Game Systems that Allow Skill Resolution with No Roleplaying

[Mark CMG]

Recently a GM described an example of his game as -

Highlight from last night's session: The bard finally gets the door unlocked.
"At the edge of the circle of light, you see a skeleton, clad in armor, suspended slightly above the ground"

'Err, hmm. Know: religion!' *rolls high*

"You haven't heard of whatever this is"

'Oh. Arcana?' *rolls*

"Nope"

'...History?

"Nope"

'Hey guys, what's this thing?' *party all crowd close but somehow no one makes their perception checks*

"The skeleton glides forward slowly. As it moves, the air about a foot in front of it ripples and glints as your light is reflected from the membrane of the Gelatinous Cube."

How do systems that encourage this type of play sit with other GMs?

Even if your system of choice theoretically allows it, do you play this way?

Do you prefer this type of gaming over something less game-driven?

How might you GM such a scenario differently, even if only a little?

 

[amerigoV]

Clearly that group would get slaughtered by the Dread Gazebo.

 

[Umbran]

I am not sure what the problem is. A player is asking what a character knows before acting. This is not something that should be particularly roleplay driven. If I ask you when the Declaration of Independence was signed, do you need some significantly personality-revealing moment in order to remember? Probably not.

The roleplay comes in how the character acts *after* the player has what information he's going to get.

In this case, "curiosity kills the cat" is the roleplay

So, you picked a really poor example of "skill resolution", insofar as it was just knowledge checks, which really aren't active skill use. But even then, roleplay is best when it is in a meaningful moment. I don't have a problem with a player saying, "I'd like some spend some time in the evening in the tavern making arrows to replace the ones I used," without further roleplay.

 

[Mark CMG]

I am not sure what the problem is.

*sigh* Nobody said it is a problem. There are different ways to use systems as well as skills (in systems with skills) and I am asking for some details from people. Please don't spin the thread as problematic.

So, you picked a really poor example of "skill resolution", insofar as it was just knowledge checks, which really aren't active skill use.

Okay, you've edited in a proper answer after my initial response. So, you don't feel knowledge skills are "active" skills or require examination beyond a "glance" to gain knowledge through their use.

But even then, roleplay is best when it is in a meaningful moment. I don't have a problem with a player saying, "I'd like some spend some time in the evening in the tavern making arrows to replace the ones I used," without further roleplay.

Okay. That's more like the kind of information I was hoping people would share. Thank you for editing your original response.

 

[Umbran]

*sigh* Nobody said it is a problem.

Dude. You *asked* how this sits with GMs. That suggests that you expect some folks not to like it. I am stating that it doesn't seem to be a problem, to me, thus answering your question.

Okay, you've edited in a proper answer after my initial response. So, you don't feel such things are "active" skills or require examination beyond a "glance" to gain knowledge through their use.

Not quite. I think it is entirely within bounds for the player to ask for what the character knows based on what he or she has at the time. They also can take far more time and care in examining, and probably improve their chances thereby.

But neither of these are really about the system. They are about the situation - as most roleplay about skill use will be. The player describes what they think is relevant a the time.

 

[Mark CMG]

Dude. You *asked* how this sits with GMs. That suggests that you expect some folks not to like it. I am stating that it doesn't seem to be a problem, to me, thus answering your question.

You edited your initial response. I acknowledged your edit and less thread-crappy answer and even thanked you. Please drop it. Don't turn this into a pissing match.

Not quite. I think it is entirely withing bounds for the player to ask for what the character knows based on what he or she has at the time. They also can take far more time and care in examining, and probably improve their chances thereby.

But neither of these are really about the system. They are about the situation - as most roleplay about skill use will be. The player describes what they think is relevant a the time.

Thanks for your further response. Anyone else?

 

[Balesir]

I think Umbran's (eventual) answer nails it, but I think you may have chosen your initial example poorly. How else might we imagine this scenario given playing out? As far as I can see, the problem is that the gelatinous cube used in "gotcha" mode relies almost completely on character actions and perceptions that cannot possibly be "roleplayed". How do you "roleplay" failing a Spot roll? The player (as opposed to the character) seems to me to have an almost completely passive role, here.

Now, if you were talking about skills like 'open lock' or 'disable trap', I can see a particular sort of minutiae-focussed game where the exact how and why of lockpicking and trap disarming might be delved into. Given that this is an area where it seems to me that the characters ought to be way more knowledgeable and experienced than the players, I find such play generally very unsatisfying, but I can see how it would work as a concept.

