Search and taking 20: the problem

[Majere]

No it just proves you didnt read my posts
Because I have said AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
that
ROLEPLAYING DOES NOT REPLACE DICE ROLLING BUT IT DOES MODIFY IT.

In no post have I ever completely replaced a skill roll with RP, I have however modified its circumstances significantly given appropriate player directed actions. Infact I might modify them to the point that I deem the skill check an automatic sucess, but given that a skill isnt automatically failed on a 1 that is no diffeent from applying enough circumstantial bonuses that the player cant fail. Conversely it might modify it to the point where you cannot possibly succeed and then I wont let you have a roll at all.

All you have proved is that either you dont read my posts or you cant understand them. Becuase the metagaming you are trying to claim I am encouraging is not consistant wit the examples I have given of my rulings.


Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

To use the example of the bluffing dwarf fighter:
You find you need to get in town
You watch and wait to see which guard you suspect will be the most easily convinced.. I mean that half asleep half ork doesnt seem to bright.
You come up with a convincing story.

Majere

Not to piss you off but ork don't usually like dwarf so the modifier would not be too good

 

[DarkMaster]

Sorry but when I read your messages with post like

"I would also find it utterly frustrated if I was playing an Int3 fighter and was told that I basically could never contribute anything to the group except dice rolls in combat because my character was so stupid"

letting me presume that in your group your fighter with Int3 could contribute to something else than combat, and pure simple physical. Playing a figher with INT 3 should almost be like playing a dog.

When you say that my dwarf fighter with no social skill should be able to pass a guard with a sense motive of 2-3 rank easily simply by stating that the guard is half asleep, who said the guard were half asleep. In this case the guard were part of a very well disciplined army, were sleeping on duty could be punish harshly. If it was the case, it would become very frustrating for the rogue who spend 10 ranks in bluff. In this example I don't see any reason why the group would send the dwarf and not the rogue.

When my sister decided to play a dwarf, she wanted a to play a taciturn tank, who's only concern is to protect the group. She is actually a very social person in real life and enjoy the challenges. It's difficult for her but the usage of the skill prevent her real life personality to affect the game.

Making the roleplaying experience even more rewarding. She feel limited and empowered by the PC. She is learning how to live within the character as we all are in real life. My mind or soul or whatever would like to do more than my body allow me, I learn to live with these limitations. And that's what make the whole experience really enjoyable, at least for us (me and my group)

 

[Majere]

Depends on your campeign settings.
Half-Orks arent orks either (not to nit-pick)
I dont believe there are any overt racial hatreds in the campeign Im currently in but yes, if you played one in your campeign that would be a good example where one might determine an automatic faliure.. the guard has a intense hateed of dwarfs and refuses to listen to anything he has to say

Majere

 

[Black Knight Irios]

"I would also find it utterly frustrated if I was playing an Int3 fighter and was told that I basically could never contribute anything to the group except dice rolls in combat because my character was so stupid"

Yes, playing an INT3 Fighter, will contribute not much more to a group than a well trained fighting dog. What do you think he can contribute, intelligible speech is possible starting from INT3, I tell you can be happy that your fighter can speak at all. So if you find playing an INT3 fighter that disgusting, put a higher score to INT, then you can play it in an other way.

All those skills(social or otherwise), abilities and numbers on a char-sheet do not reflect in anyway your abilities/skills/etc. as a player, it is what your imagined, roleplayed character can do, how well he can do it and if he can do something at all.
Don't mix your own abilities and that of your character, keep your game mechanics consistent as DarkMaster mentioned.

I play in a group, where the abilities of players differ greatly, but to keep the game fun for everyone, there are rules, game mechanics and those skills and numbers on your char-sheet, like it or not, a player who can't roleplay that well is more hurt from ignoring or lowering the value of such skills than a really good roleplayer will be hurt by playing the skills and the game by the rules. -It is all about fairness, balance and fun for everyone.

