| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm forking another thread.
I get the impression that the "I don't have to explain myself, and if you don't like it you can go home" attitude is very old school. As in, it was probably an attitude that people who started playing when they were 10 yrs old did. Now if you are still gaming in a fashion you did when you were 10 yrs old, well, I would say there are not a lot of 10 yrs old that I look to for property social etiquette.
Conversely, I feel there's an attitude that's very much new school (and one that has been displayed in more than a few threads) - one that, for whatever character flaws I possess, I can only derogatorily refer to as the "special snowflake GM-disempowerment ethos."
It's a trend that started with storytelling games, and is incredibly prevalent in a lot of indie stuff, and it's been creeping more and more into traditional RPGs.
And lest I be piled on for the misinterpretation that I support such, my issue with it is not that "How dare the GM be challenged! His/her every word should be uncontested!" it's that *this* particular game D&D 3E/3.5 or PF) is not really one that needs or benefits from "shared narrative" or similar concepts as a base expectation. The GM is the narrator. Players influence the game world through their PC's actions, not through shared narration. That's a concept that's typically best left in the games that spawned it.
It's not an issue of GM control, it's an issue of what kind of game one wants to play. When I'm playing 3E/3.5/PF, I don't have any desire to share control of the game world with the GM, outside of the occasional running an NPC.
Now, that said, I have found certain utilities to be somewhat useful when operating as a GM - the Plot Twist cards can be something that help out in a bind, and those are very much a "shared narrative" concept - but they're used as the exception, not the rule.
I don't really put myself in either the old or new school camp - somewhere in the middle, but leaning a bit more traditionalist/old school.
Your thoughts?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had anyone tell me that they don't have to explain themselves, and that I should go home if I don't like that. I've never had anyone tell me that the GM's every word should be uncontested, or had my questions called a challenge to authority. I started playing Basic D&D when I was eleven, and even most of the ins and outs of play were explained to me by more experienced players. (Older guys, who were, like, thirteen!)
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet rather than around the table.
Edit: ninja'd by TOZ. Again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet rather than around the table.
Amen, brother!
I think this is a general rule for living in the 21st century.
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet rather than around the table.
This. I'll have been playing for nine years sometime this fall, give or take, and I've never encountered more than 9/10ths of the complaints, insults, arguments, contrary definitions, or deliberate misreadings that apparently cause problems everywhere, except on forums like this one.
And the miniscule few disagreements of interpretation that I have had with my fellow players/GMs off these forums? Always been handled as disagreements between friends. Never had a game break down into a shouting match. Again, except on gaming forums.
I tend to be close to old school. I do not prefer the indie game trend of shared narrative. I started when I was a kid and still remember/believe the old DnD rule #1 from the PHB, all rules are optional.
When I DM, I don't mind being shown that I was using a rule wrong or it didn't apply. But in the end, DM has final say on everything. Whether I was DM'ing or playing. That is how I see it, but I do tend to correct myself if I am misusing something. I do not mind having a rule overlooked for a good story point though. It usually leads to fun roleplaying situations that the DM planned.
That's just my two cents though and the only thing that really matters is that everyone is having fun.
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet rather than around the table.This. I'll have been playing for nine years sometime this fall, give or take, and I've never encountered more than 9/10ths of the complaints, insults, arguments, contrary definitions, or deliberate misreadings that apparently cause problems everywhere, except on forums like this one.
And the miniscule few disagreements of interpretation that I have had with my fellow players/GMs off these forums? Always been handled as disagreements between friends. Never had a game break down into a shouting match. Again, except on gaming forums.
I envy you. I've seen shouting matches, people storm off, character folios ripped up, the works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your thoughts?
