|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 9, 2017 7:47:34 GMT -8
Yeah, like I said, I'm being a bit pedantic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by EricaOdd on Jun 9, 2017 8:23:12 GMT -8
And in a game system where you get XP for solving problems like that?
Even if it's retconned to have the smarter character be the one to solve the problem, I'd give the XP to the character of the *player* that actually solve the problem.
So the player that actually solved the problem would get credit from the other players for the good idea, and they'd also get the actual reward of XP that would come from solving the problem. Even if in-game it wasn't their character that did it...
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Jun 9, 2017 8:49:54 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. For a while, this was one of the schticks of a fantasy game I was in. We had a really brilliant player playing a character of below average intelligence. Anytime he came up with something good, the guy playing the wizard would snap his fingers and let out an "A ha!", before repeating the plan Word for Word in character.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 9, 2017 8:55:14 GMT -8
Wow, I get side tracked laughing my cock off at 'The Best Day Ever' in U.K. Politics (sometimes losing can still be winning bye bye Paul Nuttal, upset much Mr Murdoch?) and the topic takes off like wild fire ... this will take some reading, tomo, when I've stopped tasting the sweetest defeat ever ... Aaron PS: yes, I supported that 'nasty' Mr Corbyn ;D
|
|
temmogen
Initiate Douchebag
I am the thread killer
Posts: 40
Preferred Game Systems: 1st Ed. AD&D; Pathfinder; Mongoose Traveller; Call of Cuthulhu
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by temmogen on Jun 9, 2017 19:12:47 GMT -8
If I didn't know better, I'd think it was one of my rants about skills. I haven't posted one in a while however.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 13, 2017 8:41:13 GMT -8
So I read the treatises above and have to agree with Temmogen - this discussion has strayed into the same territory as 'social skills'. I don't think that was ever Probie Tim's intention. As a side note the 'social skills' discussion isn't for the Show not the boards so, if one is brave enough, have at it ... it just won't be resolved in a single thread .... ever Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ilina on Jun 13, 2017 11:00:32 GMT -8
skills are primarily there so players don't have to be masters of a subject to be able to do it. you shouldn't have to physically swing a sword at your games master every time you make an attack, the sheer number of dead and dismembered game masters would get roleplaying games shut down.
if you don't have to be a master swordsman in real life to roleplay as a friggin master swordsman. why should you have to emulate a real life politician to roleplay a fictional politician? that is what skills are for, so the typical creepy autistic Otaku that plays RPGs doesn't have to learn a politician's level of social skills overnight to roleplay a highly social character.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 13, 2017 11:08:58 GMT -8
Yeah, this really wasn't supposed to be a discussion about game-mechanic skills and whether to have them or not... especially social skills. This was supposed to be a thread about what "player skill" means in old school games that do not have game-mechanic skills, and how players are supposed to use "player skill" when they themselves are not familiar with the subject at hand.
I'd rather this thread didn't dissolve into a discussion of whether game-mechanic skills are needed or not; the fact is that certain games don't have them and won't ever get them, and this thread is for them. So whether game-mechanic skills are needed, or better, or worse, is a moot point as far is this thread is concerned.
At least, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 13, 2017 11:50:42 GMT -8
Yeah, this really wasn't supposed to be a discussion about game-mechanic skills and whether to have them or not... especially social skills. This was supposed to be a thread about what "player skill" means in old school games that do not have game-mechanic skills, and how players are supposed to use "player skill" when they themselves are not familiar with the subject at hand. I'd rather this thread didn't dissolve into a discussion of whether game-mechanic skills are needed or not; the fact is that certain games don't have them and won't ever get them, and this thread is for them. So whether game-mechanic skills are needed, or better, or worse, is a moot point as far is this thread is concerned. At least, IMHO. Pretty much the gist of what I read. By page 2 it's really gone off topic to tread that all too familiar 'to have skills or not to have skills'. Personally I like the way the Castles & Crusades Seige Engine handles it - any skill type task can be linked to an attribute and that can used to help determine success for a PC based on the actions described by the Player: when the outcome isn't certain/obvious e.g.: walking a narrow beam etc. ADnD 2e did this with attribute checks as well, those non-weapon proficiencies were Optional not mandated. An interesting contrast is reading Rob Kuntz's Dark Druids adventure as it was original published for d20 OGL and its latest incarnation for ADnD 1e - DC's are replaced with simple statements of what sort of actions will result in success e.g.: a DC to spot the map case on the dead corpse becomes 'if the PC's turn the corpse over to examine it they will find the map case'. The differences in game style is implicit in the differences in presentation between the two versions of the same module. As an aside: what an odd evolution for an old adventure, originally conceived in ODnD, first published as DnD 3.x, republished using a Generic System Agnostic nomenclature and finally published, and refined, again for ADnD 1e Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 13, 2017 11:58:47 GMT -8
