a few days for character in game time.
That's not intellect. That's memory.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 25, 2024, 06:47:53 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2024, 12:05:30 PM
The INT stat serves as point of reference for the intellect of the character. Calling for an INT check in order for the character to remember something that was discovered in play by the player 4 or 5 months ago in real time is another use for the stat. It might have only been a few days for character in game time.
That's not intellect. That's memory.
There is no memory stat. INT covers it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2024, 08:14:24 PM
There is no memory stat. INT covers it.
If it's just used to see if a character remembers something, then it is a memory stat.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 26, 2024, 06:49:21 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2024, 08:14:24 PM
There is no memory stat. INT covers it.
If it's just used to see if a character remembers something, then it is a memory stat.
To be fair; Intellect as a stat can be used for more than just memory while covering something independent of the player and covering physical actions that rely on knowledge well beyond the scope of most players; specifically engineering/crafting and sciences (which might include being able to perform the complex formulas needed for some types of magic).
In my own system I have mental stats with specialties in Arcana (performing magic), Lore (the memory aspect, languages), Engineering (building things, disabling things, operating complex machinery, locating secret doors), Insight (noticing details/patterns), Nature (survival, navigation), and Medicine (fairly obvious).
Those are all categories I felt would be things related to knowledge and performance where the capabilities of a PC would differ from a player without impacting the decision-making element for the player in the same way that a being stronger than the player doesn't impact their decisions of what to do with said strength.
For me, intelligence is a legitimate character attribute that is separate from player intelligence/skill.
If players find a broken magical device and are trying to figure out what it does or how to put it back together, intelligence would be a determining factor. Your GM prep doesn't need to be so extensive that the device could be fixed by a real life physicist.
"Trish, you character has no idea what she is looking at or how it works." And oh the horror, if Trish's character has an intelligence of 8, for example, I won't even give her a roll.
Another easy and common example is languages.
- Box the Fighter has an intelligence of 4 and barely understands common. You don't have to talk to Box like a first grader. And if Box's player talks like an idiot all the time, the table will want to throw him off a building.
- Libby the Librarian has 16 intelligence and speaks six languages. Libby's player doesn't need to actually know how to speak Orc, Troll, and four other languages that do not exist.
Does that mean that sometimes players ARE smarter than their characters? Sure. But bringing this full circle, I guess that is where rulings, not rules comes in.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 26, 2024, 08:27:28 AM
Those are all categories I felt would be things related to knowledge and performance where the capabilities of a PC would differ from a player without impacting the decision-making element for the player in the same way that a being stronger than the player doesn't impact their decisions of what to do with said strength.
Say the character encounters a puzzle or riddle or has to interpret a clue. They have to engage in some form of logical problem solving. Does the character's smarts stat figure directly into this or is it the player solving it? Does the character's intelligence matter here in a mechanical sense?
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 26, 2024, 09:17:56 AM
Say the character encounters a puzzle or riddle or has to interpret a clue. They have to engage in some form of logical problem solving. Does the character's smarts stat figure directly into this or is it the player solving it? Does the character's intelligence matter here in a mechanical sense?
And you've hit the nail on the head. But then there's also the corollary if you choose to do away with the INT/WIS/CHA stat: how do I play a charismatic/intelligent/wise character if I (as a player) have no charisma/smarts/willpower? Do I just have to suck it up and play something else? I don't think there's any "one true way" to solve this.
As a GM, I tend to allow the players first crack at solving something, only relying on character-based die rolls if they can't. And I might give them bonuses (or maluses) depending on what approach they are choosing.
So a player might say at the table, "My rogue has a high charisma and persuasion skill - he's going to cosy up to the barmaid and try to get some info out of her, charming her with a few well-placed compliments".
I would then roll based on their charisma + seduction/carousing/whatever. I'm not going to ask for details of what compliments he's using, or what body language they are looking for.
However, if I've set up a riddle, and one of the players works it out, I'm not going to force them to roll to see if their character knows it.