You seem to be getting into a couple of different topics here, not sure if they have anything to do with the comment you quoted but I'll try to address them.
a)Cooperative story telling - yeah I don't really see D&D or PF as this, except in the case of rotating GMs possibly. Of course that doesn't mean that GMs can't or shouldn't use player input to improve the game, 5 creative minds are certainly better than 1. And there are slightly varying ways of gaming this type (from free rein/sandbox to adventure path/railroad). Still, ultimately the GM is going to decide on the aspects of all of the characters and features of the world, with the [possible] exception of the PCs.
b)GM dis-empowerment - I think GMs have as much (social) power as they always have had, merely that now a lot of players are realizing they were conceding too much of their own (social) power to the GM. While GMs are certainly the primus inter pare, they are not the adult in a relationship with children (unless they are literally the only adult, GMing a bunch of kids). As with any interaction with peers, mutually respect should be shown. That means attitudes of "my way or the highway" are generally inappropriate [obviously instances where someone is hosting a game and has a strict rule of how to behave in their home might do this and it would be appropriate, within reason]. If a GM views their (social) power being reduced, I would suggest they consider if they had been acting in a socially appropriate way. Gamers have a stereotype of not being the most socially adept, in some cases those are not only stereotypes but also legitimate descriptions (this may also be part of the reason why when some of us were younger, we didn't stick up for ourselves with an abusive GM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had anyone tell me that they don't have to explain themselves, and that I should go home if I don't like that. I've never had anyone tell me that the GM's every word should be uncontested, or had my questions called a challenge to authority. I started playing Basic D&D when I was eleven, and even most of the ins and outs of play were explained to me by more experienced players. (Older guys, who were, like, thirteen!)
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet rather than around the table.
Edit: ninja'd by TOZ. Again.
I think people have this opinion that "shutup and play" makes them old school or grognards. It doesn't. It just makes them unwilling to listen. I have gamed with GM's that go as far back as 1st edition, and none of them could be considered a "no discussion" GM.
"Shut up and play" = "get off my lawn!"
You seem to be getting into a couple of different topics here, not sure if they have anything to do with the comment you quoted but I'll try to address them.
Yar - related to the old school aspect, rather than the rest of the comment I quoted.
Thank you for the feedback!
The only time I think a GM should be disempowered is when it comes to the laws of physics. E.g. if my PC can jump 100 feet on Monday but only 2 feet on Tuesday (ceteris paribus), I'll go play in a different game, thanks.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet rather than around the table.
So very this.
Also, a rant follows. It is not directed to Brian the OP, but to a general "you" who is very obviously a nonexistent person that I want to rant about. None of the following is meant personally, and I would appreciate it being taken as such (that is, not meant personally). I just really need to get it off my chest.
The old school/new school thing makes me want to curbstomp puppies. There's no such thing! There was how your gaming group did it when you were younger and you were not paying attention to the outside world, and then when you discovered cons and discussion groups and the Internet, you had the brutal and tragic discovery that sometimes other people played the game differently than you.
Oh, the horrors, to learn of so many people having fun wrong! Didn't they know that your way was the One and True way? Didn't they understand that the GM is God/Players Are God/Mechanics Are King/Story is King? HOW COULD THEY NOT SEE THIS PLAIN TRUTH BEFORE THEM?? And you decided, well, these people are "new" in my life, so they must be new to the game, and they're bringing about a New School Apocalypse that will DESTROY gaming as we know it! Get the pitchforks and the grognard canes! Because obviously, the way you and your four best friends did it when you were 12 was the way EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE played it, exactly and entirely the same, until you learned of this frightening new development.
I remember back in the dark ages of gaming when I was just a tiny lemure, some GMs ruled their tables with an iron fist. I remember at the same time, other GMs that handwaved everything and played things extremely fast and loose. I knew some who focused on mechanics and combat to the exclusion of all else, and others who really focused on storytelling.
And gee, nowadays, over 20 years later, I know some GMs who prefer to rule their tables with an iron fist, and others that are extremely lenient; I know some who are crunch driven and others who are fluff driven. Nothing's actually changed, and there are in fact no new or old ways--just the same different strokes for different folks. Strange and mystifying, and I know.
This thing has in fact been a constant since RPGs began (and since before RPGs, with the games that inspired their creation), and will likely remain a constant for years to come.
Of course, that this idea is so radical, it likely means I am Wrong on the Internet, and I do expect to be chastised for my delusions. Flame on.
|
The old school/new school thing makes me want to curbstomp puppies. There's no such thing!
Old school gaming isn't about ruling the table with an iron fist, it's more like how Mathew Finch describes it in his "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" booklet...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The old school/new school thing makes me want to curbstomp puppies. There's no such thing!Old school gaming isn't about ruling the table with an iron fist,
GAABHAHSBHASbDFnj,asdfflsdfahljkkxsndsfkn. xz!!!!!!!!!!!
*ahem* I didn't say it was, and I have no idea how you got that impression given my rant about how much I hate the idea that anyone ascribes ANYTHING to "old school" or "new school" gaming.
I said there's no such thing, and there are as much a variety of styles of play in the 70s and 80s as there are now.
And I have no interest in reading a document that perpetuates the misconception that there's an "old" and a "new" way to play. ETA: Ah, based on TOZ's link, I have read that document before, I remember the trap example. Yes, it has nothing to do with "old" vs "new" school at all, most definitely, it's just about differences in GMing styles as usual -- and I agree with that article, the document is poorly written.
|
|
it has nothing to do with "old" vs "new" school at all, most definitely, it's just about differences in GMing styles as usual
Sure the style used in those early editions can be used today, making it simply a difference in game style, but that wasn't really my point...
What I was getting at when referencing that book, was that "old school" is usually connected with the older editions of D&D, where in many situations there were no clear cut rules like there are in the modern editions, so when you play those games, you are kind of forced to adjust your style of play to some degree...
And that's really what the gist of the book was about...
I have no idea how you got that impression
Well, you did mention it twice in your post, and perhaps I put more into those comments than you intended, but, there are many players that seem to take that view of what "old school" means...
I'm a fan of shared narrative, but I find that not a lot of people seem to understand it or the potential benefits to it. So yeah, I get a little vocal about it, because not everyone has time to devote 8+ hours a week to prepping for a game. It doesn't mean I think a GM-heavy campaign is bad, but it's easy to find plenty of documentation on how to run a game where a players only input is their character's actions.
So I advocate lighter footprints for GM's. Not because it's the "one true way", but because I often find people don't know it exists, how it works or what the benefits are.
|
What I was getting at when referencing that book, was that "old school" is usually connected with the older editions of D&D, where in many situations there were no clear cut rules like there are in the modern editions, so when you play those games, you are kind of forced to adjust your style of play to some degree...
I can't be bothered to come up with a better example than The Alexandrian so, as an example... what about realationships with hirelings?
|
|
Or 'gusts of wind'.
A final example: If you look at a lot of old school adventure modules you’ll find frequent references in the dungeon keys to strange gusts of wind that woud blow out the torches and lanterns carried by the PCs. Why? Because in the original 1974 edition of the game the rules for exploring the underworld took up approximately one page. On this page, one entire paragraph was dedicated to light sources. And in that paragraph on light sources, prominent attention was given to a rule about strong gusts of wind blowing out torches.
As a result, for a decade or more, strong gusts of wind figured prominently in D&D games everywhere. And what’s interesting is that the “gust of wind” style of play, as tracked in published modules, continued to persist for several years after the rules for blowing out torches lost their prominence in the rulebook. (IOW, the rules weren’t removed because the style of play became less popular. The style of play became less popular because the rules changed.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules matter.
The kind of rules in a game impact how that game will be played.
Because Shadowrun 3rd edition has entire books of gear and guns, at least 30 minutes of every session ends up being about buying something.
|
|
what about realationships with hirelings?
I said one would have to adjust their style of play to some degree when playing the older editions, because in most cases, the majority of the rules in those older editions were not clearly addressed like they are in the newer editions. That is not to say that there weren't more detailed rules for some situations in those older editions, because clearly there were. But my point was that a lot of modern styles of play are not conducive with those older editions...
Take checking for traps as an example: Today, I see a lot of GMs being fine with the player simply stating "my character searches the room for traps." Conversely, a lot of older edition GMs require the players to state specifically where within the room they search for traps (e.g. the north wall, the fireplace, the desk in the corner, etc.) as opposed to allowing a simple roll for the entire room (contents and all)...