The most common area assumed ripe for "roleplaying as opposed to rollplaying" is, of course, social or interpersonal skill use. Here, too, I can see the concept but generally find substitution of player skill for character skill highly unsatisfactory for two main reasons. Firstly, I like to allow players to play characters who have skills they personally lack, even if those skills are psychological manipulation skills. Secondly, I find that even players who are very skilled at general manipulation or persuasion can have problems with RPG interaction due to the lack of genuine in-world feedback (which skilled interpersonal actors tend to rely upon) and/or personality clashes with the GM. The first of these is because the only feedback that there is comes from the player of the "target" of the skill - who is most often the GM - and they will only describe the feedback that they think is important, not what the skilled practitioner finds important. The second is because the GM will often play the "target" using a mental model that the skilled practitioner finds implausible; very few people have any really accurate model of how humans behave in terms of decision making.

Overall, then, to answer your original question in a broader sense, I find the very best place for roleplaying to be, as Umbran said, in the realm of decision making. It's not how you do things that speaks to character so much as what you (try to) do and why.

 

[RSKennan]

<Rhetorical question>What happened between you guys? I don't remember you guys ever butting heads like this when I used to frequent the site.</rhetorical question.>

I agree with Umbran's points. I think there can be simple checks without roleplaying involved, that can lead to later roleplaying. For example, if the tale of the gelatinous cube was told later at an inn to a young wannabe adventurer... "None of us knew what the skeleton was, but as it floated towards us, we were about to find out." Similarly, the choice to remake arrows throughout the night mean that any RP interactions are going to have "making arrows" as the minor activity backdrop. I don't know about you, but being able to picture that makes the scene more real.

Burdock sat there straightening an arrow shaft. He said nothing. Jardal, the halfling walked up and climbed up onto the chair next to him.

"If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to, but you should at least acknowledge it."

Burdock glanced at the small rogue, his face impassive. He pulled out his knife and began whittling away at a knot on the arrow shaft.

the Halfling sat for a few minutes, watching intently. He finally spoke.

"That thing ate your brother. We can't afford to raise him. It wasn't his fault that he didn't know what that thing was, but the fact is, that's what killed him."

Burdock glared. The Halfling jumped down from the chair, and waddled away, looking over his shoulder.

"I'm not saying this to be cruel. You just need to start learning to accept it." he said.

Burdock stared at him until he walked away.

"I don't have to accept anything. I need to make enough money to get him back. Stupid little brother."

As a guy who loves serious roleplaying, I think it's best to gloss over minor checks, but remember them. if they can later be useful in RP, all the better, but at the very least, they won't be taking up too much time on less interesting opportunities for character development.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think Umbran's (eventual) answer nails it

I agree with Umbran's points.

Yup, he edited in some good points. Nevertheless, I think there is a oddness in procedure when one can glance at a situation, rattle off three or more skills, and get a full knowledge check for each mentioned skill accomplished without any closer examination. It also brings up the question about roleplaying the situation in regard to lighting, where in the crowd one might be, etc. Further, do most GMs just allow the player to roll such checks (regardless of what the system dictates)? Does a player character know he is rolling well and knows he doesn't know something or rolls low and knows there might still be something to know but that he has rolled poorly? How many GMs feel the need to make some adjustments such that a player cannot just rattle off a list of skills, make a quick series of rolls, and know which rolls were good and which were wanting?

How do you "roleplay" failing a Spot roll?

A very good question. I think if the GM makes the check, then the player roleplays based on what the GM tells him he has spotted or not spotted. If the player makes the check, he then knows he succeeded and things move on after he tells the GM and the GM tells him what he spotted, or the player knows he failed and somehow the PC has knowledge that he might have missed something. The player then is in the odd position of having to roleplay as if the PC doesn't have knowledge when the player knows that something might have been missed. In a different example, a PC goes into a room and makes his own spot check, rolls low, and knows he might have missed something. Does a player roleplay that his PC just didn't see anything and leave? Does the player, who doesn't want to miss anything then make up a rationalized excuse as to why his PC will stick around so he has another opportunity to notice something the player but not the PC knows he missed? I'm just wondering how various GMs handle such things.

 

[Janx]

I think Umbran might have hit upon a problem with the example (which may be as a GM ran it).

If all I am told is that I open the door and see in the room a skeleton that appears to be floating in the middle of the room, what I expected to know as a player from that, or expected to roll for as my PC?

Am I supposed to ask if it is suspended from a rope, or should the GM have said that given it would be obvious

Am I supposed to ask if there is an energy field around it, apparently causing the levitation?

Am I supposed to ask if there is a gelatinous haze surrounding it in a 3' radius (the ooze)?


For a player, isn't the GM supposed to say obvious stuff like that? If so, then the player only heard "levitating skeleton in the middle of the room" and assumed that it was a lich or something and was rolling knowledge checks to identify the creature.

Which is why the situation had "gotcha" all over it. A gelatinous ooze would have a surface that would be apparent (reflective of light, looks a bit "wet") that should have been part of the description. Rolls or no rolls.