skills are primarily there so players don't have to be masters of a subject to be able to do it. you shouldn't have to physically swing a sword at your games master every time you make an attack, the sheer number of dead and dismembered game masters would get roleplaying games shut down. if you don't have to be a master swordsman in real life to roleplay as a friggin master swordsman. why should you have to emulate a real life politician to roleplay a fictional politician? that is what skills are for, so the typical creepy autistic Otaku that plays RPGs doesn't have to learn a politician's level of social skills overnight to roleplay a highly social character. I think I said I didn't think that this thread was really intended to have 'that' discussion. For the less socially astute that means 'I'm not interested in this discussion/aspect of the topic because it's an old donkey that's been fucked to death so many times that even the bones have been worn into dust without a single resolution or gem of insight resulting. People have opinions and they're not gonna change so why drag it up again ... but if you must, by all means beat the poor old nag again just don't expect anyone to 'win'' (I'll just munch popcorn and Jaffa's while the battle rages) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 13, 2017 12:14:22 GMT -8
ADnD 2e did this with attribute checks as well, those non-weapon proficiencies were Optional not mandated. Interestingly enough, attribute checks were originally in the Moldvay Basic D&D book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 16:32:58 GMT -8
OK. I think I get what you're saying. 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. Describing your wizard's intricate hand gestures isn't going to grant you a bonus on your die roll to actually cast the spell. It it purely flavor. 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. Sometimes to the point where success or failure hinges entirely on that narration. Unless you say your character is looking under the bed, they're simply not going to find the magic ring. The idea that the description of how the spell is cast is all useless fluff doesn't make sense to me. There is real information to be garnered in how someone does their magic. Everything from choreographing spells by using them more than once to giving clues how one might be able to stop the casting might be discovered in that description. There might be some superficial part to the description, but I think on the whole you are losing more info than you might think if you gloss over the whole affair as being just set dressing. Even in D&D I could find good backing for this. You see a guy casting spells, always using a wand? "Give it up, I have you cornered!" I'll ready an action to sunder his wand if he tries to cast a spell. All of that wand waving just transformed into a target for our witch hunter.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 13, 2017 17:13:05 GMT -8
The idea that the description of how the spell is cast is all useless fluff doesn't make sense to me. When we're speaking purely about game mechanics, though, it IS useless fluff. Note I'm not saying it's useless fluff for the players, or for the narrative; I'm only talking about with regards to game mechanics. For example, take the player of a first level magic-user in one game who says to his DM, "I cast magic missile." Then consider the player of a first level magic-user in another game who says to his DM, "I glare at my opponent with fierce concentration in my eyes. I raise a single eyebrow as the strain which comes with harnessing magical energies begins to crease my forehead. I raise one hand and point my index finger at my foe; with the other, I make a slow but deliberate swirling motion around my extended finger... once, twice, three times. As I swirl my hand I forcefully intone the magic phrase which will unlock the arcane energy locked in my mind: KLAATU! BARADA! NIKTO! I then watch with glee as the magic missle forms in front of me - a glowing bolt of eldritch energy - and screams across the room towards the miscreant who dares oppose me!" Know what happens in both cases, by way of pure game mechanics? The bad guy gets hit with a magic missile that does 1d4+1 damage. That awesome description of how the second player described the spell being cast didn't change the mechanics one bit. It was, from the game mechanic's point of view, useless fluff.
|
|
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 13, 2017 17:48:33 GMT -8
Interestingly enough, attribute checks were originally in the Moldvay Basic D&D book. View AttachmentHuh. That is interesting. I can see now where The Black Hack got that mechanic from, though in TBH you need to roll under your attribute score. Of course David Black could have come up with that mechanic on his own, but as TBH is "hacked" from B/X D&D, I'm going to assume this is where he got the idea from. Getting back to the discussion of player skill, I think my major issue is with it's name. "Player skill" sounds like saying someone has "skill as a player" or is a "skilled player" to me. And if you follow that logic, it means some players will be skilled while others will not. Which feels a bit unfair to me. I read an article about Tomb of Horrors that said the adventure module was intentionally written to stump Gygax's normal players. Supposedly the group had developed a routine of sorts regarding how they explored a dungeon, and Gygax wrote the module specifically so that doing their usual things would result in character death. Now, I don't know if this is true, but after reading ToH, I can believe it. The stuff in there seems both impossible to solve and downright mean to me. But it also makes me think about player skill. Over time players will learn a GM's habits and tendencies, and could learn how to circumvent and exploit those. I would call that a kind of player skill. It feels like metagaming to me though, as it's the player using their knowledge of how the GM usually runs things to solve problems and has nothing to do with the character. It's those associations, fair or not, that makes me wary of "player skill".
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 13, 2017 18:03:07 GMT -8
This is why I always put it in quotes - "player skill" - because I don't think that's an apt name for the concept being discussed. And I don't actually call it that, that's just something that came out of your original tweet. Heh, I just call it "playing old-school style".
|
|