There are a myriad of other examples I can site, but the point is, while there have always been different styles of play from one table to the next, the way modern games play compared to how the older editions played are not 100% compatible...
|
|
Yes, they are. It's all about how the DM presents them.
Using my traps example from above, a GM in a modern edition can absolutely require players to make separate checks for traps (or secret door, or whatever) within a room instead of one blanket check for the entire room. But the assumption (as presented in most published adventures coming out) is that only one check is actually required because it is just assumed that the character checks everywhere. But the given assumption in the older editions was that the player needed to explain to the GM exactly where the character was searching, and HOW they were going about doing it...
When a player is used to playing a modern edition where the general assumption is that only one check is needed, and then finds himself in a game where several checks are required, then that player must adapt his style of play to accommodate the different rules. So it's not just the GM presenting things differently, it is a different way of thinking and doing things in the game (i.e. a different play style)...
It is not an either or statement but there are varying degrees.
|
|
And I have had 3rd edition DMs that did just that.
And in the beginning of my post you quoted, I state that GMs of a more modern edition can absolutely do things like that. But again, that isn't the given assumption of the way things work in that edition, and harkens back to the way things worked in those older editions...
And I have had 3rd edition DMs that did just that.And in the beginning of my post you quoted, I state that GMs of a more modern edition can absolutely do things like that. But again, that isn't the given assumption of the way things work in that edition, and harkens back to the way things worked in those older editions...
Hell, I dunno, Search as a separate skill didn't make it into PF, but when it did exist in 3.5, the action description was of how long it takes to search a 5x5 foot area; I can't say which of those is better suited to Gotcha DM-ing where you have to describe what part of the room you're searching for what sort of object.
If there's one thing that differentiates New from Old School IMO, it's the standardization of rolls into systems where the players only have to roll one die, like D20, or GURPS. Dice Pools scream New School and Munchkin at me, but that my own prejudice, and I'll admit it.
I guess my point is that Old School is whatever you learned on, and New School is everything since.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it has nothing to do with "old" vs "new" school at all, most definitely, it's just about differences in GMing styles as usualSure the style used in those early editions can be used today, making it simply a difference in game style, but that wasn't really my point...
What are you not understanding in the following statement:
"Not all GMs in the 70s and 80s ran games in that style that you are talking about."?You can't refer to "the style used" as if there was only one style, because there WASN'T. There is no "the style."
I apologize for the tone, and by all means advocate for a style of GMing that you personally prefer, but you're still seemingly willfully missing the entire point of what I was trying to say, and yet pinging off my posts to continue the lie of "that one way every GM ran games back in the day" and thus I find it a little frustrating.
What I was getting at when referencing that book, was that "old school" is usually connected with the older editions of D&D, where in many situations there were no clear cut rules like there are in the modern editions, so when you play those games, you are kind of forced to adjust your style of play to some degree...
Yes, older versions of D&D were a hodgepodge of rules, where in some cases you had to consult a table to determine what color your clothing was today (a hyperbolic metaphor, I am aware there is no such table) and in other cases where there were broad swathes of material where the rules were unclear and the GM had to make a call---or simply ignore the situation because there was no rule for it.
And you know what? That last bit, where you didn't do it if there wasn't a rule for it? That was MY earliest experiences of playing D&D. From multiple GMs. That's how I used to think all GMs worked, until I met new ones. But that doesn't make the mechanics-driven GM any more "old school" than the adaptive, story-driven GM you and that essay describes.
Today, some systems like Pathfinder do have a lot more mechanics to assist the GM in making a call in more common situations. The mechanics are also more "balanced" not in terms of game balance per se but in terms of providing mechanics for most things that pop up in a game. So you don't have the color of your clothing table but you do have a set of rules for how to trip someone. Narrative GMs and Mechanics GMs can and do still work within those rules to play in the style they want. Mechanics driven GMs who have been running their game that way since 1975 are just doing it with more mechanics available, and Narrative GMs who've been running their game that way since 1975 have more rules to fall back on when the descriptions fail to resolve a scene on their own. That's all.
