Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZSutherland" data-source="post: 3016090" data-attributes="member: 7638">I'll concede this point gladly.  Yes, much like a superb Search check result can reveal information such as "The victims all appear to have been killed with deep wounds, such as from an axe and there appears to be no blood from the killers" gives more information than a poor but successful result that just says "All the victims were killed by some sort of slashing weapon," a high Gather Information check can result in additional information.  However, so could additional, played-out questioning instead of relying on a check.  The players tell me their characters enter town and carouse in local taverns looking for information.  They hear that nearby farms are being raided by goblins.  This can be played out or the result of a simple check that succeeded but not grandly.  If they wish to get further information, they question guards who might have responded to the threat, seek out farmers so raided, etc.  They learn that the goblins tend to conduct their attacks at night, don't attack anyone that stays clear of them but make a point of carrying off any livestock they can, and each attack is preceded by the loud sound of a horn.  Again, this could be further questioning by the PCs or a subsequent Gather Info check or a higher result on the initial check.  The skill isn't bad, it's just not fundamentally necessary.That simply isn't always true.  I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to break in new players by handing them a fighter.  It saves them the hassle of having to keep up with a bunch of differing skills (ala rogue) or grasp the Vancian magic system from minute one.  It's a relatively simple character type to play within the bounds of the codified rule-set.  However, by your statement, if this is a standard-4 party (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), the other players with their greater game experience and grasp of the rules, should turn to this novice player to fill the role of squad leader because his character is best suited to that job despite the fact that the player is demonstrably ill-suited for it.  This leads to one of three results, none positive.  One, the character's foes mop the floor with them, much to the agony and shame of the other players who knew better, while the fighter's player becomes accustomed to and familiar with his character's role.  Two, -I- have to dumb down the monsters and their tactics so as to not slap his noviate backside with things he's not ready to handle.  Now I'm role-playing poorly, violating the rule you laid out, and the more experienced players are bored.  Three, the other players either subtly subvert the squad leader role away by OOC advising (not a bad occurance by my lights, but it seems you would object) or overtly take it from him and we're back to my arguement squarely except with a small bruise to the new player's ego.Your specific description of social skills leaves something to be desired as well.  In option #1, as you presented, why role-play at all?  We're simplying listening to a DM spin out a story while we occassionally roll dice, and he interprets those rolls and incorporates them into his story.  At this point, why not go whole hog and have a Puzzle skill and a Tactics skill?  We could simplify combat down to a single opposed roll between the Tactic skill check of each side with a large table of modifiers.  If that sounds appealing to you, that's fine, but let me recommend Choose-Your-Own-Adventure novels instead.  They're at least pseudo-professionally written instead of an amateur DM and no one else is there to steal the last slice of pizza.  In the second option, if the players are going to describe to me what they do, why make the check at all?  Why not let that speak for itself?I can't teach players sword-combat, but I don't have to.  The rules simulate it for me.  In all honesty, I can't even teach them small-group tactics.  All they learn are the small-group tactics that work at my table.  If the wound up at PirateCat's table, they'd almost certainly be hopelessly outclassed and at higher levels would still regularly get their backsides handed to them, moist and freshly chewed, by unmodified kobolds and goblinoids simply because PC is a much more clever and experienced DM than I am.  Those tactical skills almost certainly wouldn't do them much good in a real-life combat situation.  So why should social interaction be any different?  I may not be able to teach my younger brother to talk to girls (much to my chagrin) nor can my wife teach him that, but I can teach him how to role-play talking to girls in a way that will work at my table.  I suppose a combat-esque social system with Will points or Morale points could suffice, but the fact that everyone knows at least something about social interactions would get in the way of suspended disbelief.  Still, we don't have either, we have some sort of nebulous middle-ground that doesn't serve anyone well, imo.</blockquote>

Verification