Simple example: I'll take the previous one with the guards.
The good roleplayer may even get past the guard without the right skill and even a low CHA, by telling you a good story and therefore it will be even easy for him, but the way you play it, it would be possible to have the rogue player, someone who can't sweet-talk that well, that he delivers the same content in his speech to the guard, but you will asign a penalty because he roleplayed purely, now he has possibly the same chance or even one that is worth than that that of the smooth-talker, fairness?!? -That is one of those examples I hate to give out because they are very extreme, but to be consistent you would have to do that.
DarkMaster pointed already out how one could describe those facts, in a game played by the rules.

 

[swrushing]

"I would also find it utterly frustrated if I was playing an Int3 fighter and was told that I basically could never contribute anything to the group except dice rolls in combat because my character was so stupid"

The argument isn't "you should be playing an INT3 fighter and liking it."

The argument is more to the point...
if you CHOOSE to play a character and give him int3...
and you CHOOSE to spend those saved points on other areas and gain positive POINT BASED benefits like bonuses to-hit and damage that apply mechanically to your benefit...
then you should not expect to be able to skirt the downsides of the corresponding negatives that gave you the positives.

I would not allow an INT 3 pc into my game. Its too far out of the mold for "main character of the story" for me. maybe if i want to run a Steinbeck rpg, one day, but not for any fantasy or modern thing.

But if i did, i would indeed impress upon the player beforehand that he will be playing someone who wont normally be contributing to the decisions and advice portions of the game. if i felt he would be dissatisfied in being so limited, as you describe above, i would not permit the character.

In similar vein, a character with low charisma who then himself as a player tries to present "goo social skill" will find his results probably less than what one could expect, because the character is not presenting the case as well as the perhaps gifted player is. (As an example, i had a low cha druid in my last game, who often put himself in the talking role because the player tended to prefer to be in charge. On occasion he did indeed get surprised when a slight slip of the player's tongue was taken worse than he would like by the NPCs... my way of showing off his character's lack of social skill in play.)

In spite of all caps postings...

i don't think anyone is arguing against roleplaying providing bonuses and minuses to the task check. Circumstantial modifiers for "roleplayed well" and "roleplayed poorly" are well established within the scope of the game.

I also don't think anyone objects to their being "requisite actions" before a skill can be used, before a task resolution can be made by roll, such as getting to the town or actually speaking to or communicating with someone in order to try a bluff or diplomacy check.

I think the disagreement is running over the **context** it was all brought forth in... of a GM using this principle to produce (I might argue ROUTINELY) "traps" which require specific roleplayed criteria before the skills normally used (search and disable) can even be attempted. Essentially, turning the "solve the puzzle" into a prerequisite for being allowed to use those skills.

Knowing you need to talk to the dragon to bluff it is not a puzzle you need to solve... its just an obvious thing. knowing hurting the fire creature with its weakness will help you convince him to leave is not a puzzle, its an obvious thing.

knowing you have to cut into the back of the cabinet to see the trap because it is obscured from sight from the front (and so if the player cannot figure this part out his character skills play no role) is much more of a "puzzle to be solved" prereq, one in which the skills should be playing a role, IMO, not one in which the skills play no role.

or i could just be crazy... thats always a possibility.

and, of course, playing by the rule is not by any means something "instead of" having fun. You can do both.

 

[Scion]

Reminds me of games like monopoly. The dice indicate how far I go. Sure I, as a human player, can reach farther.. I could even zoom the piece around the board if I wanted, but that would be cheating.

Similar thing in this game. I roleplay the character as best I can (which means useing the characters abilities, not mine) which means if the character has no social skills then that is how I will play. If I roleplay him having good social skills then I am doing very poor roleplaying, one might even say bad.

I act out the scene as best I can, and then I roll the dice to see how well the character did in the game world. The dice decide, that is how the game works.

Circumstance modifiers depend on the circumstances, nothing wrong with that, they could be good or bad, but given equal circumstances the character with more skill should do better most of the time.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think the disagreement is running over the **context** it was all brought forth in... of a GM using this principle to produce (I might argue ROUTINELY) "traps" which require specific roleplayed criteria before the skills normally used (search and disable) can even be attempted. Essentially, turning the "solve the puzzle" into a prerequisite for being allowed to use those skills.

