Strategy or role-playing game?

[Storm Raven]

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

Another "just because" answer. Give a rationale for the difference. We've seen several attempts, but all of them blow away in a puff of smoke when subjected to any kind of scrutiny. Now you are just down to "just because".

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.

So, your answer boils down to "I am good at social interaction and bad at physical stuff, so we'll do what I'm good at". That's not a rationale for the distinction. That's a "just because" answer, with no substance. As has been said in this thread already, your attitude has no actual substantive basis, it is merely an artifact of the "Golden Age of Gaming" in which there were no social mechanics, and the game rules themselves amounted to little more than a tactical skirmish game.

I also note that most of these types of responses reveal to me that the proponents of "role-play it out" are not actually interested in playing a character with different personal and social skills than their own. They just want to play a wish fulfillment fantasy in which their personality is transposed into a buff fighter, a sneaky ninja, or a mysterious wizard. That's not role-playing, that's merely wish-fulfillment. For all of their talk about how they emphasize "role-playing" in their campaigns, the actual system they use reveals their "role-playing" to be little more than "myself, in a different skin".

 

[Jarrod]

The distinction is not at all arbitrary. It is determined sensibly by noting that resolving social interaction through roleplaying and other stuff through dice provides the most fun to the players. "Having fun" always trumps "needless rules consistency" in my book. This varies by group of course, but a lot of groups operate this way simply beacuse it works well.

You got the right answer right here. Not "we should role-play it through", but:

Whatever is the most fun for the players.

If the players like to role-play things through, then let them. As a side note, I'd expect players to have characters with social skills and Charisma equivalent to the way they're playing them.

If players want to come up with an angle and then roll the dice, then let them.

People are different. Groups are different. Heck, they're different from session to session. As GM, you need to understand that, embrace it, and do whatever is the most fun for your players.


... why is it that these discussions (and grim/non-grim, high vs low fantasy, high vs low magic) always seem to come from the GMs? It's the players that matter - a group playing in a way they don't enjoy will, well, not have very much fun.


Edit: As for other things, that's why there are foam-sword-and-sorcery LARPs. I play in one system called IFGS. There are physical representations for picking locks (hope your hands don't shake), physical challenges laid out using ropes and such (hope you can jump that 10' pit). Combat is person vs person. It's an example where it's all "roleplay". Fun, but I like D&D just as much for letting me play things that I'm _not_ good at.

 

[Voadam]

That is a false distinction. This amounts to one more response of "just because". I'm sorry to tell you this, but "just because" isn't a rationale. It isn't even an answer.

On the one hand you tell Bob, the player of Conan the adventurer, "Okay, if you want to talk your way past the guard, you need to talk your way past me. Your social skill ranks don't count, I want to see how well you do the talking."

On the other hand, you tell Bob, the player of Conan the adventurer, "Okay, if you want to jump the 10 foot wide chasm, roll your Jump skill and see how far Conan goes."

But, there is no more reason for you to do that with social skills any more than there is reason to tell Bob, the player of Conan the adventurer, "Okay, if you want to jump the 10 foot wide chasm, try to jump this 10-foot gap I've drawn on the floor, and if you make it, so does Conan."

There is a physical distinction in the types of actions. Note the "can" and "can't".

In a roleplaying tabletop game you are not physically playing Conan and your physicality does not impact Conan's physicality. A paraplegic can play Conan and have him jump over a pit.

In a NERO style LARP the person playing Conan does use their physicality to play Conan. A paraplegic playing a Conan character will fail at jumping over a pit because they cannot physically do so.

The paraplegic playing Conan can talk as Conan in either situation.

Choosing to apply mechanics to something that can be handled by players is a game design choice for a style of play. Choosing not to apply mechanics to character actions that can be handled by players is simply a different design choice for a different style of play.

There is no one right way here. It is different design choices to facilitate different styles of play.

 

[Jim Hague]

There is a physical distinction in the types of actions. Note the "can" and "can't".

In a roleplaying tabletop game you are not physically playing Conan and your physicality does not impact Conan's physicality. A paraplegic can play Conan and have him jump over a pit.

In a NERO style LARP the person playing Conan does use their physicality to play Conan. A paraplegic playing a Conan character will fail at jumping over a pit because they cannot physically do so.

The paraplegic playing Conan can talk as Conan in either situation.

Choosing to apply mechanics to something that can be handled by players is a game design choice for a style of play. Choosing not to apply mechanics to character actions that can be handled by players is simply a different design choice for a different style of play.

There is no one right way here. It is different design choices to facilitate different styles of play.

False dichotomy. And now you're hiding behind the rules that you very clearly disdain in favor of 'real roleplay'?