If no one can, I'll ask for INT/WIS rolls (whichever is appropriate) and then give out hints according to how well they roll.
It's not perfect, but it's mine - as Tim Minchin once said.
When we played our B/X and AD&D 1E mix in high school, the way we sometimes handled Int and Wis mods was that if your character decided to do something that required more than the player could come up with, they got extra help from another player for every point of mod. Sitting there with a +2 on Wis, you get to consult two other players every time there was something to decide that might be wise/foolish.
Conversely, if you had a negative, you had to consult other players, and then the group would vote on the worst idea suggested, and that was what your character wanted to do. We played it for laughs, and the other players were very happy to mess with another PC this way. It was kind of like the way charm person works, only not magical.
I think the farther you get from reality (in both characters and world), the less useful common sense is.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 26, 2024, 09:17:56 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 26, 2024, 08:27:28 AM
Those are all categories I felt would be things related to knowledge and performance where the capabilities of a PC would differ from a player without impacting the decision-making element for the player in the same way that a being stronger than the player doesn't impact their decisions of what to do with said strength.
Say the character encounters a puzzle or riddle or has to interpret a clue. They have to engage in some form of logical problem solving. Does the character's smarts stat figure directly into this or is it the player solving it? Does the character's intelligence matter here in a mechanical sense?
I would let the players try to solve it first because figuring stuff out is rewarding for the player. If the group can't quite figure it out then the higher INT characters will get extra clues. It is compromise between letting the players play the game and not letting things grind to a halt and high INT characters are the ones that get the special clues.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 26, 2024, 09:17:56 AM
Say the character encounters a puzzle or riddle or has to interpret a clue. They have to engage in some form of logical problem solving. Does the character's smarts stat figure directly into this or is it the player solving it? Does the character's intelligence matter here in a mechanical sense?
Riddles and puzzles are different beasts, and riddles suck as they only have one exact solution. For a puzzle, higher Int characters would get more information upfront. You see a funny looking mark vs a sigil of such and such cult. Knowing a thing is on the character, making deductions is on the player. Implementation of the solution would come down to a test if there is uncertainty in the out come.
This is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's a game. A top hat or dog can't use money, nor can they own real estate, but the people playing Monopoly can enjoy playing them.
The purpose of a game is to entertain the players. Just because you play a role in an RPG doesn't that you are bound to exact simulation of a completely different person, mainly because you can't. And because it probably isn't as fun. It's why I hate the people who justify screwing the party because "that's what my character would do." First of all, your character isn't real. You determine what they would do, and you determine any principles they would have that might cause problems. So if your character is being a dick, it's because you made a character with the tendency to be a dick, on purpose. Secondly, as a player, you already have context and perspective not available to the character. You know it's a game. You know the rules of the game. So the idea that you can play "in character" is a fantasy.
Puzzles exist in the game because some players find them enjoyable. The players solve them for fun. A fictional character is irrelevant in this case. You might as well figure out the odds your character would live until 10th level and get rich getting there, then roll percentile dice. It'd simulate the character's outcome much better than actually playing in a campaign. But it wouldn't be fun, so we don't do it.
Quote from: Wisithir on March 26, 2024, 10:15:15 PM
Riddles and puzzles are different beasts, and riddles suck as they only have one exact solution. For a puzzle, higher Int characters would get more information upfront. You see a funny looking mark vs a sigil of such and such cult. Knowing a thing is on the character, making deductions is on the player. Implementation of the solution would come down to a test if there is uncertainty in the out come.
