Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

My first thought is that, in AD&D, a fighter's "kudos" moments are mostly limited to rolls of natural 20. (Thieves also have the once-per-encounter backstab moment.)

Perhaps... but then that discounts AD&D 2e's combat and tactics optional material, as well as the feats and abilities of 3.0 and 3.x. I'm not claiming every edition allowed this playstyle, but I feel like self selecting and ignoring at least two previous editons (3 if you count 3.5 as seperate) that did is kind of disingenuous.

 

[Imaro]

To teleport to a destination other than a permanent circle requires a 28th level ritual.

Yes, and there were restrictions on 3.5's long distance teleportation (at lower levels) as well. The teleportation spell itself can't be gained until 9th level... which is equivalent to 15th level in 4e... also it was based on the casters familiarity with the area he's trying to teleport to... and there's the possibility of ending up in the wrong area or even dying from mishaps. So both editions have restrictions on their teleport usage at lower levels. (though for some reason in these discussions 3.x's restrictions are played down or ignored).

And, as @Balesir pointed out, the buffs generally don't last through the whole combat - they are contingent on the first attack/hit, and other features of 4e (eg no save-or-die/suck) mean that one round wins aren't going to happen. (Assuming the GM is following the encounter building guidelines.)

So now we're placing restrictions on the durations, types, usage lengh, etc. of buffs, fair enough I guess I though we were discussing the general ability to buff one's character before a fight in the game, but if you're claim is instead... There's no way to buff the exact same as in 3.x in 4e... I can only say I agree since they are different games.

I see we've also moved to discussing one round wins... Hey I'll concede that the possibility oif this exists in 3.5 and not in 4e... but I don't thiink or see how it's relevant to the point.

As I've said before, on this and other threads - show me all the discussion and examples of narrativst 3E or AD&D, and of Balesir-style gamist 3E, and I'll happily discuss them.

But I haven't come across them, on these or other boards.

Hmmm, intersting logic... reminds me of the Planescape discussion. In other words the fact that your experiences don't include a particular thing in no way is proof that the particular thing doesn't exist or can't be done.

 

[pemerton]

Hmmm, intersting logic... reminds me of the Planescape discussion. In other words the fact that your experiences don't include a particular thing in no way is proof that the particular thing doesn't exist or can't be done.

The difference from the Planescape discussion is that Quickleaf post an example of narrativist Planescape play.

I'm still waiting to learn all about the narrativist 3E going on out there.

 

[tomBitonti]

As I've said before, on this and other threads - show me all the discussion and examples of narrativst 3E or AD&D, and of Balesir-style gamist 3E, and I'll happily discuss them.

I've not found either 3/3.5E, or 4E, for that matter, to be particularly narrativist.

Neither concentrates much on story telling: The focus is on fights. In 4E, I would say, the focus is on randomish crawls, which strikes me as far from Narrativist. I can see skill challenges as a framework for narration, but at times they seem much to mechanic focused. That may be more of a presentation / authorship failure than is fair to the mechanic.

For a narrativist game, I would expect guides on how to manage the narration: How much control to give each player, how much spotlight was appropropriate, how to reward players, and so forth.

Pathfinder, with background and region feats, and the rich character building options, seems to be putting in some hooks to deeper player backgrounds, which is a nod to more story telling. i don't think that Pathfinder is narrativist, though.

The most recent WFRP, with its strange dice, and party state, and three act guide, seems to be moving more into the space. That game seems to have at least moved the play into the interpretation of player intent, which seems to me closer to narrative style.

TomB

 

[Hussar]

Intimidate references diplomacy, which allows a full-round rushed action at -10. In any case, a minute isn't a long time before weapons are drawn.

Well the post I quoted said intimidate, so, I'm not sure why you would go with diplomacy here.

That's not a house rule, it's the DM playing an NPC.

And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants. Thus, houserule. Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.

The rules are just a tool to map the game world. What the example was really about IMO is the PCs interaction with the game world leading to drama. That's pretty much what most of my roleplaying is about. Whether it is an actual rule or the DM that causes the interaction varies (usually a bit of both).

Well, the post was telling how the 3.5 E rules were facillitating a particularly dramatic point. My point was that the rulings that facillitated drama were actually absent from 3.5 E. If you have to change the rules to achieve your goal, that is not an endorsement of a particular ruleset, it's a condemnation.

This was not strictly a combat encounter. We dropped into combat for perhaps two actions, or maybe just one, for the pounce attack. There were initiative rolls, intimidate rolls, and spot checks done, but only the one actual attack.

We actually didn't entirely fail: The mission went on. But we had (or the Druid had) a mark against her alignment for the slaughter.

The main point is what happens when the Druid allows their animal companion to run down the escaping prisoner. What will the cat do (a lion) to bring down the prisoner? How is the cat to know not to kill the prisoner?

That is, what is the consequence of the allowance, in 4E, to decide after the fact, if damage is lethal or not, and in 3.5E requiring that to be decided before attempting the action, but with a consequence to the success chance?

