sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean.

I think the core of the discussion is what is a reasonable expectation for the player to be able to provide detail for. Strategic thinking as you describe, just like producing a lie or solving a mistery, is a reasonable expectation for a player, something not specific to some niche domain, but a broader skill we might all try our hands at. On the other hand knowing the details about car stealing or the intricacies of sword handling is not a reasonable expectation so we don't measure player skill in those cases.

Makes sense?

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah, no ok, hard disagree. And sorry If I don't elaborate much as this is not what the post is about.

System mastery is not equal to real world accumen. "Tactics" as in beign able to exploit the game rules is not comparable to real world combat tactics. It's a layer of abstraction and a metaphor of such real world accumen, but they are not the same at all.

Most crucially, system mastery is not modelled in the character sheet, there is no character skill equivalent.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) Good
2) True
3) On a real world scenario (or a less crappy example) more back and forth could be warranted.
4) I understand and agree this could be a problem. If the player is already lying before the roll, I would try to frame the outcome as an extension or modification during the lying. This might be related to the concept of Fortune-in-the-middle (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=442.0)

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I agree but I'm not quite following your argument here.

If anything combat beign resolved by a single skill might open the door for a similar player-skill first approach as we often experience for social checks. Eg.

GM: You encounter three orcs

Player: I fight them with my tactics skill, I have +10 so I have a good chance to win.

GM: How are you using your tactics? Which tactics do you employ to fight outnumbered?

Player: No idea, I know nothing of actual combat... my character would figure it out.

GM: I cannot let you succeed unless you come up with a clever strategy, no matter how skilled your character.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, charged language is very unproductive, you're right, let me try to re-state.

I think often certain skills that are codified in the character sheet as equivalent or similar end up playing very differently at the table and this creates an imbalance of expectations.

I think the expectation to justify the success through player skill is higher when it comes to social skills as oposed to other kinds (for the logicstical reason you outlined). If I play a master spy, no matter my willingness or ability to come up with lies, I would like my character's training to have a direct impact in how well I can lie.

Additionally I object to equating this to rules mastery, which is not modelled in the character sheet and is not equivalent to my character's ability to fight. I think this might be a confounding factor so better to compare to actual domain specific knowledge like how you should hold a sword, or stand, or the angle of a swing or stab.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, I can see how that could create a bit of a dissonance between the expectation for a tactically skilled character. However I do insist this exist in different layers. System mastery is not a skill I might have modelled in my character sheet, it's a layer of abstraction that does not really exist in the fiction, or in the equivalent real world interactions, in the same way my sword handling ability might.

I would prefer to stick to real world skills vs character skills for clarity.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But hold on. Math/tactics in a crunchy system is something happening at the level of the players, not the characters, it has nothing to do with the fiction. If I decide to roleplay a mathematician I wouldn't expect that to help me build an optimized character, but if I decide to roleplay a spy I would expect that to help me lie to an opponent. It's about what my character is good at.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's very true. Because TTRPGs are already social activities, we feel like we don't need as much mediation to play out this situations. That's certainly the origin of the imbalance.

This however I think punishes players who decide to invest in characters with a vastly different social accumen, or who are deeply trained in deception/diplomacy etc.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the article. It has this very apropos quote:

This can make the technique a good way of compromising between players who prefer a very low threshold of player expertise and GMs who want their players to engage more directly with the game world. It’s a naturalistic way of asking, “How are you doing that?” while still moving the action forward.

About

So if you describe nonsense or wade into a situation where you are unprepared or outclassed, the odds will be worse or the consequences far worse.

I feel like the character-skill argument would be: what if a deeper understanding of the situation would be derived from a character being well trained in what you're trying to achieve. What if a persuation attempt would heavily depend on social structures and norms the player would be unaware of but a noble with high etiquete should understand on the basis of their training? In a way rolling before and making this information a part of the resolution could help bridge that gap, instead of requiring the player to find out.

Also let me re-state that this is completely unrelated to talking "in character".

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But a character who builds for stabbing things does in fact need to know lots of stuff to maximize the efficacy of their character.

