Give me choices!

[The Little Raven]

Testing players to become more sociable at the table wouldn't be a bad thing for RPGs.

This has nothing to do with the whole "a social player shouldn't be bound by the stats of his character" argument. Social interaction with real people has nothing to do with the ability to limit your in-character activities by your character's traits, which is the subject under discussion (and good roleplaying).

Mechanizing social interaction is part of why autism and social misfits run high around RPG communities. IMO, again.

And mechanizing physical systems is part of why obesity and out-of-shape misfits run high around RPG communities. Opinion is great, especially when it allows you to make insulting generalizations.

 

[howandwhy99]

This has nothing to do with the whole "a social player shouldn't be bound by the stats of his character" argument. Social interaction with real people has nothing to do with the ability to limit your in-character activities by your character's traits, which is the subject under discussion (and good roleplaying).

And mechanizing physical systems is part of why obesity and out-of-shape misfits run high around RPG communities. Opinion is great, especially when it allows you to make insulting generalizations.

Yeah. The whole bit was an aside. I wasn't meant to be insulting only honest to the community.

EDIT: I just noticed the fair warning at the top of the forum and in lieu of insulting anyone I openly apologize if anyone here is insulted.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

The diagram you presented makes no sense both in the context of your initial argument and the context of what 4e actually seems to look like right now. 4e *is* a tRPG, period. The fact that you can *also* play it as a miniatures-centered game or a computer game makes it directly counter to the hypothetical you're using. Moreover, I will point out that "traditional" AD&D has existed as a miniatures game and as *several* CRPGs.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Good. So I take it that if you play fighters, you also make sure that you're in good enough physical training to wear a 70-pound suit of armor and swing a sword for hours at a time? You can cast spells?

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.

And how exactly is actually having a mechanical basis for your character's abilities inconsistent with being able to "act in character?

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.

I didn't miss the early years. I played many, many enjoyable campaigns using "old school" rules. But that doesn't mean that I was somehow trapped into thinking the rules couldn't get better; for that matter, it doesn't mean that I encountered many, many players who left to play GURPS, Ars Magica, or Werewolf because they found the AD&D system clunky.

The point I'm making is that your comments on "style of play" have *absolutely nothing to do with the current state of the rules.* You're somehow suggesting that creating mechanics for non-combat situations kills the imagination, which is actually missing the whole point... that point being that the rules are going to come up anyway. It's just a question of a) whether the player's own social skills and ingenuity should be substituted for those of his character, which prevents players who either have middling social skills or aren't necessarily brilliant polymaths from playing social or intelligent PCs; or b) whether the DM should make up the rules instead of, say, having them conveniently written down in the game books.

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.)

Especially like yours? I find that comment rather elitist.

In case it wasn't obvious, there are many, many people out there who think that the rules for handling "traditional"-feeling D&D games can get better. It's just that for us, "traditional" feel doesn't mean "there aren't rules to cover anything but combat" or "the DM just makes up most of it." I was disagreeing with Raven Crowking's post (and subsequently with yours): Namely, the argument to the effect that *not* having rules to cover certain aspects of the game somehow allows greater choice. IMO and IME, it doesn't. D&D is a game of the imagination, but without rules to shape that imagination, it can't be anything other than make-believe or cops and robbers.

If I want to challenge my players, I can do so just as easily in 3e as in 1e, and I doubt this will change in 4e. As I said, challenging the players is system-neutral. You're probably zooming in on the social aspect of the game, what with the comments on autistic players and being able to "become a silver-tongued diplomat" with sufficient play. Personally, I think that social interaction rules have several advantages:

a) They allow characters who choose to focus in social abilities to reap mechanical benefits in parallel to characters focused on combat. This makes building a social character a legitimate, meaningful option on par with building a combat machine. But even 3e still hasn't gotten there, and 1e was nowhere close.

b) They allow the DM to have a meaningful framework within which to judge social interactions, meaning he doesn't have to make it all up as he goes along. Fine, you may like the idea of the DM/referee making it all up. However, not everyone likes having to be arbitrary; I for one am very uncomfortable with the idea that I just decide what happens without a consistent framework within which to work. Ideally, a smart decision should have a definable, predictable (within parameters) result.

c) They allow the players a meaningful role in generating the story. If I'm a player and I'm *not* the most brilliant of diplomats, *or* if I'm a DM who doesn't have that ability, the DM essentially has to tell the story by fiat. The use of rules for social interactions allows the players and DM to use the dice for direction while they generate the script, to quote another ENWorlder.

d) They allow players to play epic bards or diplomats on par with epic warriors. I don't care what you say; I don't think *anyone* exists who can match in repartee what Odysseus or Orpheus was supposed to be like. If I can create a PC who thrusts a spear like Achilles or Heracles, I should be able to create a PC who talks or sings like either of those two.

Just some initial thoughts.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Having played White Wolf games, which have from the start had extensive rules for social interaction, I cannot agree, in any way whatsoever, that such rules limit or eliminate role-playing.

In my experience, it's exactly the other way around: the rules support and encourage interaction: if you can build a silver-tongued diplomat, or an alluring seductress, or a zealous preacher, whose effectiveness is not limited to either your personal skillfulness at any of these things or the GM's idea of how good a speaker you are, such characters will be created by the players, and they will seek to use these abilities... leading to increased character interaction!

Yes, you can in theory reduce roleplaying to just rolling a bunch of dice and asking if you succeed or fail. But really, would someone who is going to do this roleplay any better or more enthusiastically without those rules? I don't think so.

