Mithril studded leather

[Pielorinho]

I'm not sure that giving in to players trying to stretch the rules (or find loopholes) makes the game more fun for them though. I notice that players rarely try to "get away with" roleplaying elements, mostly just rules elements. I wonder why that is... Hmmm.

Can you give me an example of what it would look like to "get away with" roleplaying elements?

Daniel

 

[wuyanei]

Nonlethal Force: Good for tha gander indeed... (cue assassin's guild)....

Also, mithril scythe (well, mithril shortspear, actually) has already happened, but that is because I house rule that mithril silver has all special material properties of silver (against DR or regeneration etc.), without the -1 to damage. No significant weight reduction, though.

KarinsDad: Well, it does seem passing strange that armor weights are always very neat multiples of 5. IMO, 'item weight' in D&D is an abstract. Still, that is not RAW, so I will not insist on such an interpretation.

As for giving in... well, in the end, for purposes of balance, only the total number of bonuses matter -- everything else is just flavor text. If players favor one set of flavor text over the other, I see no reason not to indulge them, so long as balance and consistancy are maintained. Rules... are just tools to be used. That is what I think, but your preferences might differ greatly.

Thanks again for your comments!

Ja ne,
Yanei Wu

 

[Starglim]

What Nonlethal Force said. edit: as regards stats of the item - I can't get enough of odd but low-powered armour types and would allow it.

 

[was]

All arguments of armor statistics and construction aside, I wouldn't have allowed it simply because its a very rare metal in our campaign world. If the character wanted to create such a thing I wouldn't deny it, but I'd make it into a quest/adventure to get the materials.

 

[KarinsDad]

Can you give me an example of what it would look like to "get away with" roleplaying elements?

Sure.

Two examples:

1) One of my players reaches for her dice whenever she wants to talk to someone. She says "I roll Diplomacy against him." I say "No, roleplay the encounter, if it does not go the way you want it to, then we will roll a Diplomacy to see if you can persuade the NPC more."

If I just let her roll, she is not roleplaying and "getting away" with letting her good Diplomacy skill take over the roleplaying aspects of the game. The skill is there to supplement the roleplaying, not to take over for it. I do not disallow her to roll at all, I just do not allow her to roll first and not play it out.


2) A lot of times in a game, players will forget to talk about something that they wanted to talk about to an NPC. We will roleplay a discussion and 15 minutes later, a player will remember he wanted to say something else:

Player: "Oh btw, I wanted to ask the innkeeper about the horse."
DM: "Ok, go back and talk to him about it."
Player: "No, I wanted to ask him about the horse when we were there and my character is smart enough to have done that."
DM: "Sorry, you forgot and so did your PC. Go back if you want to do it."
Player: "We cannot do that, we will miss our meeting with the mayor."
DM: "Oh well."

If I just let the conversation go back in time, the player is "getting away" with changing the events to his advantage. Sometimes if it is trivial, I might allow it. Or sometimes, I might allow an Int roll to allow it. But, usually I want my players to earn what they get and not slide by with sloppy roleplaying. You roleplay well and believably, NPCs tend to react more favorably. You roleplay like you are playing a cartoon character, they tend to react less favorably.


On the other hand, as DM, I will occasionally go back in time on a conversation. Sometimes, there is important information that an NPC needed to say to the players for plot, or storyline continuity, or whatever. Usually, I just interject what needed to be said. But, if I do this and the players want to play the roleplaying encounter differently, then I usually allow that (depending on what happened in the interim). It is not fair to them to just drop info on them and not let them react to it.

 

[Caliban]

KD is right on this one, although it's hardly game breaking if you choose to allow it.

 

[Pielorinho]

Sure.

Two examples:

Okay, I may be a very confused man who's not had his coffee yet, but these sound to me like examples of wanting to get away with not roleplaying. I thought you were saying that players rarely tried to get away with roleplaying elements, which didn't make sense to me, as I couldn't imagine what it'd look like to get away with roleplaying elements. Sorry for the confusion!

Daniel

 

[Particle_Man]

Just remember to have someone cast Heat Metal on mr. "my armor is mostly metal so it can be mithral studded leather".

 

[KarinsDad]

Just remember to have someone cast Heat Metal on mr. "my armor is mostly metal so it can be mithral studded leather".

Ouch!

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay, I may be a very confused man who's not had his coffee yet, but these sound to me like examples of wanting to get away with not roleplaying. I thought you were saying that players rarely tried to get away with roleplaying elements, which didn't make sense to me, as I couldn't imagine what it'd look like to get away with roleplaying elements. Sorry for the confusion!

Yes, the first one is trying to avoid roleplaying, but it is the roleplaying where she is attempting to gain an advantage, not the rules.

The second one is not avoidance, rather it is trying to slip a roleplaying element into the game that did not occur. It didn't happen, but the player tries to slip it in (to his advantage) anyway.

It sometimes becomes a little difficult to talk about "getting away with" or "taking advantage of" roleplaying. It is much easier to talk about "getting away with" a rule.

We rarely talk about "breaking the roleplaying contract" (and probably shouldn't in a rules forum anyway) and it has fewer concrete rules associated with it. In fact, the roleplaying elements often tend to be free for alls with almost no rules.