That doesn't really answer my question at all. Say I make a character and dump intelligence hard. Another player makes a character and gives them a very high intelligence. The characters get some clues. Things must deduced from these clues. If it's the player making the deductions, the character's intelligence stat doesn't matter. Having 6 doesn't hamper me and having an 18 doesn't really help him much. The intelligence stat doesn't have any actual, mechanical effect. At this point, you may as well just get rid of the stat.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 27, 2024, 03:07:19 AM
That doesn't really answer my question at all. Say I make a character and dump intelligence hard. Another player makes a character and gives them a very high intelligence. The characters get some clues. Things must deduced from these clues. If it's the player making the deductions, the character's intelligence stat doesn't matter. Having 6 doesn't hamper me and having an 18 doesn't really help him much. The intelligence stat doesn't have any actual, mechanical effect. At this point, you may as well just get rid of the stat.
If an Int 6 and Int 18 are looking at the same thing, the Int 6 is dumbfounded while the Int 18 get it is, and shares with the Int 6. Now if an Int 6 and Int 18 are searching different rooms, the Int 18 will find one clue and the Int 6 will find nothing, meaning either a clue is missed or the party waits for the Int 18 to check everything. Time is the resource being spent when the party cannot proceed in parallel due to effective stat requirements. The low stat of one party member must be carried by another, but this effect is less obvious with mental stats, and is especially variable by GM style.
However, I am open to dumping mental stats to avoid characters stated beyond the player's ability to roleplay and the problems that brings. I am happy to replace them with qualifiers for observation, knowledgeability, and force of personality.
Quote from: Wisithir on March 27, 2024, 03:38:45 AM
If an Int 6 and Int 18 are looking at the same thing, the Int 6 is dumbfounded while the Int 18 get it is, and shares with the Int 6.
If the player is the one doing the deduction, then this isn't really the case in any significant, mechanical way.
Quote from: Wisithir on March 27, 2024, 03:38:45 AM
However, I am open to dumping mental stats to avoid characters stated beyond the player's ability to roleplay and the problems that brings. I am happy to replace them with qualifiers for observation, knowledgeability, and force of personality.
Nothing would be changed in any concrete mechanical sense if the intelligence stat didn't exist at all in that kind of example. The players are as good at deduction as they are in real life and what is says on the sheet by INT doesn't matter.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 27, 2024, 04:09:46 AM
Nothing would be changed in any concrete mechanical sense if the intelligence stat didn't exist at all in that kind of example. The players are as good at deduction as they are in real life and what is says on the sheet by INT doesn't matter.
The GM tells the players what their character see and know about the world. The players decide what the characters feel and think about it. So, yes, deduction is a challenge for the player, not a skill gate for the character. INT should effect finding the clues in the first place and doing the research to discover their significance, not forming conclusions about them.
Quote from: Wisithir on March 27, 2024, 04:42:57 AM
The GM tells the players what their character see and know about the world. The players decide what the characters feel and think about it. So, yes, deduction is a challenge for the player, not a skill gate for the character. INT should effect finding the clues in the first place and doing the research to discover their significance, not forming conclusions about them.
So intelligence isn't actually a measure of the character's intelligence. The character is as good at deduction as the player and the number by INT is irrelevant.
If the player characters come to a door that is stuck, I don't make them open a physical door in the real world. Nor do I have the players bend bars, lift portcullis, pick locks or move stealthily around the gaming table. So of a player tries to fast talk a guard, I will ask to describe roughly what the character says and if it is reasonable, and believable, I'll make a reaction roll and add modifiers as I deem fit.
If the player wants to method act his way through the encounter I'm cool with that as well.
The reaction roll is always there when I need it.
If the player's character has a 6 (out of 18) Intelligence score and that player is solving riddles and doing calculus to get the party's asses through a dungeon...whelp I'm not going to punish that player. I just won't award any bonus xp for good role playing.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 26, 2024, 09:17:56 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 26, 2024, 08:27:28 AM
Those are all categories I felt would be things related to knowledge and performance where the capabilities of a PC would differ from a player without impacting the decision-making element for the player in the same way that a being stronger than the player doesn't impact their decisions of what to do with said strength.
Say the character encounters a puzzle or riddle or has to interpret a clue. They have to engage in some form of logical problem solving. Does the character's smarts stat figure directly into this or is it the player solving it? Does the character's intelligence matter here in a mechanical sense?
