Give me choices!

[howandwhy99]

This same argument can be turned against having combat systems and stats in a game.

"My roleplaying concept is 'greatest swordsman who ever lived,' but my low BAB and lack of feats are impeding my ability to roleplay my character, so we should just scrap them."

I'm thinking you are missing the point. No rules are needed for this either. The mechanics for combat are descriptive. If the description is inaccurate, toss 'em and use what is. The rules have no place in the Players' hands, paper, or minds. They are simply a tool for the Referee to run an internally consistent imaginary world.

Games have rules. If you abandon rules, you're simply doing improv storytelling.

Roleplaying doesn't have rules. It is acting. It is a game because how you act actually means something in an imaginary world. The world has rules, but that's up to the Ref. (kind a like who ever made 'em in our world).

 

[Wolfspider]

This same argument can be turned against having combat systems and stats in a game.

"My roleplaying concept is 'greatest swordsman who ever lived,' but my low BAB and lack of feats are impeding my ability to roleplay my character, so we should just scrap them."

"My roleplaying concept is 'greatest swordsman who ever lived' so I should generate a 20th level fighter and play in a high level game."

"My roleplaying concept is someone who wants to be the 'greatest swordsman who ever lived' so I should generate a 1st level fighter and then go from there."

 

[MerricB]

You know, this actually sheds light on why our play experiences may be so different...I have gamed with a fairly consistent group through D&D 3e and D&D 3.5. If combat was all or even the majority of the focus in our games...I don't think we would have continued gaming (or at least playing D&D in particular). It would have gotten boring real quick.

In my case, I've gamed with about 25 different people during the 3e era, in pretty much 7 groups.

Cheers!

 

[howandwhy99]

So, level has no effect on your ability to cast teleportation circle (mass teleport, whatever) out of combat?

Level is a score that can be kept by the Ref for out of combat things too, but it isn't strictly necessary. It's not like Magic Users or Rogues were designed for combat. In these cases level refers to each role's abilities in regards to their focus. Combat being primary for Fighters.

So, you're saying that combat-related characters should be limited by stats, but non-combat stuff shouldn't be? Limit one character type while giving another free reign to ignore low Charisma or whatever, simply because the player is good at persuasion?

Come on. This is basic stuff. We don't use swords at the table to test our prowess with them, but some LARPers do. Good on them. At the table we CAN talk to each other, so we do. A person who is highly persuasive isn't as challenged by a characterization where they don't use that skill. A person who isn't, is.

EDIT: A person's skills at the table don't go away just because we choose to ignore them. Or worse yet, codify them into whatever integrated "skill groups" we've come up with. All this is doing is removing a persons actual skill from roleplaying a character to numbers game were the only question is "should I roll or not"? Actual play or "human interaction" is a bit more subtle.

 

[ruleslawyer]

See the Venn diagram... Anthing that needs to be included in 3 groups is inherently limited in regards to any one unless that one is consumed within another. TRPGs aren't.

The Venn diagram is inapplicable here. Or are you saying that, say, someone who can speak three languages is limited in his thinking?

I'm really thinking you missed the boat when you played early D&D. You don't believe DMs and Players have regard for a character's implied personality and abilities? This is roleplaying.

No, actually what it is is playing yourself rather than your character. "Implied personality and abilities" is another term for "making stuff up." In the context of an RPG, it is inherently problematic because the guy who's the best at combat can be just as capable of dealing with non-combat situations due to "implied personality and abilities" as the one who isn't the best at combat. Ergo, there's no incentive for anyone to be good at anything other than combat, since there's *no way for anyone to be good at anything but combat.*

For an example of how not having rules for non-combat stuff is constraining: Try having someone who's not a brilliant silver-tongued diplomat play one in 1e. Or someone who's not a survival expert play out a wilderness exploration scenario. Or someone who's not a super-knowledgeable architect or engineer deal with complex dungeoneering features.

Hardly. Rules have an enormous effect on players' ability to immerse themselves in character. Or, like feats & talents, constantly pull them out of character.

Actually, feats and talents are about adding dimensions to characters, not removing them. Making "implied personality and abilities" *concrete in the game* is something that enhances immersion, IME.

EDIT: The rest of your post is a completely unsupported assertion that people who prefer a more robust rule set and don't want to make rules up aren't "good at role-playing," so I'm going to remove the rest of my line by line response. In short, I'll just say that you're connecting two unrelated things. Having rules for how good a character can be at climbing a rope, bluffing a guardsman, or surviving in the wild for days without supplies has nothing to do with "good role-playing."

 

[The Little Raven]

Level is a score that can be kept by the Ref for out of combat things too, but it isn't strictly necessary. It's not like Magic Users or Rogues were designed for combat. In these cases level refers to each role's abilities in regards to their focus. Combat being primary for Fighters.

The classes that Gygax based on "artillery" (magic-user) and "special ops" (thief) weren't designed for combat? So, all those combat spells and backstab and all that stuff isn't meant for combat?

If you take a serious look at the amount of combat options available to a magic-user and a fighter in 1e, the magic-user has a hundred times more options. More combat options would indicate design for combat.