Previously, you've as much said that if the player cannot perform certain actions, they can't in character, or are penalized for the attempt, since they're using the dice to aid in the play of said character. So, which is it? While I might not entirely agree with The Shaman's statements (nor do I entirely disagree), there wasn't any attempt to cloud the issue there.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Basically, what you are doing is saying "you are playing a character, but that character is just you with different skin, he has the same personality, the same social skills, and the same personal magnetism as you do." That is a very limiting view to take. And it is based on the fasle distinction that your character's physical and social attirbutes are somehow "different".

That about sums up my POV.
You want to play a large half-orc barbarian killing stuff left and right, even though you're only 5'6"? Fine by me. You want to play a professor at Morgrave university, even though you're still in High School? Fine by me.

This doesn't mean there's no roleplaying at my table, mind you. But what I do is add a bonus to skill checks now and again, if I think that a) it helped the task at hand, and b) it was in character.
Then again, I might not add a bonus but a malus to a skill check because of stupid behavior - the combat rules already penalize stupidity...
(As a sidenote: if these dumb actions were in character I'll the character a XP award later. I don't penalize my players, I only penalize certain actions.)

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?

Believe it or not, but it is - to some degree or another.
I've played with non-native speakers (my games are in German, and German was their second (or sometimes third ) language), and I saw no point to let this have any impact on the game.

 

[Voadam]

Basically, what you are doing is saying "you are playing a character, but that character is just you with different skin, he has the same personality, the same social skills, and the same personal magnetism as you do." That is a very limiting view to take. And it is based on the fasle distinction that your character's physical and social attirbutes are somehow "different".

No. What I am saying to the players in my games are "You are playing a character. How you play them is up to you. If you want to play them as talkative or quiet, bullying, narrowminded, courageous, foolish, diplomatic, scared, insulting, friendly, conniving, analytical, rash, or whatever, that is up to you. There are rules that handle the physicality of things for the character but you play the character and decide what your character tries to physically do. I run everything else."

Players can choose to play the characters as basically themselves in a D&D world with the physical abilities of a D&D character or play as a character that is very different from themselves.

 

[Jim Hague]

No. What I am saying to the players in my games are "You are playing a character. How you play them is up to you. If you want to play them as talkative or quiet, bullying, narrowminded, courageous, foolish, diplomatic, scared, insulting, friendly, conniving, analytical, rash, or whatever, that is up to you. There are rules that handle the physicality of things for the character but you play the character and decide what your character tries to physically do. I run everything else."

Players can choose to play the characters as basically themselves in a D&D world with the physical abilities of a D&D character or play as a character that is very different from themselves.

Which heavily penalizes certain types of players. So yes, you're directly rewarding a certain style of play - your preferred style - and marginalizing others. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Flyspeck23]

No. What I am saying to the players in my games are "You are playing a character. How you play them is up to you. If you want to play them as talkative or quiet, bullying, narrowminded, courageous, foolish, diplomatic, scared, insulting, friendly, conniving, analytical, rash, or whatever, that is up to you. There are rules that handle the physicality of things for the character but you play the character and decide what your character tries to physically do. I run everything else."

The players still decide what their characters want to do, so they can be talkative or quiet, bullying, narrowminded, courageous, ...
It's just that the skill checks determine how successful they are doing it.
Note that characters can be talkative or quiet, bullying, narrowminded, courageous, ... in combat too, and again it's the roll of the dice that determines if all goes well or not.

 

[Voadam]

Well, then you're missing a fundamental design principle of 3.0/3.5 - the rolls are there to remove the arbitrary nature of social interaction present in previous editions. They're there to make things fair and level all the way around the table. The GM is meant to be a fair and impartial judge. And since we're bringing in personal experience - yes, a glib or very outgoing player can easily overshadow more timid or less experienced players at the table. Again, the skills and rolls are there to level the field for everyone.

The rolling of skills like Bluff and Diplomacy shouldn't take the place of roleplaying, but neither should they simply be ignored because you're feeling snotty and elitist and have decided to impose your style of play onto your players whether they will or no because it's 'real roleplaying'.

Fundamental design principle of 3e? IMO it is a very minor part of the ruleset. IME 3e works fine without using the skill rolls to adjudicate social interactions.

Prior editions had social interaction mechanics of NPC attitudes modified by charisma. Social interaction mechanics are just as easy to ignore now as then.

 

[Jim Hague]

Fundamental design principle of 3e? IMO it is a very minor part of the ruleset. IME 3e works fine without using the skill rolls to adjudicate social interactions.

Prior editions had social interaction mechanics of NPC attitudes modified by charisma. Social interaction mechanics are just as easy to ignore now as then.

Your opinion's your own, but it doesn't change the facts, Voadam.

You've got your preferred style of play, one which penalizes other styles. To enforce it, you exclude a sizeable portion of the rules in favor of what you think the game should be like, core books be damned. Of course, what you do at your table is your affair...but personally, I'm very glad that your table isn't anywhere near mine.