I have no idea how you got that impression
Well, you did mention it twice in your post,
Well, let's look at where I mentioned it twice in my post, and add some emphasis to highlight context:
Didn't they understand that the GM is God/Players Are God/Mechanics Are King/Story is King?
I remember back in the dark ages of gaming when I was just a tiny lemure, some GMs ruled their tables with an iron fist. I remember at the same time, other GMs that handwaved everything and played things extremely fast and loose. I knew some who focused on mechanics and combat to the exclusion of all else, and others who really focused on storytelling."
And gee, nowadays, over 20 years later, I know some GMs who prefer to rule their tables with an iron fist, and others that are extremely lenient; I know some who are crunch driven and others who are fluff driven. Nothing's actually changed, and there are in fact no new or old ways--just the same different strokes for different folks. Strange and mystifying, and I know.
Ah, let's see, each time that was mentioned, it was in a list of one of many GMing styles. You must have been skimming pretty fast to miss the rest of those lists, given they get repeated not even twice but in fact three times. Not anywhere in those lists do I specifically associate "iron fist" GMing with oldschool, but in fact repeat the point several times that a variety of styles existed then and now.
and perhaps I put more into those comments than you intended, but, there are many players that seem to take that view of what "old school" means...
It's not what you put in, it's what you took out--entirely out of context, to turn my post into an argument about something it was in fact trying to fight---and used what I said to argue against these "many players" instead of say, arguing directly against them. The false old school/new school divide is one pet peeve of mine, message board posters dramatically taking my posts out of context for their own agenda is another. So again, I apologize for any belligerence on my part, but I hope you can understand why I might be miffed right now.
As an aside... have you ever thought that the reason that so many players view "old school" that way is because that's how they experienced gaming when they were younger, during the "old school" era? That's exactly the point. People can't define "old school" at all because their individual experiences of what that is differ so wildly. It is a sign without signifier and serves only to generate confusion and frustration.
And I'll leave that there. I know I'm getting into Someone's Wrong On the Internet mode now, so I'll back off (someone yell at me if I show up again). Thank you for reading this whole post in its entirety, if you did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it has nothing to do with "old" vs "new" school at all, most definitely, it's just about differences in GMing styles as usualSure the style used in those early editions can be used today, making it simply a difference in game style, but that wasn't really my point...What are you not understanding in the following statement:
"Not all GMs in the 70s and 80s ran games in that style that you are talking about."?You can't refer to "the style used" as if there was only one style, because there WASN'T. There is no "the style."
I apologize for the tone, and by all means advocate for a style of GMing that you personally prefer, but you're still seemingly willfully missing the entire point of what I was trying to say, and yet pinging off my posts to continue the lie of "that one way every GM ran games back in the day" and thus I find it a little frustrating.
What I was getting at when referencing that book, was that "old school" is usually connected with the older editions of D&D, where in many situations there were no clear cut rules like there are in the modern editions, so when you play those games, you are kind of forced to adjust your style of play to some degree...Yes, older versions of D&D were a hodgepodge of rules, where in some cases you had to consult a table to determine what color your clothing was today (a hyperbolic metaphor, I am aware there is no such table) and in other cases where there were broad swathes of material where the rules were unclear and the GM had to make a call---or simply ignore the situation because there was no rule for it.
And you know what? That last bit, where you didn't do it if there wasn't a rule for it? That was MY earliest experiences of playing D&D. From multiple GMs. That's how I used to think all GMs worked, until I met new ones. But that doesn't make the mechanics-driven GM any more "old school" than the adaptive, story-driven GM you and that essay describes.
Today, some...
That just gave me an idea for a magic item a gnome makes glowing a different color each day thanks.
I remember playing "old school" Rolemaster games that where very mechanics-driven... The fact that D&D has become a mechanics-driven game owes to the evolution of that particular game system, but concept in itself existed before the "new school" arrived.