At the table we CAN talk to each other, so we do. A person who is highly persuasive isn't as challenged by a characterization where they don't use that skill. A person who isn't, is.

So, again, what you're saying is that social adept players should get a free pass, despite their character having a Charisma of 3? To me, that is crappy roleplaying to the extreme.

 

[The Little Raven]

actual[/I] skill from roleplaying a character to numbers game were the only question is "should I roll or not"? Actual play or "human interaction" is a bit more subtle.

If the role you are playing (which is the character, as defined by it's statistics and background history) indicates that your character is socially inept because it lacks social skills and has a low Charisma, then playing it as a suave, silver-tongued diplomat is bad roleplaying.

 

[howandwhy99]

The Venn diagram is inapplicable here. Or are you saying that, say, someone who can speak three languages is limited in his thinking?

I'm saying that if you are building a game that only fits in "animals may eat bugs" you aren't including everything about what it means to be "human". You've got more crossover, but tRPGs get short changed. This is a limited RPG.

 

[howandwhy99]

No, actually what it is is playing yourself rather than your character. "Implied personality and abilities" is another term for "making stuff up."

Right, you are playing another person to the best of your ability. You cannot portray a person you are incapable of portraying. This seems a truism.

In the context of an RPG, it is inherently problematic because the guy who's the best at combat can be just as capable of dealing with non-combat situations due to "implied personality and abilities" as the one who isn't the best at combat.

Right. What's wrong with this? I can be good at combat. The Wizard can be good at Magic. The rogue at thieving. The Cleric at a little combat, magic, and more.

Ergo, there's no incentive for anyone to be good at anything other than combat, since there's *no way for anyone to be good at anything but combat.*

Okay. This is all about acting in character. If you do so, you can be better or worse than others at the table. Incentive is to win combat is a given. So is acting in character. And Getting XP. Which you get for your acting within your role. Casting spells. Stealing. Raising temples. Etc.

For an example of how not having rules for non-combat stuff is constraining: Try having someone who's not a brilliant silver-tongued diplomat play one in 1e. Or someone who's not a survival expert play out a wilderness exploration scenario. Or someone who's not a super-knowledgeable architect or engineer deal with complex dungeoneering features.

We do this regularly and it's the best way to play. (IMO of course). In our case the players actually get to learn and improve at being silver-tongued, knowing wilderness survival, and dealing with dungeoneering features. This is a bit more enjoyable than glossing over all the fun stuff.

Actually, feats and talents are about adding dimensions to characters, not removing them. Making "implied personality and abilities" *concrete in the game* is something that enhances immersion, IME.

You're right here. If only the game didn't force one to think out of character to use the feat, but instead never told the Player what the rules were in teh first place. Simply said, "you can attack a 2nd person, if you kill someone standing in front of them on your round." It's a bit overcomplicated too. It places places hours of time on combat, which is perfectly legitimate if that's all the focus you want. Me, I want more than 90% skirmish wargame play.

EDIT: The rest of your post is a completely unsupported assertion that people who prefer a more robust rule set and don't want to make rules up aren't "good at role-playing," so I'm going to remove the rest of my line by line response. In short, I'll just say that you're connecting two unrelated things. Having rules for how good a character can be at climbing a rope, bluffing a guardsman, or surviving in the wild for days without supplies has nothing to do with "good role-playing."

I did that so you could understand very clearly. This isn't crackpot thinking. Or biased diatribe. I'm trying to as accurately as possible express to you something that really exists and has existed. It may be something of a gestalt shift in thinking though for those who missed the early years. If you didn't experience it earlier, the current style of play is not the only way D&D is or has been played. Options, as the thread introduces, are about allowing all types of D&D play, especially ones traditional to the game. (like mine and others like me.)

By choosing to ignore my other answers what am I left to think but that you aren't seeing a clearly different opinion. How can I better explain this to you?

 

[howandwhy99]

The classes that Gygax based on "artillery" (magic-user) and "special ops" (thief) weren't designed for combat?

Not initially, no.

So, all those combat spells and backstab and all that stuff isn't meant for combat?

I think they can be, but it's not as if wizards or rogues never focused on combat. It was a lesser part of the whole.

If you take a serious look at the amount of combat options available to a magic-user and a fighter in 1e, the magic-user has a hundred times more options. More combat options would indicate design for combat.

1eAD&D was badly designed in this way. Everything was simply heaped onto one plate. You will notice that most spells were not combat spells though. It was ingenuity for using them in combat that changed folks perception to most being that now. That and further editor's poor redefinitions.

So, again, what you're saying is that social adept players should get a free pass, despite their character having a Charisma of 3? To me, that is crappy roleplaying to the extreme.

Not even close to what I'm saying. I'm saying "Crappy roleplaying in the extreme" would be playing a Charisma 3 character as one with Charisma 18. Common consensus now seems to be that the rules will keep someone from doing this when they only actually keep players from roleplaying (depending on the rules). Players are very capable of acting in character even when they can be more (or less) than what the characterization calls for.

Testing players to become more sociable at the table wouldn't be a bad thing for RPGs. Mechanizing social interaction is part of why autism and social misfits run high around RPG communities. IMO, again.