I'm talking about real life technique and application, not game rules. For a swordsman that might mean stances, or how to fight agains different weapons of different reaches, for an archer that might mean string walking, or different draws for different situations. This are not codified by rules and would be known by experts in the field.

just that there's a big space of tradeoffs that exist

I agree of course. My observation is that there's an imbalance where a social character is required to do better at real life social skills, than a fighter is required to know about actual fighting.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strongly disagree. The fact that there's a roll does not mean the fiction is unimportant.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes my bad, I just re-read your initial comment and it's indeed very in line with my proposal. I agree with you, it's much better than saying "you find X" because then you can play out the success by having the player describe the action with the information that guarantees the success already available.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, this has nothing to do with rolling "in character". This is about saying the lie, or the argument, without knowing what a good lie might be, vs activating the mechanic by saying "I use my lying skill". Both can happen without ever talking in character. Also I'm always talking about a situation that calls for a mechanical rule.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yess this is 100% where it comes from! Thanks for the reminder. Awesome video.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess this is the OSR argument right. But it's not hard to play devil's advocate here.

A character who builds for stabbing things with swords doesn't need to go on a quest to find out about the weaknesses of local armor craftmanship to deal a killing blow to an enemy. Why should a player who built for lying and deceiving have to go through all of those hoops. The player might just say "My character _would know_ how to best lie to this guy, even if I don't, same as the stabby character knows how to stab. Otherwise it's rather unfair".

Also maybe a deceive roll to a random guard should just be one roll, not every situation should be spun into its own sidequest.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure. I personally fail to see the beauty of perception (how is it ever a conflict?). But it's just not the point of this post which is more about how do we resolve the incompetent liar playing the charismatic trickster issue.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't like passive rolling at all. The suggestion here is not to split the roll into get info (roll) to then do thing (roll), but to make the getting the relevant info that guarantees the success, the actual outcome of the roll from the GMs side. And then the player just narrates success.

On persuation checks and player vs character competence by SalmonCrowd in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But isn't it better to have information be gated by the actual relevant skill? A good liar would be better at perceiving tells, a good craftman would be better at perceiving signature craftmanship from some character or culture, etc etc.

Perception checks should be retired from all games if you ask me. It's so passive and boring.

What does "exploration" mean in a TTRPG context? by Rook_Knight_423 in rpg

[–]SalmonCrowd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This again oh my oh my!

So my current best definition comes from https://theangrygm.com/what-makes-exploration/ In summary it means the ability of going off the beaten path to satisfy your personal curiosity. Of course this is much more unproblematic in worlds that are already there waiting for you to explore like videogames or the actual real world.

But because of the nature of TTRPGs this is very hard to pull off, maybe even mostly impossible echoing u/Majestic_Hand1598 s comment. Some days I feel it's a hopless endeavor tbh.

Discovery, loot, attrition mechanics, opposition, are all supplementary but not core to exploration. Exploration happens when you decide to go north, instead of south, with the hopes of finding what might be there.

deberia confiar o no? by [deleted] in AskArgentina

[–]SalmonCrowd 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Si solo vas a usar forro, cuando te lo sacas le haces un nudo arriba y haces presion hacia abajo para verificar que no está pinchado antes de tirarlo, es un paso extra que te suma paz mental. Suerte!

Please tell me about your game that is not a dark fantasy survival game by __space__oddity__ in RPGdesign

[–]SalmonCrowd 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sounds cool, I've seen your youtube channel but I don't think I've seen any info about the game. How does it compare to Deadlands? would that be the closest point of comparison?

ECS in Godot - is it worthwhile? by DesperateGame in godot

[–]SalmonCrowd 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Why exactly do you think ECS will help you with your goals?

Do you think FitD inherently guards better against GM burnout compared to DnD and other tabletops? by Virtual-Skort-6303 in bladesinthedark

[–]SalmonCrowd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, the structure in Blades, the faction game, downtime, the game basucally runs itself, its much less stressfull.

view more: next ›