The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[Emberashh]

It is one of the wonderful unique things that makes RPGs much more then "just a game".

Now, sure there are people that love playing an RPG exactly like any other "Game". The DM follows Rule Six and makes a Situation. The player has their character do a move action and a manipulate object. The players two actions trigger the DM to do a response action. And so, on. Like a board game or...of course....a wargame.

But RPGs can be More. And this is the reason D&D has stayed popular. And it is simply....leaving the rules on the table.

"Your character is on the edge of the cliff holding the stolen scroll. Six goblins all with clubs are charging down the forest path towards your character. What do you do?"

NOTE the above is NOT asking "What character game action on page 22 do you want your character to do on Game Round 8?" The above is asking "role play your character as if you were your character in the fantasy fictional game".

The player does NOT look down at their character sheet, and look for an ability or power to use. The player utterly ignores the character sheet....and role plays their character.

The player might say "My character will light a torch and hold the scroll over it, and say to the goblins "stop or I destroy the scroll!" ".

No rules or rolls are needed for the above. The player has the character do some actions, and the DM reacts. Then the game play moves on....


Rulings not rolls is in the same mindset. The 'rulings' DM will just have the goblins stop as it makes sense in the role play simulated world.

The rule DM wants the player to make a "pull out a touch action" and "light the touch action DC 5" and then make an Intimidate check to effect the goblins in any way. Taking the game right back to the common game...."I make an intimidate check to stop the goblins". And in the most mechanical style, the player need not even say what they are doing "I do something intimidating and got a 22 for the check"


Rulings and beyond the Sheet...let any character..at least try...anything, no matter what it says on the character sheet.

This is exactly why I'm always talking about improv, because thats what it is.

Cannot really emphasize enough how thinking from the perspective of improv solves so so so so so many issues right off the bat just as a person running or playing in a game.

Its all the more potent in a design perspective, where designing with improv in mind can make things a lot easier for everybody.

 

[payn]

It is one of the wonderful unique things that makes RPGs much more then "just a game".

Now, sure there are people that love playing an RPG exactly like any other "Game". The DM follows Rule Six and makes a Situation. The player has their character do a move action and a manipulate object. The players two actions trigger the DM to do a response action. And so, on. Like a board game or...of course....a wargame.

But RPGs can be More. And this is the reason D&D has stayed popular. And it is simply....leaving the rules on the table.

"Your character is on the edge of the cliff holding the stolen scroll. Six goblins all with clubs are charging down the forest path towards your character. What do you do?"

NOTE the above is NOT asking "What character game action on page 22 do you want your character to do on Game Round 8?" The above is asking "role play your character as if you were your character in the fantasy fictional game".

The player does NOT look down at their character sheet, and look for an ability or power to use. The player utterly ignores the character sheet....and role plays their character.

The player might say "My character will light a torch and hold the scroll over it, and say to the goblins "stop or I destroy the scroll!" ".

No rules or rolls are needed for the above. The player has the character do some actions, and the DM reacts. Then the game play moves on....


Rulings not rolls is in the same mindset. The 'rulings' DM will just have the goblins stop as it makes sense in the role play simulated world.

The rule DM wants the player to make a "pull out a touch action" and "light the touch action DC 5" and then make an Intimidate check to effect the goblins in any way. Taking the game right back to the common game...."I make an intimidate check to stop the goblins". And in the most mechanical style, the player need not even say what they are doing "I do something intimidating and got a 22 for the check"


Rulings and beyond the Sheet...let any character..at least try...anything, no matter what it says on the character sheet.

So when does a combat round matter (assuming D&D which very much has them) and not matter? Could the player instead say "I decapitate the first gobo to reach me, smear its blood on my face, and howl madly at the rest". Would you rule in favor of something like that, or would the player in this situation have to stick to the combat mechanics which makes all this in a single round impossible? Or perhaps a hybrid where the player must succeed in the attack enough to drop said gobo and then get a free intimidate becasue of role play?

 

[hawkeyefan]

"Your character is on the edge of the cliff holding the stolen scroll. Six goblins all with clubs are charging down the forest path towards your character. What do you do?"

