Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

Is there anyone stopping them?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011430The game changed permanently for the worse when the prevailing attitude of the players and refs went from "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted" to "everything not specifically permitted is forbidden."  This happened during my "great hibernation" which lasted from 1987 to 2003.

At least on internet discussions, to be sure. My experience might not be representative, but I've still not run into many groups that do not allow ad-libbing IRL play. '87 was when I first got on Usenet/BBS D&D discussions. I seem to remember a lot of "can'ts" and "have tos" and "musts" being thrown around even then. Still, I can't imagine coming back in '03 and thinking 'what the hell happened while I was away?'

You got that right, Kimotherapy.  I'm still frankly reeling as to how much the game has changed, at least in discussion.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011437Is there anyone stopping them?

You're asking the wrong person, but apparently so or this thread would not exist.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011441You're asking the wrong person, but apparently so or this thread would not exist.

I think enough players said "It doesn't say I can't fly by flapping my arms" that many refs shut down anything that isn't written in the rules.

Also, most people, both players and referees, are booger-eating morons who are working at the limits of their intellect if they can shit unassisted.

I don't like games where there are lots of different fiddly bits available on a class basis.

I do like games where there are lots of fiddly bits in the system.

This is why I like 1E AD&D.  There are lots of fiddly bits that affect whether or not you hit in general melee; applying them at tactically advantageous moments is up to the player.  But they're mostly available to all instead of a single class; the special class attack power(s) being mainly limited to the thief's backstab, monk's stun, and the fighter (+subclasses) ability to attack <1HD once per level.  

A magic-user can overbear; A cleric can utilize WvAC; anyone can give themselves the best chance to disrupt a spellcaster by choosing to pummel instead of attacking for mortal damage; etc.

I think this is the sweet spot between tactical thinking and group coordination vs. arcade game supermoves.

Quote from: David Johansen;1011418I wonder if they can get away with showing that cartoon anymore.

Thanks to Youtube, it doesn't matter.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening. That and the point is often made that having a rule gives the player in question a specific, repeatable, reliable move they can rely on, whereas when it is an open-ended thing then it could be as weak or as strong as the GM wants.

In other words, a big part of the fun here is the character building, taking this option or that, putting together your character the way a car enthusiast would go over each component of his car with a fine tooth and comb to custom order it. It is also the satisfaction of putting together the perfect structure, like building a model ship, putting everything just in its right place.

Just doing it freeform feels like a cop out to them. There is no engagement or rigor or challenge that they can then show off to their friends. You can't show off your character sheet to people to see what kind of character you made if all of it is just happening in the moment between GM and player.

At least, that's what I've been able to suss out from multiple conversations over the years. Otherwise I wouldn't see people balk at it every time I suggest they just do what they think makes sense in their imagination, etc.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011437Is there anyone stopping them?
...
At least on internet discussions, to be sure. My experience might not be representative, but I've still not run into many groups that do not allow ad-libbing IRL play. '87 was when I first got on Usenet/BBS D&D discussions. I seem to remember a lot of "can'ts" and "have tos" and "musts" being thrown around even then. Still, I can't imagine coming back in '03 and thinking 'what the hell happened while I was away?'

A lot of the rules minutiae discussion strikes me as white room theorycrafting, often by those whose real hobby seems to be dissecting rules not actually playing. The question 'have you actually encountered this at the table?' usually reveals that.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

If the GM simply assigns a bonus or penalty, then the described manuver that gives the best bonus will become the default one. How is this any different than a bunch of preset combat manuvers in the rulebook?

[video=youtube;FToHabxSVYg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FToHabxSVYg[/youtube]

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1011454If the GM simply assigns a bonus or penalty, then the described manuver that gives the best bonus will become the default one. How is this any different than a bunch of preset combat manuvers in the rulebook?

It's different because I don't have to read hundreds of pages of fucking rules.

Translated to full size pages OD&D is less than 64 pages.  Fuck these multi-volume multi-hundred page rule sets.  Fuck them to death with an axe while holding their face into a fire and laughing as they scream.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011452The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening. That and the point is often made that having a rule gives the player in question a specific, repeatable, reliable move they can rely on, whereas when it is an open-ended thing then it could be as weak or as strong as the GM wants.

In other words, a big part of the fun here is the character building, taking this option or that, putting together your character the way a car enthusiast would go over each component of his car with a fine tooth and comb to custom order it. It is also the satisfaction of putting together the perfect structure, like building a model ship, putting everything just in its right place.

Just doing it freeform feels like a cop out to them. There is no engagement or rigor or challenge that they can then show off to their friends. You can't show off your character sheet to people to see what kind of character you made if all of it is just happening in the moment between GM and player.

At least, that's what I've been able to suss out from multiple conversations over the years. Otherwise I wouldn't see people balk at it every time I suggest they just do what they think makes sense in their imagination, etc.

I have a player that is the poster child for this approach and it causes quite a bit of friction between the two of us. I simply can't appreciate it at all. It's all about playing a role to me, not manipulating rules but I get that others feel differently.

When I ran Metamorphosis Alpha a couple of years ago the players (experienced 3.5 hands) all commented about how great the game was because they could try to do anything they wanted. I thought this was an odd thing to say because that is how every game I have run or played has worked.  Apparantly there is a new generation of players out there to who the idea of simply trying to do something without a specific widget for it on your character sheet is a completely alien concept. Or tehy may just all be bugger eating morons. I don't allow snacking at my table, so I don't have conclusive evidence which it is.

If you get a couple of bad.   No, not bad but unimaginative DMs, it can be great to be able to point at the sheet and say, "see it says so right here."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011452The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening.

At the minimum, then, Grapple and Shove are right there in the rules. The optional rule for disarming an opponent can be used as well. Despite the fact that using Shove to knock an enemy down right before he takes several melee attacks from you and your pals is one of the best things you can do in 5e, nobody ever seems to do it. If you Grapple after your shove, the enemy can't even get back up without consuming its entire action. You can also bring in some of the optional combat rules from the DMG, like Disarm and Overrun.

If people balk at the concept of referees making rulings rather than having hard-and-fast rules, write some house rules. E.g...

Make an Intimidation vs Insight check as an Action. Enemy is afraid of you until the start of your next turn.
In place of a weapon attack, you can bash with your shield. Make an improvised weapon attack. On a hit, push the enemy back 5 ft.

etc.

You can come up with more things like this, and if you make them cost a weapon attack or Action and not do any damage, they'll be useful, but not automatically better than attacking.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011471I have a player that is the poster child for this approach and it causes quite a bit of friction between the two of us. I simply can't appreciate it at all. It's all about playing a role to me, not manipulating rules but I get that others feel differently.

What Macky was describing is an extreme edge case, possibly influenced by toilet training issues.

Since the popularity of MMORPGs, the notion of "character build" has infested TTRPGs like maggots.