Rules Never Prevent RPing? (But Minis Seem To Do So?)

[brehobit]

Yes, there were no rules for it, so you couldn't really play a character that was more convincing, charming, or sly than the player.

If the player can't tell a believable lie to save his life, should his character be unable to lie too?

The Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive skills are there to let a character be better socially than the people who play them, just like Base Attack Bonus and Hit Points let them be better at fighting than the people who play them.

A DM who turns an entire interaction into "You walk up to the guard, roll bluff while I roll an opposed sense motive" isn't likely to magically suddenly become a big roleplayer and turn it into a big scene just beause he's playing 1st edition without any rules for it.

So here is where I hit a problem. As a DM, do I take into account how good the _player_ bluffs? If he's got a good story about why he needs to see the king, shouldn't that help? Or what if the story is 100% true (so no bluff) but his spin on the issue is really really good.

I want the characters to role-play their social interactions. But at least one (who admittedly isn't very good at these things) gets upset because he just wants a roll. He figures his PC, with bluff ranks, should be roll-played and not role-played. Does that discurage role-playing? Of course it does.

My answer is to provide a DC based upon the player's dialog. In eariler editions this was the only real choice (I'd take into account the PCs CHR). Now people think it isn't fair...

Mark

 

[brehobit]

Ironically, and paradoxically, the 3.5 system seems in some ways to have limited character choice by offering more character choice. Do I want to Disarm my opponent? No matter what you say you do, the mechanic has only one way to do it--AoO followed by opposed rolls. In another sense, I think it's also true that the more well-versed you are in the combat rules, the less likely you are to think outside-the-box, which is exactly what you had to do 1E. If you wanted to do something in 1E, you had to figure out your own way to accomplish it, and then describe it. In 3.5, you tend more to turn to the chapter on Combat and search for rules options, or read over your Feat description more closely, looking for some forgotten bonus or way to use the feat.

I think this post (and not just the quote above) best describes the problems I have with 3.x. I love the rules, I truely do. But they do interfer with roleplaying (IMO). Can a good DM get around that? Of course. The best role-playing I've done has been in 3rd edition. Mainly due to great DMs. Heck, we did some really good role-playing in Rolemaster, which due to its deadlyness, forces you to avoid combat in creative ways. Its all about the DM and the other players. But even so, rules can make it harder or easier.

On the most basic level, the old Dark Sun stuff made tactical players roleplay a bit. The rewards (EXPs) for fairly trival roleplaying (acting in a "standard" way for your race/class) really helped get that minimum. I saw pure tactical min/max players do more roleplaying than I'd ever seen from them....

Rules can help, rules can hurt. Players and DMs make the most difference. But that doesn't mean the rules shouldn't be actively encouraging good roleplaying.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

So here is where I hit a problem. As a DM, do I take into account how good the _player_ bluffs? If he's got a good story about why he needs to see the king, shouldn't that help? Or what if the story is 100% true (so no bluff) but his spin on the issue is really really good.

I want the characters to role-play their social interactions. But at least one (who admittedly isn't very good at these things) gets upset because he just wants a roll. He figures his PC, with bluff ranks, should be roll-played and not role-played. Does that discurage role-playing? Of course it does.

My answer is to provide a DC based upon the player's dialog. In eariler editions this was the only real choice (I'd take into account the PCs CHR). Now people think it isn't fair...

Mark

I take several factors into account.

First, the player's idea for the bluff. I don't care how well he can roleplay it with flowerly language and what have you, I just want to hear the player's idea. "I tell them there was an accident on this detention level so they can't come down."

That will give me a rough idea of the bluff DC. If their justification is patently stupid, its going to be real high or impossible. If it's not only plausible, but plays into other factors (eg "They've had problems on that level before") than it might be very low or even automatic.

Second, the player's actual role-playing of the bluff. If the player does especially well, then they get a bonus to the bluff check. Do really poorly, or worse, make out of character comments, etc., while doing it, and they might get a penalty. "Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?" Ooops.

Third, the roll, taking into account the players roleplay and basic idea plus the characters skill.

I think this has kept a reasonable balance between making players role-play their interactions instead of just rolling dice, and penalizing players who aren't as silver-tongued as others.

To me, there shouldn't be any difference between players who are good at tactics and suck at dialogue and vice-versa. A player with a poor grasp of tactics can still get himself into trouble, but the mechanics (eg flanking bonuses) can be combat training wheels.

 

[Particle_Man]

If description did have an effect on the outcome, then the rules would arguably support roleplay more.

So power-gaming min-maxers in this game would pull out their thesauri rather than their rulebooks?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think so, too. By offering quantified rules for all these possible skills and feats, the system limits what your PC can do. If you don't have Power Attack, you can't "hit really hard, sacrificing accuracy for strength." Your character may be a noble fighter, but if you didn't spend the points to buy Knowledge (heraldry), you can't identify the coat-of-arms of that knight waiting at the bridge. Et cetera.

This is what I like about D&D 3X in keeping people honest.

"No, you aren't a noble fighter if you used your points for Climb instead of Knoweldge (heraldry). You didn't spend your youth learning about royalty, you spent it climbing up hills. If you want to know what the crest means, put some points in it next level."

"You don't really have the training or know-how to make the most of you wild, inaccurate attack, so describe it however you like, it's not going to give you a bonus to anything. You did take this Combat Expertise feat instead, though, so you definately know how to make an attack that doesn't leave you open."

It forces people to play the roles they designed thier characters for, rather than sliding out of it because the player is good or poor at a particular avenue. In order to know nobility, you need to not know something else. In order to deal extra damage, you have to not be able to incrase your AC. This is EXCELLENT.

As a DM, do I take into account how good the _player_ bluffs? If he's got a good story about why he needs to see the king, shouldn't that help?