If elements of it are relevant to Arcana, Lore, Engineering, observable patterns (Insight), Nature or Medicine they would get information the player would get additional information based on their areas of expertise; but Intellect expressly isn't the stat for "performs cognition" in my games.
As I describe under Insight, it'll help you see patterns (this is connected to this) or note what doesn't fit (okay, he had means and motive, but there's no evidence he had any opportunity... there's something we're missing).
It (usually*) doesn't give you outright answers. The player still needs to make the cognitive leap from "Ted's body was found out on the lawn this morning, he had been stabbed to death, you found blood on Jane's coat hidden in the back of the closet, no one knows where she was last night, and one of the kitchen knives is missing" to "Jane stabbed Ted to death last night."
Your mental attributes will supply you lots of information, but it's not cognition. Cognition is for the players to do.
* sometimes something is meant to be so obvious no roll is needed (the ice cream is gone and little Bobby has ice cream stains all over his face and shirt), but if a player really doesn't make the leap I make them roll in front of everyone as I say "DC 0"** to drive home how dense (or more likely distracted) they're being before giving them the answer.
** Ironically, I HAVE had that roll fail because they had a -2 modifer and rolled a 1.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:01:40 AM
If the player characters come to a door that is stuck, I don't make them open a physical door in the real world. Nor do I have the players bend bars, lift portcullis, pick locks or move stealthily around the gaming table. So of a player tries to fast talk a guard, I will ask to describe roughly what the character says and if it is reasonable, and believable, I'll make a reaction roll and add modifiers as I deem fit.
If the player wants to method act his way through the encounter I'm cool with that as well.
The reaction roll is always there when I need it.
That's pretty much how I run charisma-based encounters, too. Player narrates or acts out their goal and general approach. And then depending on how likely I think that approach is to work, I'll either just reason out the NPC's response or modify the dice roll accordingly.
Intelligence challenges are a little more difficult, because no matter how good the roll is, you don't want to just give away the answer. Kind of defeats the point of the game. In D&D-likes, I usually use intelligence as a memory/knowledge stat. Depending on their character background, a PC can use it to get lore info, identify items, guess at NPC motivations, etc. Wisdom I use as a perceptiveness and intuition stat, so read faces, spot hidden details, and so on. I usually use mental stat rolls for things that can't be solved through roleplay/narration.
For most attribute/skill checks I prefer a system where it's easy to do rulings + rules. Something where the score on the character sheet still matters, and it's easy to modify the difficulty of a check up or down based on the player's approach to the problem.
It's a little off topic, but the way I see it, the dice are there to represent all the variables that are out of the character's control. So if a character with a good climbing skill fails to climb a wall, it's not because they somehow turned into an amateur. The mortar in the brickwork suddenly gave out or something. If the 18 Cha dashing hero fails to seduce the barmaid, it's because she's married, or in a bad mood or whatever. Point is nothing you said was going to work on her. There's nothing more annoying than investing points or whatever into making your character good at something, and then getting screwed by the dice and having to listen to the GM narrate how they're an incompetent boob at what's supposed to be their specialty
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 27, 2024, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:01:40 AM
If the player characters come to a door that is stuck, I don't make them open a physical door in the real world. Nor do I have the players bend bars, lift portcullis, pick locks or move stealthily around the gaming table. So of a player tries to fast talk a guard, I will ask to describe roughly what the character says and if it is reasonable, and believable, I'll make a reaction roll and add modifiers as I deem fit.
If the player wants to method act his way through the encounter I'm cool with that as well.
The reaction roll is always there when I need it.
That's pretty much how I run charisma-based encounters, too. Player narrates or acts out their goal and general approach. And then depending on how likely I think that approach is to work, I'll either just reason out the NPC's response or modify the dice roll accordingly.
