"Roleplaying": Thank you, Mr. Baur

[seskis281]

Actually I don't disagree Tree.... which is why I would say the best remedy for a character you may want to keep a long time is to choose one with at least some INT or WIS.... but I also think it's fun to sometimes play the characters with the "live fast, die young and leave a beautiful (well, maybe not...) corpse" attitude.

I also always keep this in mind as a GM.... if a character is playing as my barbarian example above, I'll reward that by skewing a result or two so that they might survive.... just barely and badly off, but still alive.

As I said, all this is just my opinion - and I'm probably in a mindset that reflects my theatre background - getting the character right per se. I also have a lot of good characters in my head, so I'm never bothered because the loss of one would simply mean the opportunity to try another that I've been aching to play. Even more so now that I play C&C, and rolling up a new character at just about any level is only a 15-20 minute endeavor as opposed to the hour+ it used to take me.

John

 

[Quickleaf]

Actually I've never experienced an adversarial DM.. its just how I played the game in the old days (although granted I was young then). D&D is still a game to me, not a simulation... so if I have the choice between rushing heedless into a fight (let's say it's in my character's nature to be reckless) or think rationally for a minute, I'm going to think rationally because it increases my chance of survival.

Your point is well received, it really is. You value the game aspect of D&D and want to play strategic-minded characters. Go for it!

I don't see how someone can risk their character when they as a player know it's the bad choice to make.

Easy, by defining "bad" as what's not fun and "good" as what's fun (as opposed to "bad" as failure, and "good" as success) with the implicit trust that their character will not die.
Here's my question: If you had a guarantee your character would not die, would you enjoy the game more? Would you be more willing to take risks that may cause your character to fail?

 

[Infiniti2000]

The problem with roleplaying Int 3 is that it's easy enough to "dumb" yourself down. However, it's impossible to smarten yourself up to Int 25, so then what do you do? That's when you get the arguments like, "My character is really smart and would know what to do so let me roll an Int check or knowledge check or something and then you (DM) just tell me what I need to know." That is most certainly not RP, but whether you allow that or just a little bit of metagaming in to "simulate" an Int 25, you should also cut some slack on Int 3 so that you don't flush 3 years of gaming down the toilet to "stay in character." Note that it's possible you aren't even roleplaying the Int 3 correctly. Why would the character not know what a trap is? That makes no sense to me. I hate PvP with a passion, and to do it over such an unfounded reason boggles my mind.

 

[Treebore]

When did Wolfgang Baur's (a freelancer) opinions suddenly = WotC's opinions?

I would say it is because it is hosted on WOTC's site, so therefore has their backing/support of what is said.

Is there a WOTC disclaimer that I missed?

 

[seskis281]

Why would the character not know what a trap is?

No need for "Detect trap" ever then. Who needs a Rogue when you've got the barbarian

That makes no sense to me. I hate PvP with a passion, and to do it over such an unfounded reason boggles my mind.

A party should always be one big happy family? Besides, a little grappling in the woods isn't quite like they took their swords and axes and split skulls lol...

 

[FireLance]

Actually I've never experienced an adversarial DM.. its just how I played the game in the old days (although granted I was young then). D&D is still a game to me, not a simulation... so if I have the choice between rushing heedless into a fight (let's say it's in my character's nature to be reckless) or think rationally for a minute, I'm going to think rationally because it increases my chance of survival. I don't see how someone can risk their character when they as a player know it's the bad choice to make.

The tactician in me can relate to that mindset. However, there's also a bit of a show-off in me who doesn't just want to win - he wants to win with style.

So, if I'm playing a game where all the challenges are balanced on a knife's edge, and a single mistake could result in character death, then my inner tactician comes to the fore.

However, if I'm pretty sure that the party is going to win even if I take one or two actions that are not necessarily the most optimal, I can let my inner show-off out and do stuff that are more in line with my character's personality.

In last week's game, for example, I was playing a knight going up against a dungeon full of undead. Since almost all the creatures I was fighting had Intelligence below 5, I couldn't use my knight's challenge ability to issue a fighting challenge to gain attack bonuses against them. One constraint on a knight is that he can't attack a flat-footed opponent or he will lose one daily use of his knight's challenge ability. Since I wouldn't have any use for my knight's challenge ability anyway, I could have just attacked the undead whenever I won initiative. However, I didn't, because my knight felt that it was only honorable to allow even undead abominations to ready themselves before I attacked them. Was it optimal? Certainly not. Was it stupid? Maybe, but we still won anyway. Was it roleplaying? I think so.

 

[Glyfair]

I would say it is because it is hosted on WOTC's site, so therefore has their backing/support of what is said.

I'll note that these were posted on his Open Design Project first (in the patron area), and WotC then showed interest in them after he started them. So, they were clearly his opinions and thoughts first, and WotC thought they were useful enough to be put on their website.

I don't think these are any more "WotC position papers" than any particular article in Dragon magazine. In fact, probably even less, since I doubt WotC exerts as much editorial control on their website as Paizo & WotC do in Dragon.

Next thing you know WOTC is going to be insisting the Wargaming community are role playing.

I've seen wargamers who are roleplaying in their wargaming. It's light roleplaying, not "deep character immersion" (which, honestly, the extremes I find as tiresome as games with no character immersion). Still, it's roleplaying.

 

[Hussar]

Personally I think this is just another attempt to expand the political correctness mentality in 3E. Moving around and saying where you stand while you swing your sword, shoot your bow, or cast your spell is not roleplaying.

Agreed

Now if you happen to be the few that has your character say stuff in combat, yeah, your roleplaying. Especially if it suggestions to party members, or imploring your enemy to surrender before you have to kill him. Otherwise, as I saw at this GenCon, most of the talking is clarifying how they are able to move and declaration of actions.

The vast majority of people I have observed do NOT roleplay while their character is in combat.

Because people who are playing tournament games with strict time limits are going to waste the entire table's time on amateur theatrics, we can now assume that the majority of home play is the same? Perhaps you are taking personal experience just a smidgeon too far.

Next thing you know WOTC is going to be insisting the Wargaming community are role playing.

Then they will be saying as long as you sit at the gaming table and telling how your character moves, but hardly ever, if ever, say anything "in character" you are roleplaying.


WOTC can take this "all inclusive" hogwash and lame attempts at redefining words and flush it.

Guess what? Yup, it's role playing. Sure, it's not how YOU play. But, it's still roleplaying.

 

[Gold Roger]

I liked that article and wholehardly agree. When I play sly mage that used to be an assassin he scirts the battlefield, pics his opponent and eleminates him. When I play a wild shifter and he find the people that killed his clan he looses his mind and rushes in without heed for his own savety. When I play a pragmatic scholaric cleric he stays tostay out of harms way and keep my head down.

Are those optimal choices? Hell no.

Is that tactical combat gaming? Jupp, but it's roleplaying as well.

If you don't want to die because of "stupid" decisions, play a tactical or cowardly char.

Does that mean I don't do any talking in my games? Hell no.

The game has a broad range of aplications. Anybody that doesn't accept that and tries to elevate his approach as right, I just don't get those people.

 

[Wombat]

Many people STOP roleplaying when the fight begins. The focus goes away from engaging their fellow players and the DM as their character, and they become a strategist staring down at pieces on a board and metagaming the situation as an abstract exercise of tactics and numerical equations.

QFT

I have seen this far, far too often in gaming over the last 30 years. Not with D&D, but with all rpgs!

This probably explains why our group likes to limit the number of combats per game session to 1-2.