Stagnation in RPG

[barsoomcore]

You beat me to it, JD. Good thing I Previewed my reply or I'd've looked mighty silly.

...cause THAT never happens around here...

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I know im not alone fighting this cause, even though i requested this to be confirmed in my first message. But its not like im trying to wage a war against you and "your people" (the oldschoolers, the frameworkers etc.). I dont want all rights reserved for the title of "roleplay", i just want you to see that there is more than one way to play one. More of a variety than you might like to accept. But please do, every option has its advantages. I dont understand what you mean by "the two sides have never seen eye to eye yet", please explain.

My question is, "is there really a cause?" The DMG itself gives a brief overview of the multitude of styles common to RPGs. It's in the first section, long before the numerical rules start, so it's often overlooked (or read once and then forgotten).

Sure, we can all discuss our favored ways of playing, and there are those who seem to believe that other people have different tastes just to be insultive, but at the end of the day, we're all going to play the way we like to play, be it grim-n-grit or super heroics, deep immersive or hack-n-slash.

Its not, its just poorly written. I dont believe i presented a correlation between the problem of rules-communication and GM-players relationship, they are quite seperate, but both significant problems. I am very interested in your arguments for rules of social interaction not impeding roleplaying, please post them, but perhaps in another thread? I am beginning to realize that this topic almost needs a forum of its own, theres way too much to discuss.

That's the point, actually. The game is composed of a multitude of components, and every person has their own views on each component. Thus, you might see a component and judge it as good, while I can look at the same component and determine that it needs to be "tuned down", while another person will see it and decide it needs to be "cranked up".

Rather than starting a thread about your general dislike of 3E/d20, you should instead focus on a single component that you don't like, go to the House Rules board, and make a post that says, "I wish it worked more like [enter flavor goal here]". You'll likely get a number of suggestions, possibly even copy/paste of other peoples House Rules or references to another d20 alternative. I'm not suggesting this because I don't like your topic (after all, I'm an avid user of the d20 engine, but I dispise the "new" D&D for a multitude of reasons and will never play it), it's just that the topic is one that is virtually guaranteed to rise the ire of those that like the game just fine.

As for the "role-playing skills", I tend to use them more as a gauge than anything else. A roll is still made to determine the quality of delivery, but it's still up to the player to give me the substance of what the PC is saying. Just saying, "I use [Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate]" isn't going to get anyone very far. And if the substance is poorly thought out or generally worthless, than a high roll isn't likely to do any good, either (at best, the PC "made nothing sound interesting").

 

[Bendris Noulg]

In fact, right here is the thread.

Interesting.

Guess this topic's at an end... Or just getting fired up.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

One aspect of this game that I think gets forgotten at times is that it allows people to play characters that are very different from themselves. The rules and skills and die rolls allow people to do that. I have played a bard and enjoyed doing it very much, but I personally cannot write poetry or a song to save my life. My bard character was excellent at it. The skill checks allow people who would not have be able to convincingly roleplay a diplomat to suddenly become eloquent. Sure, its not as dramatic to state that you rolled a 25 on your diplomacy check and were able to influence the masses as it would be to come up with an inspiring speech off the cuff that impresses all your fellow players (and the DM), but it lets people have fun and play out a fantasy.

I love playing with people who are strong roleplayers, but I have fun with those who just like to play as well. I only ask that they try and understand their characters and have their characters actions reflect that consistently.

 

[xrpsuzi]

Just as I have no expectation that my fighter's player will have any clue how to actually use a sword, or my wizard's player to have any occult knowledge, I don't expect my bard's player to be able to sing, or my rogues's player to be suave and smooth-talking just because his character is.

I agree, but also disagree. Both fighting tactics and role-playing by the player are important.

Roleplay to the best of your ability. But if your ability is really, really low... so be it. I'm not gonna penalize you if your shy or clumsy with words (Myself, I'm a great speechgiver... but really really bad at comming up with stuff to say on a moments notice).