IMHO, no, you don't. If they've got a good story but rolled a 2, that ain't the story they told (though it's probably the one they WISH they told). Otherwise, you're really not playing the role that the dice indicate you have -- the role of a failure to bluff.

And to play D&D combat to optimum efficiency, you better play it as a mini game.

I'm going to draw out this, because this is only true if you see playing it as a mini game to be of optimum efficiency. In other words, it's your fault you see it this way, not 3e's. In playing D&D to optimum efficiency, I never play it as a mini game. I get all the milage out of the roles and interactions of the characters, even when I use a mat. The minis can help resolve some in-character conflicts, but it never, EVER supercedes the character's own role. Because I don't think that optimum efficiency in D&D is held within moving around minis.

 

[Crothian]

So power-gaming min-maxers in this game would pull out their thesauri rather than their rulebooks?

Nope. I've played other games that do this and it's up to the DM to decide what is worth while and what isn't.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

This is what I like about D&D 3X in keeping people honest...It forces people to play the roles they designed thier characters for, rather than sliding out of it because the player is good or poor at a particular avenue. In order to know nobility, you need to not know something else. In order to deal extra damage, you have to not be able to incrase your AC. This is EXCELLENT.

I prefer to leave those kinds of things up to the player and the DM. I've been playing many, many, years. I don't need a lot of rules to "keep me honest." As a DM, I know the PCs character concept and background, and if he's a squire, I know the kinds of skills he'd have, whether he had enough skill points to buy them all or not. Same goes for combat. If a Wizard tells me he's going to try a power-attack like maneuver, I'd either not allow it, or I'd request a difficult ability check to see if he could pull it off -- because training in melee is not part of his character. If a fighter or a barbarian tried the same thing, I'd let him do it, since fighting and melee are central to the character.

I don't think the 3E rules are necessarily bad -- in fact, I think they offer some excellent examples of how to tweak things for different manuevers, etc. I just don't think they're necessary (and unnecessary rules are sometimes restricting).

Hey, if you like them, use them -- more power to you. I find I enjoy a game with fewer rules restricting actions like feats and skills.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't need a lot of rules to "keep me honest." As a DM, I know the PCs character concept and background, and if he's a squire, I know the kinds of skills he'd have, whether he had enough skill points to buy them all or not. Same goes for combat. If a Wizard tells me he's going to try a power-attack like maneuver, I'd either not allow it, or I'd request a difficult ability check to see if he could pull it off -- because training in melee is not part of his character. If a fighter or a barbarian tried the same thing, I'd let him do it, since fighting and melee are central to the character.

See, in my case, I'd say if you're telling me your character concept background is as a squire, but you don't actually tell me that in the rules, then your character either wasn't a squire, or wasn't a very good one. Much of squire-ing can be handled by Profession (squire) (in fact, Profession is one of the most versatile of skills for this purpose). For me, telling me your character was a squire, and then spending skill points on Jump and Concentration, and still expecting to have all the squire's skills, is a kind of cheating. It's not playing the role of your character properly -- you're not ACTING like a squire.

Similarly, the Wizard with power-attack. Either you've had the training (and have forgone item creation and metamagic for it) or you have had different training. You can't have it both ways, IMHO. I'm not going to give you a benefit for free (or with a check) just because you want it, no matter how rich your description. You need to play your role, and that includes your role's limitations -- in this case, the fact that you didn't learn how to best transfer energy from accuracy to power.

As this applies to the minis conversation, this is another way in which the game forces you to make desicsions about what your character can and cannot do (the "in-character tactical thinking" Hussar seems to be talking about). Can he jump the cliff? Can he run around behind the beholder? Can he charge the bugbear off a cliff? It doesn't depend on your powers of DM persuasion, it depends on the world in front of you and your actual abilities -- the ones you have instead of other abilities.

It forces you to play the role of a mortal being fighting for something against vile beasties -- the role of a hero. And if your tactical choices are less-than-optimal, so what? What have you failed at? Nothing. Not all characters would make optimal tactical choices. To pretend otherwise is not roleplaying. Something that minis don't cause, but individuals do.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

See, in my case, I'd say if you're telling me your character concept background is as a squire, but you don't actually tell me that in the rules, then your character either wasn't a squire, or wasn't a very good one.

Well, I think one can create a squire and play him appropriately with fewer rules, and still be role-playing and acting appropriately within those rules. Your example of a "squire" who picks non-squire skills isn't really what I was talking about; I was thinking more a squire who didn't have the skill points to buy everything a squire should be able to do. (And yes, I know that is handled by leveling, etc. -- I'm not saying the 3E system can't work.)

When I play 3E, I do use the skills and feats pretty much as written. However, I prefer a different approach, with different rules, most of them time.

*shrugs* Different strokes. Not that big a deal, IMO.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I am not going to read all of this, since I am currently in a game, that deals with the subject title.

Yes...the rules, the current ones are geared towards the minis, and yes, I do see it, slows the game down, when combat is involved. Oh it does, even more so.

Role-playing wise, not a detour, buttttt, sometimes it can hamper the creative process, espically if the mode of time, is used for the roleplaying aspect. To do anything, the process of Init. was used, on whose turn will it be (to act), in that manner.

That was done, cause...the group is large, 12 currently. All adults.

On that...I will say yes, it does hamper RPG. But in another game altogether, we don't use it, period. And the interaction is better.

Final thought: As much I see the push, to 'mini' the game in its entirely...there are those, who simply don't touch that part, and just roleplay.

To me, I see that 'minis' are more of a micro-management control device on the players, especially those who are now getting into the game.

On that....yes, the RPGing will play the second fiddle...and quiet small I'm afriad.