Hope?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Case in point:

A friend of mine was DMing and a particular player (being smarter than the average bear) figured out a puzzle (which involved lifted some lid and pushing some lever in a particular way or another; it's been a couple years!).

The player announced that his character was going over and adjusting the lever in the proper way.

The DM looked up, smiled, and said, "You're a 6 Int Dwarf Barbarian. Would you do it that way?"

The player laughed, admitted he probably wouldn't, and went re-described the way in which the dwarf attacked the problem.

Man, this story would be so much better if I could remember the specifics.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Every day I'm amazed as I see my kids understanding the trade-offs between the different options for their time. Despite nigh unfettered access to TV, DVDs, video games, the computer, & the internet; they still choose to play board games, card games, marbles, build blocky constructs with generic legos, do crafts, go outside, have an interest in sports, read, &c. Or even make up their own games. Yeah, they avail themselves of the latest options, but they enjoy the timeless ones as well. Marbles didn't have to go "xtreme" to catch my son's interest.

They're still a bit young for RPGs, but I'm not worried about them being able to see the attraction despite the mediocrity of the system or GM.

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.

I'm with you right up to the "should" & "shouldn't". I can enjoy playing that way, but I can't say that's the way it should be.

 

[Exen Trik]

Man, this story would be so much better if I could remember the specifics.

Heh don't worry, I get what you're saying.

And really, just because a character has int 6 doesn't mean he can't figure out simple puzzles, or even hit upon the answers to tougher ones. Just that he is less likely to figure it out easily.

I'm with you right up to the "should" & "shouldn't". I can enjoy playing that way, but I can't say that's the way it should be.

Sorry about that, I messed up my intended meaning a little. Consider them as should/shouldn't necessarily.

If a soft spoken stammering player wants to try and be the charismatic leader, I think it would be a good thing to let that player be that without penalty. But in the reverse situation, where a player does have the same talents as the character he plays, well why not let him run with it? The player can stand up and actually give the impassioned speech of his character, and get a nice bonus to his roll, or just not even need to roll anything. Whatever results in more fun being had.

And that should be the priority, no?

 

[hazel monday]

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.


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.

Truer words were never spoken on the subject of RPGs. Some social skills add to the game .Bluff/Sense Motive for example can be fun. But social skills that let dice make decisions instead of players & DMs , like diplomacy & intimidate ,are the death of fun. I've never seen diplomacy checks do anything but tie people's hands and halt the momentum of roleplaying. Diplomacy, as a skill is a terrible idea in my opinion.
Players hate when they're charmed or dominated. Why should someone (PC or NPC) have to act charmed or dominated in every encounter? Ugh. Ditching diplomacy rules was a no brainer for me.

 

[RFisher]

If a soft spoken stammering player wants to try and be the charismatic leader, I think it would be a good thing to let that player be that without penalty.

In my experience, though, you don't need mechanics to enable that. The GM--unless very inexperienced or immature--will merely take into account that the character is charismatic even though the player may not be, and that works adequately for the purposes of a game.

But I guess that's straying off topic...