I was showing that the trade off (less chance of success vs. possibility of accidental death) is a source of excitement.

To drop into terminology (not my preferred mode), in Sim space, the excitement comes from not knowing the outcome ahead of time. You set up the parameters, and an outcome, sometimes surprising, or at least unexpected or unintended, occurs. In Narrative space, the excitement seems more to occur from the interaction of player narrations, together with the GMs guidance through a story framework, heightened by unknown knowledge.

TomB

Yeah, see, to me, the upshot of this situation would be that the players would never, ever try to take prisoners again. The DM is going to play silly buggers with the rules and screw us over every time we do, so, why bother? The only reason that this prisoner died is because the DM changed the rules mid-stream.

If the DM is going to start changing rules like that, I wonder how many players will ever try something like that again.

So, here's the question. After that event, how many prisoners did you ever take using Intimidate again?

 

[tomBitonti]

Well the post I quoted said intimidate, so, I'm not sure why you would go with diplomacy here.

And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants. Thus, houserule. Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.

Well, the post was telling how the 3.5 E rules were facillitating a particularly dramatic point. My point was that the rulings that facillitated drama were actually absent from 3.5 E. If you have to change the rules to achieve your goal, that is not an endorsement of a particular ruleset, it's a condemnation.

Yeah, see, to me, the upshot of this situation would be that the players would never, ever try to take prisoners again. The DM is going to play silly buggers with the rules and screw us over every time we do, so, why bother? The only reason that this prisoner died is because the DM changed the rules mid-stream.

If the DM is going to start changing rules like that, I wonder how many players will ever try something like that again.

So, here's the question. After that event, how many prisoners did you ever take using Intimidate again?

We role played our interaction with the prisoner, and we had him scared out of his wits. Having him run at the first opportunity fit the moment perfectly. Having the Druid set her cat after the prisoner also fit rather well. She had the best spot, and the cat had the best initiative. The rest of us could only gape in horror as the sequence resolved before us.

None of us thought that the DM changed the rules. It was to us a classic "Oh--do-you-realize-what-you-are-doing" moment.

We had a player, while sneaking up to an altar invisibly, give a medusa the finger ... and they said "I look up and give the medusa the finger." And promptly failed their save, leaving them invisible and turned to stone on the altar, and leaving a huge hole in an elaborate plan.

Sometimes a player acts impulsively, and realizes too late the consequences of their action. The brain putting together A + B just a little slower than the mouth can speak.

TomB

 

[Hassassin]

And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants. Thus, houserule. Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.

There no rule that says NPCs never run away. The NPC could just as easily have run *before* anyone attempted any intimidation at all, whether to raise the alarm, to make it to the toilet in time or because he was afraid of social interaction.

Even if you apply bluff, diplomacy and intimidate by the book you don't need to turn NPCs into state automata.

 

[Mallus]

My first thought is that, in AD&D, a fighter's "kudos" moments are mostly limited to rolls of natural 20. (Thieves also have the once-per-encounter backstab moment.)

As an aside, martial "kudos" moments in AD&D were usually things like rolling high on damage or doing things that weren't explicitly handled by the system, like jumping off a tower onto the back of a passing dragon.

Even crits on a natural 20 were usually (common) house rules. My 1st AD&D group imported (some of) the crit charts from Rolemaster!

Perhaps... but then that discounts AD&D 2e's combat and tactics optional material...

As another aside, the Player's Option books were released fairly late in the game, 6 years after the AD&D 2e core books, and 2 years prior to TSR's sale of D&D to WoTC. It might not be fair to discount them entirely, but I don't think it's accurate to imply they had much impact (which is to say you can probably mostly discount them).

I'm pretty sure things like the class splatbooks saw more use.

 

[Imaro]

As another aside, the Player's Option books were released fairly late in the game, 6 years after the AD&D 2e core books, and 2 years prior to TSR's sale of D&D to WoTC. It might not be fair to discount them entirely, but I don't think it's accurate to imply they had much impact (which is to say you can probably mostly discount them).

I'm pretty sure things like the class splatbooks saw more use.

The fact that they were released later in the life cycle of the product is irrelevant to my point... As to impact, I don't think you or I can say, with certainty (though that doesn't seem to stop you from implying that you can), what impact or percentage of D&D players at the time used Player's Option. Simply put my point wass that rules to support this type of play were available (if players desired it) as far back as 2nd edition and continued into 3.x.

 

[Hussar]

There no rule that says NPCs never run away. The NPC could just as easily have run *before* anyone attempted any intimidation at all, whether to raise the alarm, to make it to the toilet in time or because he was afraid of social interaction.

Even if you apply bluff, diplomacy and intimidate by the book you don't need to turn NPCs into state automata.

Here are the exact rules:

You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile). (bold mine)

So, actually, yes, there is a rule that specifically says that the NPC will not run away. That the NPC actually cannot do what happened in this situation.

Now, the DM is certainly entitled to change the rules. I'm not saying that he's not. But, that's exactly what he did here - change the rules. I know that as a player, I would never try to take prisoners again after this event. It's just not worth it.