Out of curiosity, how MIGHT you argue ROUTINELY? I've mostly dropped out of this thread because people are so consistently misstating my position that I've concluded it's a deliberate effort to attack a straw man rather than debate the (much more nuanced) position that I'm taking. I can scream till I'm red in the face, or until my text is huge and red, about whether I'd handle the traps routinely in the way suggested by the OP, and people will still make false and insulting claims about my play style. Perhaps the problem is with my posts and not with the folks who are so misstating my argument, if you think you could argue ROUTINELY.

and, of course, playing by the rule is not by any means something "instead of" having fun. You can do both.

FWIW, I agree entirely with you. Of course, I continue to believe that my suggestions in this thread have all been entirely within the scope of the rules. However, I also believe that playing by the rules as you and others have interpreted them can also be fun, even though it's not the style of fun that I prefer. Just because I loathe football doesn't mean that I deny other folks have fun playing it; my love of camping doesn't mean that camping is intrinsically fun, and everyone who thinks it's not fun is incorrect. Of course you can have fun playing under your interpretation of the rules.

Daniel

 

[Nail]

(snip)...I've mostly dropped out of this thread .....(snip)

Piel, are you still here?

With your post count, you should know a flame war when you see one. Why feed it?

 

[DarkMaster]

Out of curiosity, how MIGHT you argue ROUTINELY? I've mostly dropped out of this thread because people are so consistently misstating my position that I've concluded it's a deliberate effort to attack a straw man rather than debate the (much more nuanced) position that I'm taking. I can scream till I'm red in the face, or until my text is huge and red, about whether I'd handle the traps routinely in the way suggested by the OP, and people will still make false and insulting claims about my play style. Perhaps the problem is with my posts and not with the folks who are so misstating my argument, if you think you could argue ROUTINELY.


FWIW, I agree entirely with you. Of course, I continue to believe that my suggestions in this thread have all been entirely within the scope of the rules. However, I also believe that playing by the rules as you and others have interpreted them can also be fun, even though it's not the style of fun that I prefer. Just because I loathe football doesn't mean that I deny other folks have fun playing it; my love of camping doesn't mean that camping is intrinsically fun, and everyone who thinks it's not fun is incorrect. Of course you can have fun playing under your interpretation of the rules.

Daniel

You say that you entirely agree with us but you keep on arguing that being inconsistant as a DM is more fun.
It is true that for some people not playing by the rule can be more fun. Nothing prevent me when I play monopoly to rule that if I don't like what is written on the card I ignore it. Maybe I can find some people who will enjoy this type of game, but that doesn't prove anything. What you do in your house is your thing. All we are trying to explain is that if you follow the RAW you have more chances of being consistent on all the outcome in your games then if you go by "feeling". This then result in a more balanced game where each character feels like he can bring something to the group, therefore increasing the fun for everybody.

On saturday, I was outsmart by the player, I was expecting the rogue to have an open lock of 9 so I set a lock with a DC30 (which was perfectly reasonable for the context) because I didn't wanted them to go in that room unoticed. But it happened the she had added one rank at the last level bringing her total to 10 (notice that she could T20). Instead of being pissed off and inventing a story that the lock could not be open because the gods didn't wanted her to, or some other unbeleivable story. I let them in and adjust my story accordingly. I was actually a fun challenge for me to adjust everything accordingly and the rogue really felt usefull keeping her interest in the character, like when the Barbarian hit a big critical with his axe and kill on the first attack a big opponents that could have killed half the party.

I consider myself a player in the game, and if I make a mistake I don't make my player pay for my incompetence. I expect my player to be fair, as they expect me to be fair. And for me the only way to ensure that, is to follow the rule. Without them you endup having useless argument during the game because the rules are in the DM heads. I rely on written rule and if we decide to house rule something we clearly define the house rule in game mechanic to reduce as much as possible personnal interpretation.

Using your method can be fun for the DM, because he have more control ( I decided that to disarm trap A you need to have a PhD in physic but for trap B you can simply roll the dice. But it can become very frustrating for the players. If I was to play your campaing I would play a class with very few skills, fighter, sorcerer or with a lot of purely physical skill like the monk. Because I would feel betrayed by the DM otherwise. Like I said it could be fun for your group, but I just gave you an example of someone (me) who would really not enjoyed it.