Strategy or role-playing game?

[Rasyr]

Yes there is.
--snip--
How does 3e/3.5e force you into a strategy/wargaming style of play via its experience mechanics more so than 1e or 2e did?

Please note that I did not claim that there were no other ways to gain xp in 3e, I specifically said that there were. What I did say was that they were not the primary/predominant methods of gaining xps, and that killing things was.

I also never said it forced anything. I said it implicitly promoted a specific style. Remember, implicitly means that it doesn't say it outright, but implies it through examples and other rules that work together to give the impression.

And please, please note that I think that the folks here on EN World are execptional, meaning that they are the exceptions to the generalizations I have made, not the rule.

 

[Rasyr]

For example, I seem to remember in CoC d20 that they had bluff guidelines like "target wants to beleive" and remember a diplomacy guideline like "PCs request puts character at risk." That sort of thing.

Wow! That sounds almost like it came off a Rolemaster Static Maneuver Table for Influence skills... hehehe

 

[Storm Raven]

Please note that I did not claim that there were no other ways to gain xp in 3e, I specifically said that there were. What I did say was that they were not the primary/predominant methods of gaining xps, and that killing things was.

But how does that relate to the primary question of this thread: is 3e/3.5e more wargame-like than its predecessors? How does the more flexible 3e/3.5e experience system make the game more like a wargame than the 1e or 2e systems that gave experience mostly for killing monsters and (in the case of 1e) taking their treasure?

 

[Rasyr]

Yeah, but how does that apply to 3.0/3.5? I likes my HARP (that you sold me on, I note) just fine, but it's kind of an apples and oranges thing to the discussion at hand.

Just forget I said anything about HARP in this thread... I was trying to make a point (which was a bit off-topic to begin with) and kinda got side-tracked...

As I tell the folks on the ICE forums, I am ONLY human....

Edit:

Stormraven - this reply also applies to your post directly above this one.

 

[Psion]

Wow! That sounds almost like it came off a Rolemaster Static Maneuver Table for Influence skills... hehehe

Are you trying to push my buttons today?

 

[Psion]

Please note that I did not claim that there were no other ways to gain xp in 3e, I specifically said that there were. What I did say was that they were not the primary/predominant methods of gaining xps, and that killing things was.

I also never said it forced anything. I said it implicitly promoted a specific style.

Freezeframe.

Here's where my point of contention is.

I agree that the default method, is as should be expected, is the primary one used.

I don't think that it follows that it promotes that style of play. That "style of play" was already there for most of those who choose to use it. And I think that most mature GMs by now have enough werewithal to smack the players down if they chase down kobold babies for the xp.

It's sort of hard to trace causal links here without some sort of study. I'm sure for some groups it is true. But when the rules give you the explicit out, I find it a bit hard to take the assertion that it "promotes" such a playstyle seriously, when it provides you with alternatives. That's a weak form of promoting if you are giving the group an out of the thing that you are promiting to. (I picture an ad "promotion" that says: Buy our product! Or buy someone elses... )

 

[gizmo33]

Most players don't have a Charisma of 18 and 10 ranks in Diplomacy. Many characters do. Many players with limited personal social skills play characters with good social skills. According to you, those character's skills don't matter (or matter less), because it is the social interactions of the player that matter.

I agree - the player shouldn't have to be as skilled as the character in what they are doing. But, I do think the player should furnish the basics of what they are trying to do - whether it's combat or diplomacy.

In combat, you at least have to say what weapon you are using, and where you are standing. It's up to the player to make the choices about how to avoid AoOs.

Similarly, in diplomacy, bluff, et. al. I require players to tell me the basics of what their character is saying (and sometimes details). Whether or not it's successful is generally dependant on the skill check, but the details are often important in determining what the NPCs do and what follows.

I would think that most DMs run it this way.

 

[Rasyr]

Are you trying to push my buttons today?

Who, me?

Freezeframe.

Wow! An 80's flashback moment......

Here's where my point of contention is.

I agree that the default method, is as should be expected, is the primary one used.

I don't think that it follows that it promotes that style of play. That "style of play" was already there for most of those who choose to use it. And I think that most mature GMs by now have enough werewithal to smack the players down if they chase down kobold babies for the xp.

It's sort of hard to trace causal links here without some sort of study. I'm sure for some groups it is true. But when the rules give you the explicit out, I find it a bit hard to take the assertion that it "promotes" such a playstyle seriously, when it provides you with alternatives. That's a weak form of promoting if you are giving the group an out of the thing that you are promiting to. (I picture an ad "promotion" that says: Buy our product! Or buy someone elses... )

By the word "promotes", I am meaning "encourages". As other have pointed out, it is much easier to determine XP from combat than from other actions as it is well codified as to how much XP a character of a given level will receive from an encounter with a monster. All monsters have an explicit CR, not all actions of other types have an explicit CR (IIRC (and I could easily be wrong on this point), only traps do).

I still contend that the rules overall, and the XP system in particular, encourages combat (which is more strategic in nature with AoOs, numerous Feats that give specific combat bonuses, etc.) over other types of playing.

