Hope?

[wgreen]

Emmm... 'rolling dice is generally not fun' is a statement of such obvious truth that I don't see why it needs an elaborate explanation. 'Rolling dice' is the reason D&D tends to crowd 20 minutes of fun into 4 hours of play.

I would dispute that. IME it's not the actual rolling of dice that eats up fun-time. It's more the habits we've all picked up over years of playing these games, combined with excessive amounts of rule lookups (which are distinct from the actual rolling of the dice, mind you). Die-rolling is a big part of the fun of D&D and similar games, IMO.

-Will

 

[LostSoul]

Social skills can have a role, but a system that replaces roleplay with systematic mechanical rollplay makes for a very uninteresting game. I want to have conversations in character with the DM in the role of an NPC and with my fellow players. I want to as the DM bring to life richly detailed and memorable NPC's and I don't want them to do completely illogical and out of character things just because the player rolled a dice and the diplomacy mechanics says that he should.

That's not true.

1. I have a lot of interesting games that use social skills.
2. We have conversations in character.
3. Characters - NPCs and PCs - don't do illogical or out of character things because of the dice rolls.

Maybe if you played in one of my games you would find it dull, boring, uninteresting, and more fun to hack off your arm with a rusty spoon. But that doesn't mean mechanical "rollplay" is uninteresting for everyone.

See, the thing about social skills is that the sort of players that clamor for them NEVER believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The sort of players that clamor for hard and fast social rules would throw a fit if my NPC's used skill roles to override player choice. They would (rightfully, I think) become outraged if I began to play thier characters for them and told them what thier characters did just because the NPC had a +20 bonus in intimidate, bluff, or diplomacy. For all the pretensions that player crowd has for DM/player parity, they aren't really interested in true simulation or PC/NPC parity.

Not true.

I play and run games with social skills and we all accept that PCs and NPCs can be influenced by the results of the rolls.

 

[Reynard]

But none of them supported the statement that "rolling dice is generally not fun." IMO.

-Will

How about this, since it's inobvious: Just rolling dice generally isn't fun. Which is what I thought was pretty explicit in the paragraph that followed.

 

[Reynard]

If you can't trust the DM, having some rules to bash him over the head with won't fix your game.

This is one of the most important things in all of gaming. Trusting the DM and giving him permission to run the game creates a better experience for everyone at the table. Feeling you need to have every rule memorized or at your fingertips so the DM doesn't "screw" you not only makes the game less fun for everyone, it says that you shouldn't be playing with that DM.

Players cannot, in traditional RPGs, possess the same powers and privilages of the GM because they do not shoulder the same responsibilities.

Sure, but then you are back to DM fiat again. You've just disguised it.

I am not a huge fan of "stunts" for this very reason. it actually makes a GM less trustworthy because it invites favoritism. I prefer to use a "declare" and "resolve" method: Player A states he wants to attack the orc. He rolls and crits. Player A then enjoys describing exactly how awesome he just was. It also has the benefit of stopping situations where a player wants his character to do something super cool and, even with a "stunt" reward or an action die, ends of failing miserably. That's far less fun than just failing, IMO.

If you think that you are slaves to the DM, it's a problem with the DM or player that the rules can't fix.

Somewhere, there's a support group for all the people who must have suffered terribly at the hands of their DM in their formative years.

"It's okay, Tommy, show us on the character sheet where the bad DM touched you."

 

[Wormwood]

Somewhere, there's a support group for all the people who must have suffered terribly at the hands of their DM in their formative years.

It's called World of Warcraft.

Crappy DMs create ex-gamers.

 

[Reynard]

It's called World of Warcraft.

Ha!

Crappy DMs create ex-gamers.

Which is too bad. Crappy DMs should create new, better DMs from their player pool.

 

[Wormwood]

Which is too bad. Crappy DMs should create new, better DMs from their player pool.

With the surplus of entertainment options available today to larval geeks, I believe it takes *very* good DMs in concert with *very* good game systems to 'hook' youngsters into Tabletop play.

I run a 3.5 game for my nephews and their friends. Hardest job I've had in 20+ years as a DM (yet ultimately the most rewarding).

 

[Celebrim]

Not true.

I play and run games with social skills and we all accept that PCs and NPCs can be influenced by the results of the rolls.

Then I applaud the integrity and purity of your games, even if I necessarily wouldn't prefer that mechanic.

However, I think that most players would find the idea that diplomatic NPC's could talk there character into doing things against the player's wishes to be a deal breaker.

 

[LostSoul]

Then I applaud the integrity and purity of your games, even if I necessarily wouldn't prefer that mechanic.

However, I think that most players would find the idea that diplomatic NPC's could talk there character into doing things against the player's wishes to be a deal breaker.

Hmm... well, it's not really against the player's wishes. He might not want the outcome (which is why he's rolling to stop me/get something of his own) but he's agreed to go to the mechanics to resolve it instead of having his PC walk away.

 

[Exen Trik]

On one hand, I understand that in order to be fun for the player in-game puzzles and other challenges have to apply at a metagame level. Reducing everything to simple skillchecks leaves the result in the players hands but not the challenge or the fun.

On the other hand, while the player should be behind the wheel, the player is not in fact the vehicle, that's what the character is. The characters abilities and limitations should have a vital role in how a challenge plays out, and in turn the players shouldn't be fully responsible for their characters perception, knowledge, skill with words or actions.

It's isn't an easy task to make those two work with each other, but with the correct mechanics and a DM who knows what they're doing it should be possible.

One thing that I think gets often overlooked is the DMs description of something, since it should be presented in the scope of what that character can see. Even if a player is asking a series of technical questions about a mechanical device, if the character is a 6 Int barbarian he wouldn't likely understand of it, and the player wouldn't have more to work with than "It's a mechanical device, do you want to leave it alone, or kick it?" or something similar.

In any case, I'm hopeful that the 4e teams approach to non-combat challenges will be a big step in the right direction.