Strategy or role-playing game?

[Jim Hague]

Depends how I'm running the game.

Option 1: Mechanics matter. I could run a game so that Charisma and skill totals are used to influence how interactions go without using the given charts. Modifiers would be ad hoc so the low charisma no skill character could have everything taken in the wrong context etc. but nothing he could point at to a chart and say "I expect my failure on this roll to be a two category shift of attitude."

Option 2: Game mechanics are for game effects only. A low cha character with no bluff skill is poor at feinting and would make a poor bard, sorcerer, or paladin. However he can play the character as an orc negotiator and it is not a problem.

3e is pretty balanced around combat, removing the social skills as social adjudication does not shift the balance that much.

Except that doing so places all mechanical emphasis on combat characters, and seriously affects folks like bards, sorcerors, paladins...anyone who relies on Charisma as a primary. Your playstyle has bigger effects than you realize - it tears the guts out of at least three core classes and shifts play balance entirely towards combats.

 

[Voadam]

So, does anyone but a bard, sorcerer, or paladin ever use Charisma as anything other than a dump stat? Do any of your players ever take ranks in social skills? Is there any reason not to min/max your character into a combat monster? How do you feel knowing that your "role-play" ideas work to the effect of encouraging min/maxing combat monsters?

[/i]

This doesn't actually exist.

1 Not really and I'm fine with that.

2 Yes, several have mechanical effects (distractions for hiding, feinting, countering feinting, etc.)

3 Only player concepts. Most classes are balanced enough that a fun character can be made to fit most concepts without sacrificing combat power.

4 Mechanically combat effective characters who can do other things like social interactions do not bother me. Why? Would they bother you when you DM? Do you want PCs who are good at social interactions to be ineffective at combat?

5 Your denials and stated failure to see it notwithstanding, yes it does

 

[IcyCool]

Other than people who like to go on tirades condemning game mechanics for social skills, I don't think anyone makes that claim.

*Points to Peter Gibbons response post.*

You are constructing a rose-colored fantasy regarding the past if you think that is the case. There were never more vociferous arguments than when the DM in 1e/2e made an off the cuff ruling that some player thought was "unrealistic".

No, I'm not. I'm talking about my past experiences.

Yet more unsupported hyperbole. I have had no such experience in the several years that I have played and DMed 3e/3.5e. I usually follow the rules though, because that makes the game more consistent, and doesn't spring stuff on the players out of left field.

Hyperbole? You haven't experienced? Where did I say that you did? I was talking about my experiences. As to your outright accusations and veiled insults, I'm not looking to pick a fight. I've stated my opinion, and you disagree. But I won't be the target of your venting. So please, take a deep breath.

Yeah, it was never PC vs. DM before. :\ I mean, Knights of the Dinner Table is out there, and that doesn't make fun of 1e type gaming at all now does it? Oh wait, I think it does. Especially since Hackmaster is basically just 1e D&D with some added mechanics.

No, it never was for me. This is the first time I've really experienced the whole "PC vs. DM" bit. And I don't like it.

I think it's just you, or a small subset of gamers like you. I have never seen these problems that you claim are endemic to 3e/3.5e.

I haven't claimed that they were "endemic" to 3e/3.5e. I have said that I haven't noticed this sort of behavior before 3.x, and even stated in my post that it might be the gaming circle I'm in. I said that I've noticed a change.

As someone pointed out in this thread, the new ruleset has attracted all sorts of folks into this hobby, wargamers and magic players included. Maybe I'm just running into people who have never roleplayed before (though they claim to). And honestly, with the way some of them behave, I don't want to be the one to teach them to roleplay.

You haven't had these problems yet, and that's good for you. I hope you never do. I hope you never have to understand where I'm coming from. It's just not fun.

 

[Voadam]

Umm, yeah. Maybe that is because you never bother to use the social interaction rules, so you don't actually know what the balance is when those rules are being used?

Incorrect inference. I don't use them now.

Tried em out for a while. Found they interrupted the flow of my games, required wierd social results that turned social interactions unnatural and led to comments like "I know it seems wierd but that's how the rules work". After considering them and the unwanted impacts they were having on my games I ditched them and my games have run smoother and my players are happy with how things resolve.

And I play in games where they are used as well. I prefer not to have the charts, but they are really a minor aspect of the game IMO.

 

[Storm Raven]

Tried em out for a while. Found they interrupted the flow of my games, required wierd social results that turned social interactions unnatural and led to comments like "I know it seems wierd but that's how the rules work". After considering them and the unwanted impacts they were having on my games I ditched them and my games have run smoother and my players are happy with how things resolve.

Ah, so characters who were good at social interaction were upsetting your apple-cart? Were they derailing your railroads, or just getting people to like them?

 

[Storm Raven]

1 Not really and I'm fine with that.

So, you like min/maxed power-gaming combat monsters. Good thing that's in the open.

 

[Odhanan]

Yet more unsupported hyperbole. I have had no such experience in the several years that I have played and DMed 3e/3.5e. I usually follow the rules though, because that makes the game more consistent, and doesn't spring stuff on the players out of left field.

Sidetracking here, but what is it with this principle of rules consistency?

I mean, rules should be a minimum coherent since this is the base of the shared experience of players and DM. I get that. But why are some DMs so anal about it? (No offense meant)

 

[Storm Raven]

Sidetracking here, but what is it with this principle of rules consistency?

I mean, rules should be a minimum coherent since this is the base of the shared experience of players and DM. I get that. But why are some DMs so anal about it? (No offense meant)

The main reason I view consistency as important is doing otherwise is basically playing "dirty pool" with the players. If things work one way on day one, the players should be able to anticipate that they will work the same way on day two (barring special circumstances or a change that has been made known ahead of time). If the rules constantly change, how do the player's plan their actions? The DM's adjudication of the rules is the only real window the characters have on the game world. If the window changes on a regular basis, then the game just degenerates into a story told by one guy to a bunch of people who thought they would be playing a game.

 

[IcyCool]

So, you like min/maxed power-gaming combat monsters. Good thing that's in the open.

Do you like to put words in a person's mouth? I'd just like to get your answer "in the open".

 

[IcyCool]

The main reason I view consistency as important is doing otherwise is basically playing "dirty pool" with the players. If things work one way on day one, the players should be able to anticipate that they will work the same way on day two (barring special circumstances or a change that has been made known ahead of time). If the rules constantly change, how do the player's plan their actions? The DM's adjudication of the rules is the only real window the characters have on the game world. If the window changes on a regular basis, then the game just degenerates into a story told by one guy to a bunch of people who thought they would be playing a game.

I agree that a certain amount of consistency is important, but this concept of "dirty pool" seems to be alluding to the GM "cheating" to "win". You can't "win" D&D, unless I've missed something. Am I off here? If so, what did you mean?