But apart from the mechanics, so much as changed around the gaming world that it should come to no surprised that D&D games today are not identical to the ones played 30 years ago.
For one thing, that's a full generation gap and all the social context differences that it implies. Then there's the internet, which allows conversations (such as this one) to be engaged and broadcast at a much quicker pace and with an immensely further range. This changes things a lot!
For me, the big deal with 3E and OGL wasn't so much the unified mechanics and empowerment of players with the rules of the system; it was the intercommunication, conventions, organized play (I know it existed before, but nowhere to the scale that 3e took it), forums of discussion etc. that came with the system. Before year 2000, internet existed but wasn't accessible everywhere, was not very fast and was rather expensive when you calculated $/minute (and for many, logging onto the web meant disabling your phone line for the duration). This was bound to change how people play RPG even if the game remains in great parts true to its roots.
In experience, the biggest observable difference between old school and new school is the empowerment of players over game mastery. From what I remember, is was expected that DMs guide players through the rules and character creation. As a matter of fact, many DMs I played with (especially European ones) kept the rules obscure on purpose.
Nowadays, its expected that the players know the ruleset rather well and know enough of the oh-so-many options available to make a decent character.
All that to say that the biggest difference I see is about expectations, not RPGs themselves.
'findel
Honestly, I think most of the argument happens on the internet
I would much rather see huge flaming fights on the internet than the way "old school" people used to have such fights... you know with swords and arrows and pitchforks and torches as they met in the community square or lords castle to work out their differences. Sure the new way has more hurt feelings but I like the less bloodshed part of the new way.
Described badly, I might add.
Thanks TOZ. I found the article amazing. I especially like the conclusion. The only real differences in old school and new school is where they place or don't place GM fiat. I don't know... but I much prefer the new games where mechanics cover things like dungeoneering but not things like interpersonal relationships with your associates. The last bit IS what role playing is for isn't it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I'm conflicted about skills like Diplomacy. They don't see enough use in my home games because we just roleplay the conversations out. I feel like my players are wasting those points. I know the solution is to ask for more checks, but it seems silly sometimes.
|
|
the biggest difference I see is about expectations, not RPGs themselves.
Thank you :-)
This is what I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to say all along...
The expectations of a game are what typically force a change in style of play from one system/edition to the next...
For example, you cannot go into a game of 1st edition D&D with the same expectations you would for a game of 4th edition D&D (either as a DM or a player)...
Again, that's not to say that you have to totally change your style of play, but you DO have make some alterations to it...
One thing I have found is that most people prefer consistent rules and rulings. And since this is impossible with just a rulebook alone (as they can't cover everything), I find that strong GM control ensures a fair and smooth running game. Obviously this is HIGHLY dependent on your GM and his own outlook.
Lets take a GM who loves murder mysteries. In a GM controlled game she can remove any spells or abilities that short cut the detective process she wants for her game. In a shared narrative the player has control and can simply make a new spell that can solve it with the expenditure of a single spell slot (in many cases he may not even need to make a new spell but simply use one already printed). Who had more fun that session? The players hunting for clues and forming deductions or the group who solved the whole quest in one action? There was NO parity between the GMs story and the players in the second example.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the biggest difference I see is about expectations, not RPGs themselves.Thank you :-)
This is what I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to say all along...
And DQ and I have been trying to say that expectations differ between groups more than they differ between editions. Because groups evolve faster than game systems.
Indeed. I'm conflicted about skills like Diplomacy. They don't see enough use in my home games because we just roleplay the conversations out. I feel like my players are wasting those points. I know the solution is to ask for more checks, but it seems silly sometimes.
Yes there was a big controversy over how much mechanics are acceptable in your role play. Diplomacy is just such a skill that straddles the lines awkwardly. It might be fun to see how future games solve that problem.
the biggest difference I see is about expectations, not RPGs themselves.And DQ and I have been trying to say that expectations differ between groups more than they differ between editions. Because groups evolve faster than game systems.
