Role-playing Theory

[InzeladunMaster]

Well, since I don't believe in killing party members, I can be reigned in, since not doing so could risk a huge party fight. That is not fun. Think of my characters as a living weapon to be unleashed when the party wants to unleash it.

But if talking is getting us nowhere, I will probably start a fight to resolve the problem, much like Conan did in Conan the Destroyer after they stole the horn of Dagoth. A priest and a bunch of guards showed up and the talking began. It was obvious this was getting them nowhere, so Conan said, "Enough talk!" and threw a dagger into the man.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

Well, since I don't believe in killing party members, I can be reigned in, since not doing so could risk a huge party fight. That is not fun. Think of my characters as a living weapon to be unleashed when the party wants to unleash it.

But if talking is getting us nowhere, I will probably start a fight to resolve the problem, much like Conan did in Conan the Destroyer after they stole the horn of Dagoth. A priest and a bunch of guards showed up and the talking began. It was obvious this was getting them nowhere, so Conan said, "Enough talk!" and threw a dagger into the man.

This is the style of play that I like. Though, my current character in Arenaia, is not quite like this. He will mainly only help out the group, if it will benefit himself, and if not, refuse to join up.

 

[Fyrestryke]

This is the style of play that I like. Though, my current character in Arenaia, is not quite like this. He will mainly only help out the group, if it will benefit himself, and if not, refuse to join up.

Plus he needs to hang around until he gets his 50gp back.

Wow. Excellent discussion. It sounds like we're all on the same page (or really close) again. When we playin?

 

[thormagni]

Reading through Iron Heroes today, it had what I thought was a really good idea for skills like Diplomacy. If you choose to actually say in-character what your character says you get a +2 to a Diplomacy roll. If you both act in character and come up with valid points that would convince the NPC, you get another +2.

Now, there are no penalties for choosing NOT to act in character. It says:

"On the other hand, the DM shouldn’t impose penalties for poor oratory skills. Not everyone has the desire to act out their characters or the improvisational abilities to do it well. If the players prefer not to roleplay, the DM can simply ask them to summarize the important
points they may stress as part of a Diplomacy check and award an appropriate bonus."

 

[Grimhelm]

This, Thormagni, affirms exactly what I was saying. The skills are there to cover for players weaknesses. I think this is where the rules should apply. I am just spoiled, I guess. I have played and DMed some very fine gamers and so feel no need to use such skills. In fact, I would be supremely disappointed if anyone in Arenaia said, "I make a Diplomacy check with the prince." We role play our way through important encounters because we are all freaking good, and because it is more fun than rolling a die 20.

 

[thormagni]

This, Thormagni, affirms exactly what I was saying. The skills are there to cover for players weaknesses. I think this is where the rules should apply. I am just spoiled, I guess. I have played and DMed some very fine gamers and so feel no need to use such skills. In fact, I would be supremely disappointed if anyone in Arenaia said, "I make a Diplomacy check with the prince." We role play our way through important encounters because we are all freaking good, and because it is more fun than rolling a die 20.

But even without using the skills as they are meant to be used (i.e. with a D20 roll,) a GM could still take the players' relative ranks in skills into account when deciding how succesful the character is at an action. For example, someone talking to the prince who had a +15 Diplomacy bonus could be more persuasive than another character with no ranks in Diplomacy. You wouldn't have to roll the dice, just use the number as an informal indicator of how succesful the discussion might be. In essence, the GM would be giving the player and NPCs a Take 10 on every skill.

For me, the numbers I place in my skills are an important guideline as to how I play that character. Amber has lots of ranks in Balance, Tumble and Jump, so she does lots of that sort of thing. Yuri has lots of ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy and Gather Information and Move Silently, so he acts sneakily and is a conniver.

 

[Grimhelm]

I don't disagree with this take on it. It is just a preference for me based upon my previous assertions. As I have said, I understand the arguments for the use of skills of this kind. I simply do not enjoy playing that way. If a player wants to play a diplomat, then by god, he better play one, not go to the King's Court every week and roll dice. I just don't see the point to this style of play. Sure, he may be successful, but at what? What has the player really gotten out of that? Nothing. I like for players to test their limitations, test themselves, interact, and play. I would wager this style is not for everyone. Nor should it be. Those who do not wish to play by this vision, can sod off. Those who agree are welcome. I really don't give a rip. This debate is tiresome. Either people play my way or they don't! If they don't like my ideas, then let them play another game! I am not being contrary. I am not being difficult. I am simply presenting a game the way I see it and inviting others to play in this style. If they don't want to, then fine! I don't really care.

 

[thormagni]

This debate is tiresome. Either people play my way or they don't! If they don't like my ideas, then let them play another game! I am not being contrary. I am not being difficult. I am simply presenting a game the way I see it and inviting others to play in this style. If they don't want to, then fine! I don't really care.

Well, I hope I didn't write anything that came across as accusing anyone of being contrary or difficult. I certainly never meant to convey that. For my part, I have viewed this as just batting around some ideas on role-playing theory. In the long run, you're going to run Arenaia the way you want, Vince is going to run Conan and Inzeladun the way he wants and I'm going to run, um, "the no-name" game the way I want.

I have to wonder if hardcore Monopoly players spend this much time obsessing about Free Parking and whether landing on Go means you collect $200.

 

[Grimhelm]

I am just tired and irritable. Nothing was insinuated at any time. So much talk going nowhere wearies me, and I have only myself to blame! I just have a hard time understanding IM's position when he clearly "acts" when he plays...