Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 23:52:44 GMT -8
some skills are more valuable to an Adventuring Character than others. an Apothecary can make medicine and also treat wounds, a Tailor can make Clothes, a Hairdresser can cut and style hair. in a typical campaign where i needed to travel on an adventure to achieve some goal. i would rather bring the person that can do something useful on the road. the Apothecary can make medicine or other alchemical goods in town, but on the road, they can treat wounds, identify herbs and minerals, and extra poisons. that is more useful in most adventuring situations than being able to craft or repair clothing or being able to cut and style other people's hair. some characters are just better suited to the adventuring life. this can be as simple as the skillset they pursue. a Blacksmith or Carpenter is strong and hardy, and would likely make a decent warrior with a bit of training, certain skillsets encourage certain attribute formations, and certain attribute spreads encourage certain attributes. a small waifish young girl would be a lousy warrior, but could actually be passable as a spellcaster, a doctor, a scholar or a rogue. in most cases, spellcaster and rogue are more likely. the brawny linebacker would make a horrible rogue. but they could be a great warrior, a passable spellcaster, or a passable doctor or scholar. What's the connection between your comments and the subject of player vs character skill/knowledge? The question at hand is do we hold players accountable for knowing what their characters would, or do we help them out because the character would know? If we help them out, how? Is it okay to make a blanket perception roll, or must you say where you are looking, etc?
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Jun 9, 2017 0:16:07 GMT -8
some skills are more valuable to an Adventuring Character than others. an Apothecary can make medicine and also treat wounds, a Tailor can make Clothes, a Hairdresser can cut and style hair. in a typical campaign where i needed to travel on an adventure to achieve some goal. i would rather bring the person that can do something useful on the road. the Apothecary can make medicine or other alchemical goods in town, but on the road, they can treat wounds, identify herbs and minerals, and extra poisons. that is more useful in most adventuring situations than being able to craft or repair clothing or being able to cut and style other people's hair. some characters are just better suited to the adventuring life. this can be as simple as the skillset they pursue. a Blacksmith or Carpenter is strong and hardy, and would likely make a decent warrior with a bit of training, certain skillsets encourage certain attribute formations, and certain attribute spreads encourage certain attributes. a small waifish young girl would be a lousy warrior, but could actually be passable as a spellcaster, a doctor, a scholar or a rogue. in most cases, spellcaster and rogue are more likely. the brawny linebacker would make a horrible rogue. but they could be a great warrior, a passable spellcaster, or a passable doctor or scholar. What's the connection between your comments and the subject of player vs character skill/knowledge? The question at hand is do we hold players accountable for knowing what their characters would, or do we help them out because the character would know? If we help them out, how? Is it okay to make a blanket perception roll, or must you say where you are looking, etc? it has to do with the concept of using skills in an OSR system, which connects to the skills side topic of player skill against character skill. because player skill will encourage certain skills over others. players should have to describe the intent of their action. "i search the bedroom for something we can use" or "i try to apply herbs to treat the wounded dwarf's leg." you don't need to say "i open the underwear drawer, run my hand across the wood for false bottoms in search of the lord's incriminating ledger. if there is a false bottom, i will lift it and reach inside. "
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 9, 2017 0:38:21 GMT -8
some skills are more valuable to an Adventuring Character than others. You'll note I said "How valuable skills are really depends on the situation, the player, and the GM." You saying hairdressing is a less valuable skill to characters going off on a world spanning adventure may be true, but every game is not a world spanning adventure. Hairdressing would be an awesome skill if you were playing a political intrigue game set in the court of Louis XVI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 3:15:24 GMT -8
some skills are more valuable to an Adventuring Character than others. You'll note I said "How valuable skills are really depends on the situation, the player, and the GM." You saying hairdressing is a less valuable skill to characters going off on a world spanning adventure may be true, but every game is not a world spanning adventure. Hairdressing would be an awesome skill if you were playing a political intrigue game set in the court of Louis XVI. In my estimation skills are tools. How useful will any given tool be? That depends on you. Hyvemynd's example of hairdressing is a great example. It's a tool for gaining access to gossip and/or prestige. Going back to ilina 's ideas on skill + ability, I should comment that there are games that don't use this model. Since we're talking OSR mindset and not OSR titles only (there might be OSR systems that break from this as well, I just don't know any off hand), I wouldn't place so much importance on stat + skill combos. Besides, random characters are a hallmark of OSR character creation, so you may not have the luxury of choosing skills that match to your high stats anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Jun 9, 2017 5:33:22 GMT -8
just because i strongly dislike the concept of randomly generated characters doesn't mean i won't play one as part of a one shot or an extremely short string of adventures. just like the fact i strongly dislike pregens, but will play a savage worlds archetype if allowed to make minor modifications to suit the character i desire to play.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Jun 9, 2017 5:42:16 GMT -8
there were point buy options in some of the OSR Titles. and Point buy isn't completely Anti OSR. it is just against the D&D Norm. but there were Games with an OSR mindset that at the very least, have a point buy option or some other means of tweaking your rolled scores that resembled a primitive form of point buy.
the skills you had in Rifts were a way you could tweak your attributes in a specific direction and you got to choose those with a number based upon your class.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 9, 2017 5:45:11 GMT -8
For certain aspects of the game, casting a spell for example, the player's narration of how the character goes about performing the action has absolutely no effect on the outcome of that action ... But for other aspects of the game, perception and searching especially, the player's narration of their character's action has a huge effect on the outcome of said action. I think that is exactly what I was trying to say. The tracking thing was muddying the waters for me a bit. Tracking is looking for clues like bent leaves, crushed blades of grass, turned stones, etc. which could be found by anyone if they looked in the right place. But where the skill comes in is knowing which of those signs indicate the passage of a creature and which are just the results of weather and natural phenomenon. Exactly. I mean, look at it this way: I could be looking at the site of an orc massacre and see the dead orc bodies piled over there, the remnants of a campsite over here, etc. Aragorn could look at the exact same things I'm looking at and realize that two halfling were laying right where I was standing. And that they crawled away, and had their bonds cut. Then they were almost squished by a horse, but rolled out of the way and crawled into the woods for safety. skill systems give you a better understanding of what your character can do. but they are heavily minmaxable due to some skills being more valuable than others. like an Apothecary having more value than a tailor or hairdresser. How valuable skills are really depends on the situation, the player, and the GM. I don't think that some skills are inherently more or less valuable than others. I think skill systems can also be limiting at times. One of the things I like about the OSR is the "you can try anything you want to try, we'll figure out how it works" approach. But with tightly codified skill systems, I've seen players get locked into those skills. "Gosh, I really want to grill this guy until he tells me what he knows, but I didn't take the intimidate skill. So I'll pass." I actually saw that in a game I was watching at Strategicon last year. The worst part is the GM just nodded his head and went on to the next player. =/ Edit: yes, that's completely 100% a GM problem. But it does illustrate my point: the player didn't think he could intimidate someone because he didn't take the intimidate skill.
|
|
|
Post by EricaOdd on Jun 9, 2017 5:45:14 GMT -8
As a GM, or even a player, I wouldn't mind if the player of a "dumb barbarian" came up with a brilliant plan that helps the party. Anyone can come up with a good idea or a stroke of genius, so I wouldn't consider it metagaming or not roleplaying for such a thing to happen.
The players *should* work together, so if it would really bother you to have the "dumb barbarian" solve the complicated puzzle, you could say that the barbarian's *player* may have solved the riddle but in-game, it was the 18-Int wizard who actually figured it out.
To me, it doesn't really matter who actually solves a problem, in-character or otherwise. Only that it was solved.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 9, 2017 5:52:58 GMT -8
As far as player skill goes, I don't think that's even a good term for it. "I search the room" vs "I look under the statue" is a difference of granularity. If an issue comes up with a player being too general, prompt them for more information. "How are you searching the room? What are you looking for?" Agreed. That's why I keep putting it in quotes. "Player skill", heh. As a GM, your job is description for a good chunk of gameplay. This includes what the character would know. So if there is a gap in player skill, the first place to look for the cause and solution is the GM. You can do this by peppering in such knowledge into your narrations as you go along or with interludes. Flash back and play out a little scene where the character learned to disarm traps and what to look for. You've enriched your game world and taught your player something they can use for their character going forward. This is exactly why "player skill" isn't a very good term for it. Because it's not solely player skill. If you're not going to be boring and rely on a specific game mechanic ("I got an 18 on my search roll!" "You found a bag with 100gp in it.") then it has to be a back-and-forth between player and GM. (And even then, if you are going to rely on a specific game mechanic, come on, GM a little. Don't go straight to the 100gp; sure, they made their skill roll, but narrate a little bit. Describe the room they searched and how they searched it. Make the skill check fun and interesting.)
