Quote from: Exploderwizard;545719:forge:

While it can be,and is played that way by some, cooperative storytelling isn't D&D.

It's so sad that the Forge has ruined a perfecting good term like "cooperative storytelling"... because left to my own- that's how I'd define* my own Age of Heroes game.

Sigh.



*The forge itself couldn't make up it's mind. They kept moving it between Simulationist and Gamist, almost on a whim.

The Forge does not own the words "cooperative storytelling", David Fucking Arneson Does. You fucking twat.

-Frank

Ooh, the very rarely observed trollfight.

Quote from: One Horse Town;545745Ooh, the very rarely observed trollfight.

This is funny all I see is Frank talking to air.

Quote from: Marleycat;545749This is funny all I see is Frank talking to air.

Trust me. Frank is going to join your legion of shadows, sooner or later. He's really 'good' that way.

I played in a (heavily houseruled) D&D game that Mary Kuhner GMed when she was studying in Berkeley, and I also participated in discussion on rec.games.frp.*.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;545598Mary was a special flower whose ability to roleplay could be disrupted by someone breathing the wrong way at the gaming table. I always respected her ability to articulate her perspective and her needs, but her experience is way out on an extreme.

Based on my memory of r.g.f.a I can understand why Mary might come across this way, but I think her "extremeness" (which IMO she shares with John M.) had more to do with pushing "immersion" into an extreme concept of "deep IC". Her actual games, which involved a group of players including her husband, were pretty normal procedurally. In any case, your characterization of her tastes is unnecessary to your argument since you're basically right about what you wrote next:

QuoteFurthermore, quoting Mary is an interesting choice. IIRC, she didn't use a tabletop grid or miniatures. The "objective mechanical system" she's talking about is, in fact, the exact same mechanics that Benoist and I are talking about.

I think there were small combats where we didn't use any visual aids. (E.g. I'm remembering an ambush by a single enemy against the group.) For anything involving several combatants on both sides, Mary would draw a rough diagram on a chalkboard. It was very similar to the way I'd use a hidden piece of looseleaf, except it was in plain view. There was no exact scale; it basically just showed relative positions with at most a very rough sense of distance.

In general, I like knowing what my character can and cannot do.  It helps me decide how to act in character.

Quote from: B.T.;545768In general, I like knowing what my character can and cannot do.  It helps me decide how to act in character.

Me too, but I find there's a point, when things become too codified, that people stop thinking about anything other than those strictly codified options. I've experienced this with both DMs and Players.

Quote from: Bobloblah;545775Me too, but I find there's a point, when things become too codified, that people stop thinking about anything other than those strictly codified options. I've experienced this with both DMs and Players.

I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

That depends on the system being used. If you're using the system you are describing, then anyone who has a good idea or a pleasing voice out of character can contribute to diplomatic scenes. The corollary of course, is that someone actually spending resources on Diplomacy doesn't really get much for whatever they spent if someone else can achieve the same results without even rolling dice for free just by being more likeable in person.

But in a game where you roll first and are then expected to roleplay out a good or bad result, those resources spent on diplomacy will seem a lot more justified - but making the attempt when your diplomacy skill is poor is downright dangerous. If poor rolls are likely, it is equally likely that you'll be asked to roleplay some kind of diplomatic gaffe. At the extreme end is 4th edition D&D: where the entire party gets a finite number of rolls in social situations, and the gruff battlerager making a diplomacy attempt of any kind really literally takes away diplomatic actions from Bardy McFancypants at the rate of 1 to 1.

I can see the merit of both kinds of play. And if people who are playing in the second type of game tell you that the mechanics intimidate them into not attempting to take diplomatic actions when they are not playing diplomatic characters, I don't think they are wrong.

-Frank

In either circumstance, isn't it the GM who decides if this should be a roll before the role-playing or a roll after the role-playing?


I do not see the merits of having the players role-play after the skill roll. It denies Player input by making the role-playing secondary to the dice roll, thus defeating any possibility of positive or negative modifiers from good role-playing by the Player. It is this type of GMing that empowers idiocy like the Diplomancer.

Quote from: jeff37923;545791In either circumstance, isn't it the GM who decides if this should be a roll before the role-playing or a roll after the role-playing?


I do not see the merits of having the players role-play after the skill roll. It denies Player input by making the role-playing secondary to the dice roll, thus defeating any possibility of positive or negative modifiers from good role-playing by the Player. It is this type of GMing that empowers idiocy like the Diplomancer.

Yeah...can't say I have ever had or seen anyone forced to roleplay it after the role (as in, their character; seen and done it plenty as a DM), though occasionally people have of their own volition, generally for comedic effect.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;545778I agree with this.  Give me a theme to work with, but don't give me rules for every little thing.  As you say, all too often what happens is people look to see if their character has a skill, and if not, they assume they can't do it, or won't bother trying to do it.

It's like a while ago when someone brought up, "My fighter doesn't have the highest diplomacy skill, the cleric does, so I feel left out during role-playing with NPCs because I can't contribute."  Who says you can't contribute?  Because you're scared you'll fail a roll when the cleric has the better chance?  Having lower diplomacy skills never stopped anyone from giving their $0.02 in real life, why should a game be any different.  Say what you want to say, and I as the DM will...gasp...roleplay it out.  If I'm on the fence, then I'll have you make a check.  But if you're reasonable, I'll go with it no check necessary.

See I have no issues with the fighter blundering into the diplomatic conversation calling the other party a wanker and asking him to take it outside. We can't all be diplomats can we ?
I might actually have an issue if the charming and eloquent player comes up with a perfect diplomatic solution , pitches it in perfect prose as if his PC a 8 Chr and zero diplomacy fighter would have said it just like that. Role play is after all a 2 edged sword.

Quote from: jibbajibba;545802I might actually have an issue if the charming and eloquent player comes up with a perfect diplomatic solution , pitches it in perfect prose as if his PC a 8 Chr and zero diplomacy fighter would have said it just like that. Role play is after all a 2 edged sword.

Is the Player role-playing in character then? If no, disallow it.

Quote from: Bobloblah;545775Me too, but I find there's a point, when things become too codified, that people stop thinking about anything other than those strictly codified options. I've experienced this with both DMs and Players.

If one has a complete and well designed combat system, there is no need to think outside of it.


Added: except to add detail fluff