I use Second Wind as a Bonus Action to give myself back some hit points, then I stow the scroll as part of my move action to step toward the charging goblins. As I move, I spend a Superiority Die to use Evasive Footwork, buffing my AC for the round because I think I’m gonna face some attacks.

Then, with my Action, I attack the first goblin and spend a Superiority Die to make a Menacing Attack, hoping to scare him off. After that, I use Action Surge so that I can make another attack. I spend another Superiority Die and use Disarming Strike to try and disarm the second goblin.

 

[Autumnal]

I’m largely with @Thomas Shey here, thanks to an all-too-common sleight of hand.

“The answer may not be on your character sheet” is something I agree with. But Thomas and I have been around for a lot of cycles of argument about whether GMs should allow characters to be very special and whether any special features on the character sheet should be allowed to interfere with the GM’s vision.

It has all too often been used to mean “The answer will be on your character sheet only if I deign to allow what you chose for your character to matter.” And I hate that.

I want what’s on the character sheet to matter. That’s why I put it there. It’s about experiences and abilities I don’t have and often cannot have. I believe in going beyond it - it’s why I like backgrounds, Fate aspects and approaches, Over The Edge traits, and the like over skills and feats. But if I’m not able to make regular use of what’s there, the game is going someplace I am just about guaranteed not to enjoy.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But it also has to be said, buttons aren't a bad thing. Negotiation in my opinion is terrible gameplay, and buttons are a good way to cut that stuff out where needed, as is not leaving improv as the silent thing you learn when you onboard into RPGs.

Guess I'm never inviting you to a "Blood on the Clocktower" game.

 

[Theory of Games]

Greetings,

Folks have probably heard, and maybe used themselves, the phrase “the answer is not on your character sheet”. I decided to add always to the thread title because I think the phrase can be used in multiple ways. The first is to imply skill play in which the player is being challenged and the character serves merely as an avatar to move around the game world. You are not limited by the character’s abilities, anything is theoretically possible. Another use is attempting to lean into a rulings over rules mindset of play. In this case, the player applies the character’s abilities in a myriad of ways and there are possibilities beyond the mechanical descriptions. I wanted to discuss the phrase, influences, and experiences of EN Worlders.

I think the rules over rulings philosophy gained steam because of RPGs developing in the last three decades. Folks started having more cross table play, organized play became a thing, and a shift from skill play to narrative metaplot driven play gave rise to the need for more common adjudication. There may be other items such as GM/player trust and simulation design that led into an extensive mechanical rule set choice. The result was a rule for everything and extensive character sheets to match.

I'd disagree offering that the "steam" behind "Rulings Over Rules" actually came from those of us who played the earliest rpgs. They didn't have a rule for everything like many modern games so in many in-game situations the DM and players had to make up a rule (ruling) for an action that wasn't specifically covered by our rules. That's also why RoR is such a big part of the OSR.

Like a pendulum, the popularity and desire for rulings or rules seems to ebb and flow with editions of D&D. I think a few things provide for this paradigm within D&D specifically. The first is the nuanced and tactical nature of the combat system within D&D. Few other RPGs go into the depth of options and/or have the level progression that is found in D&D. It also is the most popular RPG, being the entry point for more gamers than any other. The result, I’m afraid, is that D&D is fated to be a wide net that is ok at many things, but never will excel at anything specifically. Which, will continue to irritate some players.

5e D&D excels at being 5e D&D which is all it has to do. It doesn't have to be "Sword and Sorcery" or "High Fantasy" or "Science Fantasy". It just needs to be D&D and the next most successful rpg (Pathfinder) and the most successful rpg genre (OSR) are based very much on how D&D plays.

Currently, like many RPG design aspects, D&D seems to be wearing many hats. The character sheets are moving in a Joe Friday direction, and DMs are encouraged to make rulings when necessary. Some of the old complaints are resurfacing. Not enough DM/player advice/direction, lack of mechanical rule support, etc..

Other RPGs, have gone through similar pendulum swings, but not as drastic as D&D. I think they get the benefit of not being D&D, so its ok not to follow the generic path. Often, other RPGs are designed to be contrary to D&D. This sometimes has interesting results with players experiences. Some, take to the simpler combat system, and flatter progression well. They naturally embrace the narrative aspects about attempting moves and strategies not tied to the character sheet. A few other players, in my experience, struggle because the sheet is vague, and the ambiguous nature of play is difficult to wrap their mind around. Demonstrating the gravity of D&D mechanics on some player’s style.