Heck, I seem to remember, from back when 3.0 first came out, comments from WotC folks specifically stating that D&D was designed to promote, err... encourage a specific style of play. Or words to that effect.

 

[The Shaman]

Except that there is no evidence they are other than "because you said so". Sorry, but that's not actually a reason. You have to come up with something better than that....Now why is it different when a player is unable to speak as well as their character can? I doubt you will be able to, because your "qualitative difference" doesn't exist.

Voadam is right, Storm Raven - there is a difference.

As the GM, I can't tell you specifically how to parry a sword blow with a shield, or how to estimate the value of a ruby, or how to recognize the somatic gesture of a web spell. What I can do, however, is know what an NPC is thinking and feeling, the same way that an adventurer's player does. The NPCs are "my characters" in the game - I know their motivations, their morals, their ethics, their feelings, and I can guide their social actions and reactions accordingly without recourse to dice, in ways that I can't with combat or other skills.

I'm not a skilled swordsman, but I know if the guard at the gate is willing to accept a bribe or not. I'm not able to cast a spell, but I know if the wizard is willing to listen to an entreaty from the adventurers to enchant a staff on their behalf, and under what circumstances. I need the dice to resolve the sword blow and the save to avoid the spell - I don't to tell me how the characters are likely to react to what the players' characters propose. The only time I've ever used things like random reaction tables and charisma checks was when I wanted to be surprised myself by the NPC's reaction, to challenge my own ability to think on my feet in deciding how to interpret the rolls to the circumstances.

Now Storm Raven will jump in here and say that this imposes an unfair burden on the players - how can a player with agoraphobia, a speech impediment, and English as a second language possibly hope to play a glib bard in my campaign? My first response is, is this really a problem that exists around a lot of gaming tables?

I've been wracking my brain trying to remember playing at any time in the last twenty-eight years with someone so introverted that they couldn't meaningfully participate in the social give-and-take among the players and their characters, and even the shyest player that I can recall still had no problems with in-game interactions - at the risk of heading off into pop psych territory, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this particular gamer enjoyed the opportunity to break out of his shell and live vicariously through his character and was inspired to be more outgoing as a result.

If anything, the shyest players I know gravitated toward roles like "wizard who blew stuff up" or "fighter that smashed things a lot" - I can't ever recall a gamer complaining about not being able to woo the prince(ss) because (s)he was too tongue-tied.

It seems that the social interaction rules, like many of the rules in 3e, are designed to solve problems that I never experienced as a gamer. Our games have always had a social element and a tactical element. I just shake my head when gamers say that d20 games offer all these great tactical options and skills that were "missing" in previous editions. They were never missing - we always had them in our games, because (1) the GMs in our gaming groups all came equipped with functioning gray matter and (2) because we all enjoyed playing with each other so we talked through differences of opinion and interpretation to reach a consensus. Shocking as it may seem, we had badwrongfun without a game designer explicating every last detail for us, often using complete rulebooks with fewer pages than deluxe character sheets for 3e.

As GM using systems that lacked the level of intricacy of many of today's games, I would take into account a player character's ability scores when gauging what a character could or could not do in different circumstances. Got a brilliant wizard who should figure out a puzzle even though the C- student player is completely lost? Slip the player a note with a clue. The shy player running the paladin wants to make a speech to the townsfolk regarding the orcs sweeping down out of the mountains? Of course the speech is more stirring to the townsfolk than what the player says at the table, and the townsfolk rally to the paladin's banner. As Psion noted (and I'm stunned to find myself actually agreeing for a change), it's not a dichotomy - the player and the character both contribute to the final outcome. If a shy player wants to tackle being the party diplomat, I expect the player to make a meaningful attempt at describing the character's actions, and I will interpret the outcome in light of the character's skills and abilities.

Finally, I'm going to add something that will probably be a bit controversial: when I'm sitting behind the screen, I'm running a roleplaying game, not a public mental health project - if a player wants to play a silver-tounged rogue but can't string together a coherent sentence in or out of character, then 'im. The social interaction between players is more important to me that what happens in-game, so anyone so introverted as to be unable to manage the social element of being a gamer isn't welcome, end of story.

Elitist? Perhaps, but this is my leisure time we're talking about - I get to decide how and with whom I'm going to spend it. A big part of the badwrongfun for me are the things players say and do, both in and out of character, and I'm not willing to play with anyone who doesn't contribute to that.

 

[Voadam]

Except that there is no evidence they are other than "because you said so". Sorry, but that's not actually a reason. YUou have to come up with something better than that.

[/i]

Really? You play with a bunch of quadrapalegics? No one can jump, climb, sneak or do any of those other things? Wait, now I understand, you play with a bunch of people who are unable to do those things as well as their characters can.

Now why is it different when a player is unable to speak as well as their character can? I doubt you will be able to, because your "qualitative difference" doesn't exist.

Here you go with the silliness again.

The players can jump. The players can't jump as the characters.

The players can talk. The players can talk as the character.

"Speak as well as" I think is your key part. In a game where players do the things they can do (think, speak, interact, make evaluations and decisions) and those social and mental mechanics are removed from the game then complaints that the character is better than the player in these areas and should be able to effect the world based on the stats are simply complaints that they want the play style of the game to be run differently.