Rule-Of-Three 2-7-12

[UngeheuerLich]

I had a much longer post, proposing to give hints or like the old Riddlemaster giving more time or additional tries, but then I hit the back button on the mouse and accidently deleting it and i was too lazy retyping it.

I also wrote, that maybe someone who can´t play the bard or the mage should not play the bard or the mage. Seems radical, as everyone can play the fighter, but I consider an RPG a kind of improvisational theater with rules...

 

[Sunseeker]

I also wrote, that maybe someone who can´t play the bard or the mage should not play the bard or the mage. Seems radical, as everyone can play the fighter, but I consider an RPG a kind of improvisational theater with rules...

A: you never improve if you're never allowed to try.
B: playing the same role over and over can get dull(for some)
C: being told what class you can or cannot play by the group is a serious fun killer
---differentiated between the group all agreeing cooperatively who's going to play what.

Quite frankly, if I sat down at a table and said "I'm not a real good role-player", and the DM replied "well then you're only allowed to play combat-focused strong-silent-type classes", I'd stand up and leave.

Now, if you're playing with a group that is is basically your college improv class, great. When you're playing with the world at large? That's not the kind of attitude I want to see in games.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Quite frankly, if I sat down at a table and said "I'm not a real good role-player", and the DM replied "well then you're only allowed to play combat-focused strong-silent-type classes", I'd stand up and leave.

Agreed. Complicated classes should not take whole archetypes off the board for many players. Now, if it works out that the "wizard" requires certain skills that not every player has, but they can play a "mage" or "sorcerer" or some other guy in a pointy hat with a staff that casts arcane spells--then maybe that is ok.

This is one of the (many) reasons why I dislike extreme blurring of the distinction between mechanical class and conceptual archetype.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I approve of everything in that Rule-of-Three. Which means that this thread will quickly die down after a couple of pages.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If the game is going to have stats, skills, and dice, shouldn't the default be to use them?

Certainly.

However if the game is going to have real people at the table shouldn't the default be to let them contribute meaningfully to play?

If the character needs to remember an obscure bit of lore that he/she researched long ago then sure, roll an INT check.

If the party is given clues to a puzzle all throughout the dungeon, once they get to the point where they need to solve it don't rob them of coming up with the solution by calling for a die roll.

Both the player and the character should be stimulated by a good adventure. Knowing when to challenge each is part of the skillset of a good DM.

 

[Halivar]

In my group, I'm always playing the meat-sack-with-a-pointy-metal-stick, and we never conceptually have a problem with me solving all of the riddles and puzzles. We chalk it up to the wizard is too busy keeping his spells in his head, or the rogue is too busy looking out for trouble, etc. So the completely unskilled meat-sack prompts his adventuring pals to use their skills to justify he himself having a eureka moment later. So my characters often come across as idiot-savants.

Still, I think this is a better dynamic than rolling to overcome mental puzzles. Sometimes I like to strip away the abstraction layer of simulation and put myself right into the situation.

 

[Mattachine]

So the completely unskilled meat-sack prompts his adventuring pals to use their skills to justify he himself having a eureka moment later. So my characters often come across as idiot-savants.

Though I understand your reasoning, that would fall flat in my games. You, as a player, are smart--your characters shouldn't necessarily be idiot-savants. If you make low-int, low-wis characters, then why should they be the ones solving the puzzles?

I love to give bonuses to die rolls for good roleplay/description. I also agree that a die roll should perhaps give important clues or hints for solving a puzzle (rather than simply solving it), but the game should not rely on player statements as a default mechanic for resolving in-game scenarios. Some play groups love these types of puzzles, and have no problem removing the roleplay and using the metagame to solve puzzles as a group--no rules are needed for them. For the rest of us, skills and stats need to matter, especially when our character is something we could never hope to be.


Riddle me this: Rather than using dice to make an attack, a player with real-world melee fighting skills describes an excellent attack-defense-counter strategy against an opponent. Should this player then not have to make hit/damage rolls, because they have roleplayed the combat more effectively? Sure, the game has specific rules for die rolls in combat . . . doesn't the game have specific rules for die rolls out of combat, too?

 

[Primal]

Well, this 4ron has no sacred cows. I love completely swapping out mechanics every few years; but then again, I'm a ruleset junkie. I collect them like rare bugs.

That being said, the only only only only thing that frightens me is the possibility of losing lightweight monster construction. It is literally what allows me to DM, given my time constraints.

Don't worry, I think they've already confirmed that D&DN is going to use 4E-style exception-based design for NPCs and monsters (at least for now).

 

[Halivar]

Riddle me this: Rather than using dice to make an attack, a player with real-world melee fighting skills describes an excellent attack-defense-counter strategy against an opponent. Should this player then not have to make hit/damage rolls, because they have roleplayed the combat more effectively? Sure, the game has specific rules for die rolls in combat . . . doesn't the game have specific rules for die rolls out of combat, too?

I would argue it's a completely different situation. There is no alternative to the simulation mechanic for combat (unless you're LARP'ing), whereas with mental puzzles it is natural for me to remove that layer of abstraction and place myself in my own character's shoes. The only way to prevent this is to remove all mental puzzles and go straight to Intelligence rolls; roll high enough, and the DM gives you the answer. I cannot countenance playing such a game.

 

[SKyOdin]

Though I understand your reasoning, that would fall flat in my games. You, as a player, are smart--your characters shouldn't necessarily be idiot-savants. If you make low-int, low-wis characters, then why should they be the ones solving the puzzles?

I love to give bonuses to die rolls for good roleplay/description. I also agree that a die roll should perhaps give important clues or hints for solving a puzzle (rather than simply solving it), but the game should not rely on player statements as a default mechanic for resolving in-game scenarios. Some play groups love these types of puzzles, and have no problem removing the roleplay and using the metagame to solve puzzles as a group--no rules are needed for them. For the rest of us, skills and stats need to matter, especially when our character is something we could never hope to be.


Riddle me this: Rather than using dice to make an attack, a player with real-world melee fighting skills describes an excellent attack-defense-counter strategy against an opponent. Should this player then not have to make hit/damage rolls, because they have roleplayed the combat more effectively? Sure, the game has specific rules for die rolls in combat . . . doesn't the game have specific rules for die rolls out of combat, too?

The problem of trying to balance role-playing a character limited by various stats and letting yourself enjoy playing the game the way you want to is not a an easy one.

I for one am a player who enjoys three big things in tabletop roleplaying games: planning out complex strategies, solving problems, and engaging in complex role-played dialogue. The problem is that all of these things should supposedly be limited by my character's ability scores and skills. Yet, if I am playing a low-int character, it isn't very fun to purposefully restrain myself from pointing out the solution to a problem that I myself can see clearly. Likewise, even if I am playing a low-charisma character, I still somehow end up doing half of the talking for the party.

Someone could say that I should probably play characters with at least reasonably high int and charisma then. The problem with that is that I enjoy playing a wide range of classes, particularly melee types like Fighters. I don't want to limit myself to playing Bards and Sorcerers all of the time. So the problem of playing a character who uses Int or Cha as a dump stat comes up fairly regularly. I don't want to have to restrain myself from having fun just because the mechanical limits of the ability score system and dump stats tell me I must.

At the same time, ability scores and skills should matter. A player who builds a character to have a high charisma and pumps his Diplomacy score should be rewarded. Such players should be able to roll their Diplomacy roll and get positive results.

It is safe to say that there is no simple solution to this very complex dilemma.