Intelligence challenges are a little more difficult, because no matter how good the roll is, you don't want to just give away the answer. Kind of defeats the point of the game. In D&D-likes, I usually use intelligence as a memory/knowledge stat. Depending on their character background, a PC can use it to get lore info, identify items, guess at NPC motivations, etc. Wisdom I use as a perceptiveness and intuition stat, so read faces, spot hidden details, and so on. I usually use mental stat rolls for things that can't be solved through roleplay/narration.
For most attribute/skill checks I prefer a system where it's easy to do rulings + rules. Something where the score on the character sheet still matters, and it's easy to modify the difficulty of a check up or down based on the player's approach to the problem.
It's a little off topic, but the way I see it, the dice are there to represent all the variables that are out of the character's control. So if a character with a good climbing skill fails to climb a wall, it's not because they somehow turned into an amateur. The mortar in the brickwork suddenly gave out or something. If the 18 Cha dashing hero fails to seduce the barmaid, it's because she's married, or in a bad mood or whatever. Point is nothing you said was going to work on her. There's nothing more annoying than investing points or whatever into making your character good at something, and then getting screwed by the dice and having to listen to the GM narrate how they're an incompetent boob at what's supposed to be their specialty
Yes, I agree. Your methods sound great. Even experts mess up and it doesn't have to be their fault. Can't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut. Sometimes you can do everything correctly and still fail. Good call.
With regards to intelligence checks and puzzles; passing an INT check Gould grant clues as to how to solve the problem/riddle/dilemma. No need to hold the player's hand.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 26, 2024, 05:33:44 PM
I think the farther you get from reality (in both characters and world), the less useful common sense is.
Quote from: yosemitemikeThe character is as good at deduction as the player and the number by INT is irrelevant.
These two combined are the reason I find the whole "rulings, not rules" and the "problems without solutions/solutions without problems" pragmas to be so silly. The vast majority of players and DMs don't know a damn thing about spelunking, stonemasonry, small unit tactics, natural philosophy, or medieval social/military history. But then it doesn't much matter because gonzo nonsensical magic items, spells, traps and the entire dungeon itself don't follow any rules consistent with the real world either. It's all a game of "Mother May I" where whether solution X to problem Y works is based on whether the player can snow job the DM.
Ultimately you get shit like this, which is not
more ridiculous than the average OSR puzzle trap:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/lhvTs.jpg)
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.
That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.
Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:15:10 PM
These two combined are the reason I find the whole "rulings, not rules" and the "problems without solutions/solutions without problems" pragmas to be so silly. The vast majority of players and DMs don't know a damn thing about spelunking, stonemasonry, small unit tactics, natural philosophy, or medieval social/military history. But then it doesn't much matter because gonzo nonsensical magic items, spells, traps and the entire dungeon itself don't follow any rules consistent with the real world either. It's all a game of "Mother May I" where whether solution X to problem Y works is based on whether the player can snow job the DM.
Ultimately you get shit like this, which is not more ridiculous than the average OSR puzzle trap:
Only when you become reductionist about the whole thing. The whole point of ruling is to get off that merry go round before it spins out of control, instead of being so tied to doing everything by some process that you get stupid.
Sure, if the GM has no common sense and is an idiot, the rulings will go crazy. However, if the GM has no common sense and is an idiot, none of the rules-based cures will help. They'll just put a little friction on the fast slide to stupid. Not enough to matter in any meaningful sense.
If the GM has some common sense and any interest at all about getting better at the craft, then he gradually learns all kinds of pertinent information related to the genre being run. There is a cure for ignorance, but it takes some effort. The best kind of rules are not opposed to rulings but in support of them. They give you a framework in which to make the rulings and just enough verisimilitude in the genre to run something halfway decent until the training wheels can come off.