 

[zlorf]

I actually think, a clerics role is less likely to be a healer in 3.5 and more likely for buffing the other party members. With items such as belts of healing, gems that give you hp's back when you hit with your weapon and even thieves use magic device, plus wands and potions of healing, the cleric in our campaign doesnt actually heal anyone.

Zlorf

In 1E, Gnomes were sort of like dwarves, except they had some illusionists.
In 2E, Gnomes were illusionists - but illusionists were weak magic-users.
In 3E, Gnomes were sort of like dwarves or elves, except not.
In 3.5E, Gnomes were good bards.

Huh? Where did that last come from?

I'm getting the feeling with 4e races that each of them is very clearly defined. You don't have the gnome, which was some hybrid of the elf and dwarf without any good mythological background to go with it.



The Fighter and Ranger were having fun.

The Cleric and Bard weren't. Well, they were occasionally, but often not.

Here's a typical 3e combat:

Fighter: I hit the monster with my sword.
Wizard: I blow the monster up with my spell.
Rogue: I sneak attack the monster.
Monster: I hurt you all!
Cleric: I... *interrupted by others* "Heal us!"

When a character has to do something to aid another party member instead of the cool thing they could have otherwise done (like cast flame strike), then they lose the opportunity to have fun. Ok, there are some players who enjoy purely being supportive, but they're not universally found in groups - which is why some groups had a lot of trouble getting a cleric.

However, "aid another" effects are good to have around. It's just that they don't work as sole actions. So, by grouping them with a "smite the enemy" action you keep them in the game and allow the cleric, paladin or whoever to still have fun.

Cheers!

 

[Brian Compton]

I actually think, a clerics role is less likely to be a healer in 3.5 and more likely for buffing the other party members. With items such as belts of healing, gems that give you hp's back when you hit with your weapon and even thieves use magic device, plus wands and potions of healing, the cleric in our campaign doesn't actually heal anyone.

This would be great. The cleric's spells primarily buff/aid party members or bring the (un)holy wrath of their god down, the wizard's spells do direct damage and control the battlefield, and the warlock's powers weaken opponents and make them vulnerable. This is better than the way it's been, where all casters could basically do all the same things, just in different ways, or could do some things slightly better than the others. Also, when deciding what kind of caster to be, you can choose a class based on what you want to do, rather than pick a class and define what kind of caster you want to be, hopefully not stepping on the toes of the other casters in the process.

As for clerics not having any fun in 3 and 3.5E- they get to have all the fun! With the breadth of their choices, both in spells and domain powers, clerics can be melee fighters, stealthy types, buffers, direct damage casters, controllers, summoners, etc. Except maybe for melee fighting, arcanists have the same role choices too. This often leads to other party members wondering why they bother when the casters can do everything.

This why I think the inclusion of ability choices and career paths will be helpful. All classes will have something to do all of the time, whether it be direct interaction or indirect support.

 

[glass]

I'm happy you've decided to have some roleplay at your games. But why not roll for these too and throw out everything?

How are player-focused challenges role-playing? And while we are on the subject why is combat automatically not role-playing?


glass.

 

[howandwhy99]

I was disagreeing with Raven Crowking's post (and subsequently with yours): Namely, the argument to the effect that *not* having rules to cover certain aspects of the game somehow allows greater choice. IMO and IME, it doesn't. D&D is a game of the imagination, but without rules to shape that imagination, it can't be anything other than make-believe or cops and robbers.

IMO, roleplaying, i.e. acting in character, works better when one doesn't have rules to arbitrarily constrain thinking. It's tough enough for actors to get into their parts, do they need to all follow one methodology too? Rules are there "behind the screen" for the Referee. They allow the ref to run a credible world. That's it. I don't understand why anyone would think make-believe isn't what RPGs are, but with a credible, perceivable, understandable world to explore. One the DM is doing their best to portray.

How are player-focused challenges role-playing? And while we are on the subject why is combat automatically not role-playing?

Roleplaying your character is a challenge to you, me, and even Marlon Brando. Combat is too if we act it out. But we're not. So what isn't acted out at the table isn't a player-focused challenge.

Of course LARPs can and do challenge our physical capabilities.

This doesn't mean "roleplaying" cannot be abstracted in a game. It just seems a little disingenuous to think any abstraction of it should be de facto in a roleplaying game. Much less making those abstractions obstructions to it. (as we see in 3e, some 3rd party d20, and possibly the new 4e options).

What gets abstracted in RPGs is what we cannot do in real life. That's the fun part of RPGs (and the real point too IMO as everything else is better in real life). If you have a player acting as best he or she can to be smart, funny, hip, whatever, and yet failing, have the world react to them as if they succeeded. At least their trying. And getting better for the practice.

 

[The Little Raven]

What gets abstracted in RPGs is what we cannot do in real life.

So, if I can beat people up in real life, we can just forget all those combat statistics since I don't need to abstract what I can do? Umm... no. What gets abstracted in RPGs is the character's capabilities. I don't care if you can make swords in real life, your character sheet says you can't craft a birdhouse, so your fighter can't do it. I don't care if you can run a mile in under 6 minutes in real life, your character sheet says you're a slow dwarf with no additional running capabilities, so you can't do it. I don't care if you can talk any girl you meet out of her clothes in real life, your character sheet says you're socially inept, so you can't do it.

You =/= Your Character

Roleplaying is taking on a role other than yourself, and abiding by the characteristics and limitations of the character, as defined by his character sheet traits (actual capabilities) and his backstory. This doesn't mean ignoring traits simply because the person playing the character has different mental/social characteristics.