And she's absolutely right. As I said, I do think that old school/new school has less to do with editions (or game system, or houserule etc) and more about expectations, which does indeed vary from group to group.
the biggest difference I see is about expectations, not RPGs themselves.For example, you cannot go into a game of 1st edition D&D with the same expectations you would for a game of 4th edition D&D (either as a DM or a player)...
Again, that's not to say that you have to totally change your style of play, but you DO have make some alterations to it...
Depends, I believe you can run a very old school 4e game. What makes it old school isn't necessarily based on rules (or the way they are handled).
I do concede that 4e will suit certain roleplaying expectations better than 1e, and vice-versa. Personal preferences of a system include but are not limited to old/new school...
Indeed. I'm conflicted about skills like Diplomacy. They don't see enough use in my home games because we just roleplay the conversations out. I feel like my players are wasting those points. I know the solution is to ask for more checks, but it seems silly sometimes.
Option 1: Roll first, then role.
Have the player roll the appropriate social skill check. Then have them roleplay the encounter at the level they perceived their character reached.e.g. Group of adventurers enters the great hall to meet the king and queen. The group spokesman steps forward *rolls diplomacy, gets 1 for a pretty miserable result). "Good day my lord and lady. May I say, that dress does a good job of hiding her majesty's girth effectively." :D
Option 2: Role first, then roll.
Have the player roleplay out the situation as they feel appropriately. Then have them roll to see how well they actually did. Modify this role [slightly] based on how well the GM thinks the player did. We have all had those situations where we thought we were being very elegant, but someone just saw us as being an idiot.
Personally, as a player I prefer option 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Option #3: Roleplay adjusting roleplaying for mechanical traits.
The scene is roleplayed and GM adjusts NPC reactions depending upon the PC scores - high Diplomacy character is given some slack for player social inability, low Charisma character is dismissed regardless of the accuracy of his arguments, etc.
Indeed. I'm conflicted about skills like Diplomacy. They don't see enough use in my home games because we just roleplay the conversations out. I feel like my players are wasting those points. I know the solution is to ask for more checks, but it seems silly sometimes.Yes there was a big controversy over how much mechanics are acceptable in your role play. Diplomacy is just such a skill that straddles the lines awkwardly. It might be fun to see how future games solve that problem.
There are lots of games tackling the issue of social interaction in their rules. A lot of them do it in different ways, with different focuses. Some essentially develop rules identical to their combat rules.
Having played those games, mechanics don't replace roleplaying. Instead, roleplaying becomes a minimum barrier of entry to engage those mechanics. The minimum barrier varies from group to group and game to game.
Option #3: Roleplay adjusting roleplaying for mechanical traits.
The scene is roleplayed and GM adjusts NPC reactions depending upon the PC scores - high Diplomacy character is given some slack for player social inability, low Charisma character is dismissed regardless of the accuracy of his arguments, etc.
I think that I could like this method (though, we typically lean towards #2).
I'm not enamored of the concept that, because the PLAYER isn't erudite and eloquent, that their PC should suffer because of it.
Even worse is when, in games that specifically mechanize diplomacy, an erudite and eloquent player ignores the PC skill for diplomacy, so as to enhance other mechanics, and then expects that they should receive bonuses for their real-world skill.
Your option #3 provides the game entertainment benefit of the player roleplaying, but seems to adequately accommodate the PC skill.
Even worse is when, in games that specifically mechanize diplomacy, an erudite and eloquent player ignores the PC skill for diplomacy, so as to enhance other mechanics, and then expects that they should receive bonuses for their real-world skill.
I'm just curious, which game system tells you to do this?
I'm looking over a couple of my more detailed social mechanics games and not seeing anything like that.
I couldn't name a game system that does, and don't believe any game systems that have mechanized the social aspect do or would advise ignoring them.
In the context of the subject of this thread, while others dispute that there isn't such a thing as "old school" vs. "new school" (and that's fine), I disagree, and find it to be a very old school attitude to ignore social mechanics in favor of roleplaying, and deride the inclusion of social mechanics, as older games (or older versions of games) didn't have these implicitly documented.
This seems to be very much a part of the "OSR" mentality or games, for better or worse.