Dividing tasks between those done by the player and those done by the character is a really important and oft overlooked step in RPG design, things like who says the words, who knows the information, who makes the decisions, and so on. There isn't a one size fits all answer to the question. Marketing 101: everyone is different and just because you like something doesn't make it universal The fundamental issue is whether or not something is more fun when the player does it or the character does it. If the folks in your group like solving puzzles, then it's usually best to leave it to the players. If they hate puzzles or they're just kind of dumb, then it's better to resolve it as some kind of mechanical check. Of course that begs the question of why have a puzzle if you're just going to resolve it with a roll.,.
A number of factors get into the "which is more fun" criterion. Is it something the players enjoy? I'd rather do first person roleplay than roll the dice anyday. Is it more practical to do by one or the other? Having the players fight for real would be entertaining, but there are definite downsides as well. Do we want to spend table time on this activity? I could do actual woodcrafting rather than roll but then everyone would have to wait for me to finish. Then there are other factors people bring up that really don't matter, like consistency. Why roleplay conversation if you roll for combat? Because one is more fun one way and the other is more fun the other way. Consistency can be a means to fun, but can also get in the way of fun if overdone. It's not an end unto itself.
Just because stats are in the game doesn't mean they need to be used for everything. In early D&D INT was used for magic-user spells, WIS was used for clerical magic and charm resistance, and CHA was used for initial attitude of NPC encounters and number of followers allowed. And that's enough. Using them for things such as puzzles is a relatively recent thing AFAIK.
I personally have more fun with first person roleplay and interaction decisions made by the players and GM as guided by knowledge of the characters' personality. I'd rather solve the riddles and puzzles myself – that's fun. So the games I write don't have charisma or social skill checks. I think people are vastly better at making such decisions than dice. There are not numbers for mental ability. If you want to play a smart or a dumb character, a foolish or a wise character, then just play him that way. There are numbers for things that can't be done with player actions like magic ability and lore knowledge, but those are their own things, not part of something like intelligence, wisdom, or charisma
Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 26, 2024, 05:33:44 PM
I think the farther you get from reality (in both characters and world), the less useful common sense is.
That's the best reason not to stray entirely from reality. If common sense no longer works then the game isn't much fun IMO
Greetings!
I'm all for roleplaying, and letting Players roleplay and use their own minds to seek to solve problems or whatever is going on. However, having the various attributes and some decent skills are a very important aspect, and also serve as a useful framework for yes, solving issues with a dice roll.
It is not always about "Common Sense" either. Ever had a wife or girlfriend that really loves playing--but doesn't know a fucking thing about any if these game-tangent subjects? Or a guy friend that is an accountant and just doesn't have a brain that thinks too far beyond math-stuff? Whatever. My point is, you can easily have players that will never or are very unlikely to be on your wavelength, or think to figure out some stupid crazy puzzle. Regardless of how "simple" you think it might be. On their own, lots of players will fail dismally, and die horribly every time you do it.
So, to avoid an endless treadmill of stupid and frustration, and not having fun for everyone involved--having Attributes and skill rolls is an absolute joy, and can assist in keeping the game FUN, and progress moving. And avoid having Players look at you will barely concealed disgust, wondering, "WTF is your problem, dude?" Yeah, I have never liked that, so I have always appreciated being able to use Attribute rolls, or skill checks. Such mechanics are great for a keeping a fun campaign going.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think part of the reason why character INT isn't just the attribute score on the player's character sheet and sometimes instead maps to the player's intelligence is that INT is a relatively abstract concept. You can quantify STR in various concrete ways, max press, for example. But distinguishing between what types of puzzles or riddles someone with a 13 INT should be able to solve compared to someone with a 15 INT isn't as readily quantifiable. How would you really know whether you were accurately role-playing an INT score of 13 versus 15? Compare that with physical attributes like STR. You typically don't role-play STR. Your character either has the requisite strength to do something or doesn't.
And INT shows up in more places than puzzles and riddles. Problem-solving in combat is another area where player intelligence (and experience) matters. I don't think most DMs would disallow some clever tactic or strategy on the ground that the fighter in question lacked the requisite INT score to have that insight in combat (and players typically do not place one of their better attribute scores in INT when playing fighters). If so, then why get bent out of shape about a character with a mediocre INT score solving a difficult puzzle or riddle based on the player's ability?
