Heroes of Battle and Defining Roleplaying

[ThoughtBubble]

Let me guess, your current DM is allergic to research?

Not all role-playing situations will be covered in the rulebook, otherwise we have a rulebook that is 1-mile-thick.

If you're a commoner and you slapped a noble thinking you can issue a challenge to a duel, the noble have no obligation to answer except to throw you in jail. Unless you're a fan of the movie Knight's Tale.

Naaah, but he does fully believe that the foundation of the game is the rules. He feels that if you're not going to follow the rules set up, you're really just being led around by the DM's whim. Thus, he feels that D&D should proportionally be about what's covered in the rules. Hence, Magic, Dungeons, Combat, Mosters, Equipment, and miscellanious connections/backgrounds/flavor. And everyone else in my group agrees.

And, thanks for proving my point about needing guides to arbitrate more social situations. I would have expected a will save on the part of the noble vs. a DC 10+cha modifier to avoid being insized enough to teach me a lesson. Or maybe a sense motive vs bluff check. In your game, would I just be **** out of luck for trying to get into a duel?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

In your game, would I just be **** out of luck for trying to get into a duel?

As a lowly peasant? Hell yeah. They're not worthy of a duel.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

As a lowly peasant? Hell yeah. They're not worthy of a duel.

How about as the most dashing, hansome, charismatic, popular pesant ever with an unearthly charisma score of 28?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

How about as the most dashing, hansome, charismatic, popular pesant ever with an unearthly charisma score of 28?

Then he's probably the lost son of the king I killed to get to my position, and is immediately put to death. I'm not born yesterday, you know I read the evil overlord list

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Then he's probably the lost son of the king I killed to get to my position, and is immediately put to death. I'm not born yesterday, you know I read the evil overlord list

Well no wonder charisma is a dump stat.

In all seriousness though, the difference in our expected outcomes I think shows the strongest part of my point.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well no wonder charisma is a dump stat.

In all seriousness though, the difference in our expected outcomes I think shows the strongest part of my point.

The main point here is that a peasant with high Int wouldn't even think about trying stuff above his station. Especially not like that.

 

[Ranger REG]

Naaah, but he does fully believe that the foundation of the game is the rules. He feels that if you're not going to follow the rules set up, you're really just being led around by the DM's whim. Thus, he feels that D&D should proportionally be about what's covered in the rules. Hence, Magic, Dungeons, Combat, Mosters, Equipment, and miscellanious connections/backgrounds/flavor. And everyone else in my group agrees.

Yeah, but a foundation is just one part of a whole building.

Remember, a DM is a judge and he must do his utmost to render the best ruling possible, especially when he come across something which is not currently covered by the law (as with any real-world political & judicial systems). That's why his most crucial tool besides the rule is reasonable judgment.

If there is one set of codes to live by, I suggest you read the Role-Playing Game Manifesto by Guardians of Order.

http://www.guardiansorder.com/pdfs/goo_manifesto.pdf

And, thanks for proving my point about needing guides to arbitrate more social situations. I would have expected a will save on the part of the noble vs. a DC 10+cha modifier to avoid being insized enough to teach me a lesson. Or maybe a sense motive vs bluff check. In your game, would I just be **** out of luck for trying to get into a duel?

Unless you can get the public to rally behind you, with support from the tyrant noble's own men-at-arms, like the final scene in Russell Crowe's The Gladiator. To go against the king, you either better have an army or the support of the king's oppressed subjects (even though themselves may not willingly take arms).

The most stupid actions sometimes do not deserve a d20 check.

 

[Ranger REG]

How about as the most dashing, hansome, charismatic, popular pesant ever with an unearthly charisma score of 28?

Only if he uses his popularity to win the support of the king's men-at-arms, or rally an army of his own. I doubt charisma alone is going to stop a king's army whose order is to capture you and possibly kill you. Last I checked in most monarch-ruled countries, challenging a king to a duel is treason.

 

[Flyspeck23]

So a warmage is merely an evolved diplomancer?

Yes. And a fighter is merely a commoner who has lost his temper.

 

[S'mon]

Hm, this is interesting. I actually find it far easier to run political intrigue & war in 3e than running combat (esp high level combat), because in the former case I don't have this huge pile of rules getting in my way. Whereas other GMs see rules governing X as a necessary crutch & comfort blanket to even think about using X in their game. I'd never considered this.