But you will penalize me if I let myself get flanked? Both fighting (not the actual blows, but the conceptulization of the rules used to mimic a combat, ie. small-unit tactics) and roleplaying (talking about what the character is saying, be that "in character" or "out-of-character") are requirements to play the game. Just like some people simply aren't very good with small-unit tactics, some aren't very good with creating a social situation that is beneficial to them rolls wise.

In short, the players the CAN give speaches do (Even if I don't require it or give mechanical modifers for it), and the players that don't do what they can. Same with the person who describes in intricate detail their sword swing verses the person that says "I attack". You still roll the same die.

Again true, but I think a better analogy is between players coming up with a small-unit battle plan (do you tell your players how to best use tactics for this type of fight? their PC fighters would know) and with talking to the king (why let them just mumble and roll if they have to plan out their tactics in combat).

In other words, I don't let my players go "I have X skill so I come up with a small-unit tactic battle plan that gives me a +2" just as much as I don't let my players go "I say sweet words to the king to get a +2." I make the player move his mini to get the flanking bonus and I make the player say something sweet.

But, my opinions aside, every group is different and sometimes these differences create a style of play more suited to something else.

joe "oh lookie, my wife's been posting again! " b.

 

[Desdichado]

You beat me to it, JD. Good thing I Previewed my reply or I'd've looked mighty silly.

...cause THAT never happens around here...

No indeed! Actually, seeing you around here reminds me that I haven't checked my online game since before the holidays. Sorry! I better pop in soon and see what (if anything) is going on.

 

[Storm Gorm]

I give up. Its too much to chew over. I cant expect any one to understand what im saying, this discussion is quite similar to politics, or moral philosophy. Its not hopeless, but too difficult to go about and "preach", as i now admit i might have been out to do.

Anyways, ive set up a new thread called Mechanics Dogma - Requirements for a system, and i hope there can be more of a fruitful discussion, and not this throwing of excrements and loose, uninteresting, uninterested smalltalk.



besides... JD said: "Now, that's completely untrue. I recall your venting here on these boards in the d20 games forum, I believe, just a few months ago"

Quite correct, and im very impressed with your memory. But cut me some slack. Its only an irrelevant point i made to desperatize my post.

 

[Belen]

Mayhap you have a point. I have certainly argued about the social skills myself. I think their method of delivery is flawed, but too many people want to use the "what about people who are not charismatic in real life argument."

Personally, I think the RP elements should be free while the rules are there for combat. Why? Because we're not swinging swords in our living room, but we're all roleplaying.

I have solved some of the problem in my game by making all the social skills class skills for every class. Also, I informed my players that the DC is +10 if they do not try to rp the situations.

 

[Desdichado]

I give up. Its too much to chew over. I cant expect any one to understand what im saying, this discussion is quite similar to politics, or moral philosophy. Its not hopeless, but too difficult to go about and "preach", as i now admit i might have been out to do.

Anyways, ive set up a new thread called Mechanics Dogma - Requirements for a system, and i hope there can be more of a fruitful discussion, and not this throwing of excrements and loose, uninteresting, uninterested smalltalk.
[...]
Quite correct, and im very impressed with your memory. But cut me some slack. Its only an irrelevant point i made to desperatize my post.

1. I don't know why you feel you need to take this "voice crying out from the wilderness" posturing about your preferences. If you actually read the replies in the thread, you would know that a lot of folks agree with you. If you went to the forums on rpg.net instead of here, you'd find even more that agreed with you. Your position really isn't that revolutionary or unique. Your responses both in this thread and the original one suffered by the fact that you ignored what was said in order to continue with your "I'm the maverick, marginalized gamer" attitude that you seem to want to cultivate.
2. Why would you want to desperatize (sic) your post? What does that accomplish, exactly? It's precisely this "the sky is falling on the RPG world" attitude that makes your posts not generate the kind of discussion that you seem to want.

 

[Nightfall]

Some people I think enjoy playing a dog in the manger Josh.