What games are these that (1) the characters have abilities and capabilities that (2) get completely ignored by the group during RP? I'm really curious.

Those are just my impressions of RPG development and the rise of “the answer is not (always) on your character sheet”. What about y’all?

What does “answer not on your character sheet” mean to you?

• What are your experiences with RPGs in design that supports or refutes this idea?
• What are your experiences with player preferences in regards to character sheets and rules/rulings?

-Cheers

Because RoR is a well-established playstyle I doubt anyone can completely refute it. Also RoR has proven to be popular design based on the great success of the OSR along with other non-OSR "rules-lite" games.

 

[Pedantic]

Guess I'm never inviting you to a "Blood on the Clocktower" game.

I have a breakup that is like 10% down to mismatched enthusiasm for that game. He's an evangelist, I think about 5 games is enough for a lifetime.

That being said, that's a social deduction game, negotiation is much more Chinatown or Sidereal Confluence.

 

[bloodtide]

I use Second Wind as a Bonus Action to give myself back some hit points, then I stow the scroll as part of my move action to step toward the charging goblins. As I move, I spend a Superiority Die to use Evasive Footwork, buffing my AC for the round because I think I’m gonna face some attacks.

Then, with my Action, I attack the first goblin and spend a Superiority Die to make a Menacing Attack, hoping to scare him off. After that, I use Action Surge so that I can make another attack. I spend another Superiority Die and use Disarming Strike to try and disarm the second goblin.

This is a good Play By the Rules or The Answer is always on your Character Sheet example.

So when does a combat round matter (assuming D&D which very much has them) and not matter? Could the player instead say "I decapitate the first gobo to reach me, smear its blood on my face, and howl madly at the rest". Would you rule in favor of something like that, or would the player in this situation have to stick to the combat mechanics which makes all this in a single round impossible? Or perhaps a hybrid where the player must succeed in the attack enough to drop said gobo and then get a free intimidate becasue of role play?

I'm a Hybrid type DM.

Any character can "try" to do just about anything the character can do within reason. Though rule wise this is mostly a +0 effect. And that is to say the action won't have much direct mechanical effect on game play. Though the player will be able to get some role play effect...often advantage..from the action.

To get a real "hard" mechanical effect, the character needs the skill, ability, power or such.

So any character can try to distract a foe. Like say by dropping some gold coins. The greedy attacker might pause an attack to pick up the coins...but gets no mechanical effect just from the distraction. Only a fighter battle master with distracting strike can give the foe disadvantage for the next strike against it.

 

[Emberashh]

Guess I'm never inviting you to a "Blood on the Clocktower" game.

Social games are different. Negotiation, where it happens in that kind of game, doesn't pause the gameplay or intrude.

I'm talking about having to pause a game to hash out what happens next because I suggested doing something, and now we need to decide if a mechanic applies or not.

 

[Reynard]

RPGs are still games, and games have rules. The character sheet defines where your character fits into the rules. Obviously, specific games have specific rules, and how intricate, restrictive or freeing the character sheet will depend on the game in question.

The "always" qualified pretty much pours water on any potential fire that "the answer isn't on your character sheet" tends to ignite. Sure. Sometimes you can come up with something not related to your character abilities. But without the qualifier, it becomes a cudgel with which to beat "unimaginative players" by GMs who tend to vastly overestimate how clever their puzzles are.

I think the answer should always be on your character sheet -- not necessarily because the game has a "button" for everything, but because your sheet explains to the GM what you want to do in the game. The GM should respect that and run the game accordingly, or at least let you know they aren't going to and you can bow out.

As to "skilled play" -- meh. It is certainly fun to make players think now and again, and fun as a player to be challenged that way. But pixelbitching becomes a chore very quickly for everyone involved. There is a reason modern OSR games tend to fine ways to incorporate procedures into play: there is little in RPGing more tedious than playing GM may I.

Perhaps the best example of the Answer being on your character sheet while also embracing "rulings not rules" and "skilled play" is Aspects from Fate.