Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3757371" data-attributes="member: 54792">Korgoth, Please re-read the DMG and PH descriptions on play (as well as alot of other FRPGs).&nbsp; In case you really don't &quot;get&quot; or understand the way role play works in 1E I will describe it to you: the way this is handled in 1E is the player acts as the character talking to the guard (played by the DM) in an attempt to persuade him; just as it would occur in real life (either they act it out, or the player says what his PC would generally say).&nbsp; The DM may or may not factor in the PCs charisma (reaction adjustment) its up to him.&nbsp; Thats one of the things that makes 1E a better ROLE PLAY system then 3E and 3.5.&nbsp; In 1E its like real life. You want to get out of that speeding ticket, you better make a good arguement and be persuasive...there's no &quot;debate&quot; skill like bluff or intimidate.&nbsp; And like the above poster mentions, we also acted out alot of stuff that others skipped over (occasionally training, haggling at the local bizzare, talking it up with bar maids for information etc.).If anything its 3E and 3.5 that have segmented and codifide the &quot;role play&quot; experiance (a normally fluid and unpredictable activity) into cookie cutter predictable &quot;combat like&quot; dice roles along with every other concievable action (Jump, dodge, bluff, intimidate).&nbsp; 3.5 works great in this fashion (as a combat simulator) but it stinks as a role playing system (where the actual presentation by the player and the opinion of the DM (who chooses % chance of success, if he roles at all) are formost not some rule dictated d20 role with stacked modifiers). Anyhow, from your statements its likely you prefer the 3E system of &quot;role play&quot; resolution (ie bluff, intimidate etc.) to that of AD&amp;D and D&amp;D (basically saying what your going to say&nbsp; and let the DM on his own determine the outcome).&nbsp; If so, thats fine.&nbsp; But please don't miss-represent 1E.&nbsp; Of course, if this is a miss-understanding on my part, please disregard this post.&nbsp; &nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3757371, member: 54792"] Korgoth, Please re-read the DMG and PH descriptions on play (as well as alot of other FRPGs). In case you really don't "get" or understand the way role play works in 1E I will describe it to you: the way this is handled in 1E is the player acts as the character talking to the guard (played by the DM) in an attempt to persuade him; just as it would occur in real life (either they act it out, or the player says what his PC would generally say). The DM may or may not factor in the PCs charisma (reaction adjustment) its up to him. Thats one of the things that makes 1E a better ROLE PLAY system then 3E and 3.5. In 1E its like real life. You want to get out of that speeding ticket, you better make a good arguement and be persuasive...there's no "debate" skill like bluff or intimidate. And like the above poster mentions, we also acted out alot of stuff that others skipped over (occasionally training, haggling at the local bizzare, talking it up with bar maids for information etc.). If anything its 3E and 3.5 that have segmented and codifide the "role play" experiance (a normally fluid and unpredictable activity) into cookie cutter predictable "combat like" dice roles along with every other concievable action (Jump, dodge, bluff, intimidate). 3.5 works great in this fashion (as a combat simulator) but it stinks as a role playing system (where the actual presentation by the player and the opinion of the DM (who chooses % chance of success, if he roles at all) are formost not some rule dictated d20 role with stacked modifiers). Anyhow, from your statements its likely you prefer the 3E system of "role play" resolution (ie bluff, intimidate etc.) to that of AD&D and D&D (basically saying what your going to say and let the DM on his own determine the outcome). If so, thats fine. But please don't miss-represent 1E. Of course, if this is a miss-understanding on my part, please disregard this post. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification