New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[ExploderWizard]

Just throwing this out there as a thought experiment: Why have numbers for the "non-combat" stats? What if Str, Dex, Con had numeric stats, and the other 3 stats didn't exist or just had "a personality descriptor".

To me, that seems to be the dividing line. Activities which touch the physical stats tend to be rolled for, while a significant segment of the audience prefers "roleplay" to determine activities which touch the non-physical stats.

Thats exactly how Pendragon handles things. Your mental stats and personality come from you.

D&D has stuff tied into the stats more deeply. INT and WIS are the prime requisite for the two major classes of spell casters.

 

[Rolflyn]

A system cannot, as far as I can see, adequately support multiple styles. The style I play D&D for, as an example, requires a subtle, interlocking system because I seek to challenge the players to develop tactics and strategies within the game in response to the game situation. No previous edition of D&D has been even a fraction as good at this as 4E.

I can throw the interpersonal and search skills out of 4e and be happy. So I would say that it supports both styles, if not obviously and not officially. Something more official would be better.

It's kind of like removing magic items. There are official rules for that (inherent bonuses), I don't see how that impinged on anyone who likes playing with magic items.

 

[GSHamster]

Thats exactly how Pendragon handles things. Your mental stats and personality come from you.

D&D has stuff tied into the stats more deeply. INT and WIS are the prime requisite for the two major classes of spell casters.

I could see adding a fourth stat specifically dealing with magic like "Talent". It would jive with the notion that some people are just innately talented at magic.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Just throwing this out there as a thought experiment: Why have numbers for the "non-combat" stats? What if Str, Dex, Con had numeric stats, and the other 3 stats didn't exist or just had "a personality descriptor".

To me, that seems to be the dividing line. Activities which touch the physical stats tend to be rolled for, while a significant segment of the audience prefers "roleplay" to determine activities which touch the non-physical stats.

I'm kicking around an idea that divides abilities into active and passive: Str, Int and Cha are active. Dex, Con and Wis are passive (and a basis for saves/defenses). When you do things you use your active scores such as Str for climbing and attacking. When things happen around you or to you you use a passive score such as Wis for Spot or Resist Charm. Incidentally shooting becomes a function of Int, but I can live with that.

Basically any action can work in any configuration of these:

Sneak: Int vs Wis
Bluff: Cha vs Wis
Wrestle: Str vs Dex

But that's not at all what you are asking for, I realize now. Sorry.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I could see adding a fourth stat specifically dealing with magic like "Talent". It would jive with the notion that some people are just innately talented at magic.

I'm thinking spells should be items bound to for example scrolls. This works with your Talent or Mana score. I'm not too fond of the idea of spells being skills.

 

[Frostmarrow]

As General Eisenhower said, when the problem has no solution, enlarge the problem (space).

As stated within just the parameters of the two options, the problem has no solution. For any given aspect (combat, diplomacy, etc.), the problem will boil down to four choices. Consider diplomacy:

1. Eloquent player means everything.
2. Roll means everything.
3. Eloquence And Roll (combined) means everything.
4. Eloquence Or Roll (someone picks) means everything.

Sure, you get some differences depending upon which one you pick--in some cases, some very sharp differences. Put any one pick will have unsatisfactory results for many players, if based on nothing but those two methods.

It is a testament to social contract and the general adaptibility of humanity that all of these have been made to work, and sometimes well--but when they have, it is because people have enlarged the problem space. They put socially acceptable brakes on the eloquent players that kept things reasonable. Or they only played with people that could cope with the eloquence. They used #3, but the DM and players used a bit of sleight of hand so that the balance swung a bit and kept people guessing (a very slick and subtle kind of fiat). They used #4 when non-eloquent player A was ok that spending points on talking let him get results similar to player B who simply talked. They went with the roll being determinant, but then made the narration of the result matter some other way besides success.

You'll note that all of these solutions provided something else in the equation. So the trick here is arriving at one or more other things that can interact with this framework, that can be easily communicated to people in the game rules and/or advice. Or I guess, emergent in some other aspect of the design.

When initializing combat you roll initiative. In social situations you introduce yourself. Why not make that into a rule? Say you make a social check inorder to catch the attention of somebody. If you succeed your proposition is judged on it's own merit. If you fail the NPC treats you like any other customer or subject. I think presenting yourself is at the heart of the matter. First impressions and all that.

In these discussions where there is a great divide between the all roll/all role-playing, I think it's only fair that you roll to be heard. An eloquent role-player with charisma as a dump stat won't receive unfair attention because he will fail the introduction roll. A shy person playing a larger than life bard will succeed at the introduction and can in his own words describe what he does and the outcome will depend on the actual show and not the showmanship.

Clearly the ideal is a person that can do both. Also I think RPGs is a great hobby if you like to train your interpersonal skills and that the rules should support such ambitions.

 

[Hussar]

Wandering monsters (should) make time a valuable resource, as does a reactive dungeon. Spending time searching carries a cost. Without that cost, it makes sense to "Greyhawk" the dungeon (or Take 20 on Search checks for every 5' square).

Kinda sorta.

Keeping it in 3e mode for a second, Take 20 on a search check takes 2 minutes. There's no reason the entire party can't do it. Sure, they might not catch everything, but, they're likely going to catch most of it.

Now, the time thing isn't such an issue. The party can cover an entire room in about six minutes. Even using the old version random encounter rolls of 1 in 6 every turn, there's more than enough time for most groups to be able to cover everything adequately.

The thing I find with the argument about "reactive" dungeons or wandering monsters is that people seem to think that things like Take 20 or Greyhawking a dungeon takes significant amounts of time. It really doesn't.

Besides that, any group worth its salt is going to splat all the monsters first and THEN Greyhawk the dungeon. Heck, we figured that out when we were about twelve years old.

 

[Mark CMG]

When initializing combat you roll initiative. In social situations you introduce yourself. Why not make that into a rule? Say you make a social check inorder to catch the attention of somebody. If you succeed your proposition is judged on it's own merit. If you fail the NPC treats you like any other customer or subject. I think presenting yourself is at the heart of the matter. First impressions and all that.

I think one of the main goals of bolstering roleplaying in a tabletop roleplaying game is to avoid mechanizing the human element out of it by creating dice rolling formulas for every aspect. I dread the day when the GM asks the table to "Roll for Hellos."

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think one of the main goals of bolstering roleplaying in a tabletop roleplaying game is to avoid mechanizing the human element out of it by creating dice rolling formulas for every aspect. I dread the day when the GM asks the table to "Roll for Hellos."

Took me awhile to decipher that. Roll to say hello, I get it. I'm not into creating dice rolling formulas for every conceivable angle. Once introduction is made the rest is up to the players. The introduction roll is there to "hand a conch" to players with a charismatic character.

As a side note I'd like to add that I'm all for player skill but as not everyone is I'm trying to find a working middle ground.

 

[Mark CMG]

The introduction roll is there to "hand a conch" to players with a charismatic character.

Is that like a "talking stick?"