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 9, 2017 6:09:46 GMT -8
Too often we are jumping the shark to get a roll on the table when it's not time for that yet. Dammit, @stevensw, when you keep saying things I agree with, you're ruining our rep. But seriously, I could not agree more. We're framing this discussion within the paradigm of the OSR, and my experience with OSR games is that it's always a discussion first, and then the GM uses what came out of the discussion to adjudicate what will mechanically happen (if anything) within the rules of the game. Sometimes, a roll is not even necessary if what the player wants to do is something that his character should be able to handle as a "regular thing". For instance, your "being followed" example? For me, it would go something like this (and let's assume the driver is a professional race car driver): "I want to check and see if we're being followed." "Ok, how do you plan to do that? There are several cars behind you as you're driving down the main city road." "Um... I'll run the next red light and see if anyone follows us." "Awesome, you maintain an even speed until you see a light turning yellow. You floor the gas pedal, swerve around the guy in front of you, and barrel through the light, all the while giving the rear-view mirror frequent glances. Oddly enough, there is a sedan that was travelling in the lane next to you that also puts on the gas and runs the red light as well..." I don't think there'd even be a roll needed for a professional race car driver to run a red light. However, if we assume that the driver was a... medical doctor, it might go something like this: "I want to check and see if we're being followed." "Ok, how do you plan to do that? There are several cars behind you as you're driving down the main city road." "Um... I'll run the next red light and see if anyone follows us." "Ok, roll a d20 and try to get under your Dex score." (or roll your Driving skill, whatever mechanic would cover driving) "I got a... 13, and my Dex is 15. So... made it!" "Awesome, you maintain an even speed until you see a light turning yellow. You floor the gas pedal, swerve around the guy in front of you, and barrel through the light, all the while giving the rear-view mirror frequent glances. Oddly enough, there is a sedan that was travelling in the lane next to you that also puts on the gas and runs the red light as well..."
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 9, 2017 6:14:36 GMT -8
As a GM, or even a player, I wouldn't mind if the player of a "dumb barbarian" came up with a brilliant plan that helps the party. Of course. That was an example for example's sake. Granted, the "dumb barbarian" shouldn't *always* be coming up with the brilliant plans, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
|
|
|
Post by EricaOdd on Jun 9, 2017 6:36:27 GMT -8
Of course, but my point as regards the "player skill" discussion is that I don't mind ascribing a brilliant idea from the player of a 'dumb' character to another character. To me, it doesn't matter who came up with an idea, only that someone came up with it.
If the thought of a non-intellectual character coming up with a great idea bothers you for roleplaying reasons, it's no big deal to me to say another character actually came up with the idea. Everyone at the table knows who really thought of it, so credit is given where it's due, but to keep the characters in-character in-game, say the smart guy in the party is the one who did it.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Jun 9, 2017 6:37:36 GMT -8
if the Barbarian's player comes up with a clever plan out of character, we can always say the wizard came up with the plan in character and that the Barbarian player entered the mode of roleplaying the wizard when making up the plan.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 9, 2017 6:56:50 GMT -8
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I don't think I'm OK with the wizard being given credit for the barbarian's idea. If the barbarian's *player* wants to give the wizard's *player* an idea, so that the wizard can actually enact it in game, that's OK. I'm OK with that.
Like I said, probably pedantic.
On the other hand, a smart barbarian who comes up with good ideas only to have them stolen by a silver-tongued and shifty wizard, that's some fun RP.
Barbarian: "Me search bookcase. Maybe have secret door." Wizard: "No, no, good friend barbarian. Let me do that. It's far more important that a man of your strength of arms and knowledge of combat guard the door to insure we are not set upon by miscreants!" Barbarian: "Um. Ok."
*moments later*
Wizard: (to rest of party) "AH HA! I have found a secret door behind the bookcase! No wonder I am known as Azaranthoral the Amazing!" Barbarian: *glare*
|
|
|
Post by EricaOdd on Jun 9, 2017 7:31:22 GMT -8
I'm separating in-character and out-of-character interaction.
Everyone at the table knows that it was you who came up with the idea, so there shouldn't be an issue with who gets credit for the great idea. "Good thinking, Tim!"
However, *if there are complaints of meta-gaming*, that "your dumb character would never think if that," then a solution could be to say that *in-game*, it was actually the smart character that did it.
You, the smart player, had the idea and get the congrats and kudos from the other players. However, since players chat back and forth and share ideas all the time to solve problems, it could be said that the smart character is the one who came up with it *in-game*.
And after this I'll stop bringing it up. I feel the whip marks on this particular deceased equine are already getting too deep...
|
|