Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 1316964" data-attributes="member: 15999">One of the best examples of a randomness-free game with high risk, drama, intelligence, strategy, and excitment is... chess.  One of the world's oldest and coolest wargames.  D&D, as I like to play it, is a combination of stragy with chance and role-playing.Personally, I'll play with "referee" DMs (who set up obstacles for us to overcome) and "improv" DMs (who have a game world in mind but develop the plot based on what the PCs do).  That's my preference.  I won't play with "storyteller" DMs who make me feel that my decisions are irrelevant.  I want to have some share in writing this story, and that can't happen if the DM already has written the story in his mind (so, like many players, I *do* fight the DM when I feel I'm being railroaded).  It's my perception that roleplay-dominant games are more often "storyteller" games, but I know there are exceptions.As far as character abilities such as Bluff and Diplomacy, consider this: I could spend skill points and feats on Tumble to the point where I never need to roll the dice.   I would have made that sacrifice as a strategic move to eliminate the chance from a given set of actions at the cost of reduced ability in other areas.  Then, if the DM raises the DC because she wants more randomness (roll-playing) in the game, I feel cheated.  Likewise, if I spend skill points and feats on Diplomacy and Bluff and the DM effectively negates the value of those feats because he wants to encourage the theatrical (role-playing) aspects of the game, I again feel cheated.  I don't like having my strategic decisions negated by DM fiat, whether it's to encourage randomness and dice-rolling or to encourage acting.  Either decision reduces the "strategy" aspect of the game.Now, if I know up front that the DM is going to reduce the value of Bluff and Diplomacy, I'll design a PC accordingly - I'll play one without the skills, and I the player will stay in the background because I'm not a convincing liar or rousing public speaker (same thing?).  I'll still get to play the mighty warrior, and maybe even the tactically sound battle leader, but in this type of game I'll never get to play the general or king.What's my preference?  100% strategy would be chess, 100% chance would be roulette, and 100% role-playing would be community theater.  I suppose 40/30/30 fits what I want.</blockquote>

Verification