Old-school D&D is a messy amalgam of character ability and knowledge and player ability and knowledge. I think it works fine, despite the inconsistencies, and that there is no problem to solve here. With a hard-to-quantify attribute like INT, it would strip player characters of a lot of their agency if the DM was routinely adjudicating whether they were intelligent enough to take "x" action or think "y" thought based on INT scores.
Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:17:00 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.
That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.
I am going to clarify here: if the expert player character has a 90+% chance to pick the lock...AND FAILS THE ROLL... Then perhaps IT WAS NOT DUE TO LACK OF EXPERTISE THAT CAUSE THE FAILURE, but rather it was due to some other circumstance that was beyond the control of the character.
If you fail the roll, you don't pick the lock. That's the exact opposite of "Quantum Ogres".
Quote from: SHARK on March 27, 2024, 08:53:11 PM
Greetings!
I'm all for roleplaying, and letting Players roleplay and use their own minds to seek to solve problems or whatever is going on. However, having the various attributes and some decent skills are a very important aspect, and also serve as a useful framework for yes, solving issues with a dice roll.
It is not always about "Common Sense" either. Ever had a wife or girlfriend that really loves playing--but doesn't know a fucking thing about any if these game-tangent subjects? Or a guy friend that is an accountant and just doesn't have a brain that thinks too far beyond math-stuff? Whatever. My point is, you can easily have players that will never or are very unlikely to be on your wavelength, or think to figure out some stupid crazy puzzle. Regardless of how "simple" you think it might be. On their own, lots of players will fail dismally, and die horribly every time you do it.
So, to avoid an endless treadmill of stupid and frustration, and not having fun for everyone involved--having Attributes and skill rolls is an absolute joy, and can assist in keeping the game FUN, and progress moving. And avoid having Players look at you will barely concealed disgust, wondering, "WTF is your problem, dude?" Yeah, I have never liked that, so I have always appreciated being able to use Attribute rolls, or skill checks. Such mechanics are great for a keeping a fun campaign going.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This is exactly why the idea roll exists in Call of Cthulhu and why it's the same as your intelligence stat.
Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:17:00 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.
That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.
It's funny you should say that. I sometimes refer to this approach as "Schroedinger's Lock". I started applying it because of games that have "x-in-6" or "x-in-12" skill systems. It makes no sense to me that a person with a given level of skill at lockpicking should have a 7/12 chance of picking any lock in the world. If you go to a locksmith and say "I've got a such-and-such model lock I need open", they're not going to say "well I can do it on a good day". They're going to say "yes" or "no". The important variable is what kind of lock it is, so it makes way more sense to me to say that 7/12 skill rating means that any given lock the character encounters is going to have a 7/12 chance of being one they have the skill to open. I call it "Schroedinger's Lock" because what kind of lock is on the door isn't determined until the die is rolled.
The same logic applies to most skill checks. There's some variance from skill to skill, but people who are good at something tend to be consistently good at it. Everyone has off days, but not to anything like the kind of variance that D&D skill checks tend to produce. Their performance is much more likely to be determined by external factors.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 02:13:42 AM
Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:17:00 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.
That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.
I am going to clarify here: if the expert player character has a 90+% chance to pick the lock...AND FAILS THE ROLL... Then perhaps IT WAS NOT DUE TO LACK OF EXPERTISE THAT CAUSE THE FAILURE, but rather it was due to some other circumstance that was beyond the control of the character.
If you fail the roll, you don't pick the lock. That's the exact opposite of "Quantum Ogres".
...OR he's just having a "bad day". Even the best of experts can have "one of those days": a normally ace pitcher gets whammied for 8 runs in 3 innings. starting quarterback gets intercepted 5 times and 3 of them score. you get the picture.