Strategy or role-playing game?

[Storm Raven]

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

I asked him questions. He answered in the affrimative, and said he was fine with that. Perhaps you shoudl go back and actually read the thread to udnerstand what is being said.

 

[Jim Hague]

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?

Consistency in this case is there to reinforce impartiality. You can certainly 'cheat' as a GM - and changing the rules that everyone is presumed to be operating under is one way of doing that. It's disrespectful and unfair to the players, not to mention their characters, to constantly change the rules around.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

Some DMs do treat it as a game that can be "won". But that's not what I'm talking about.

A DM has a duty to be fair with his players. They should be able to reasonably predict the outcome of their actions. Changing the rules that govern those actions mid-stream is treating players unfairly (i.e. "dirty pool"). Not that it has much bearing here, but when I have encountered DMs who do this sort of thing (changing rules mid-stream), it is usually to keep their railroaded plot on its tracks by nullifying a character's options.

 

[Odhanan]

Alright. I understand better about the consistency.

Now, how is following the rules through and through more consistent than having a set of houserules known and agreed by the players prior to the campaign and not changing them afterwards?

 

[IcyCool]

Some DMs do treat it as a game that can be "won". But that's not what I'm talking about.

A DM has a duty to be fair with his players. They should be able to reasonably predict the outcome of their actions. Changing the rules that govern those actions mid-stream is treating players unfairly (i.e. "dirty pool"). Not that it has much bearing here, but when I have encountered DMs who do this sort of thing (changing rules mid-stream), it is usually to keep their railroaded plot on its tracks by nullifying a character's options.

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[IcyCool]

I asked him questions. He answered in the affrimative, and said he was fine with that. Perhaps you shoudl go back and actually read the thread to udnerstand what is being said.

Actually, I read quite well.

You asked Voadam the following questions (itemized for easy reading):
1. "So, does anyone but a bard, sorcerer, or paladin ever use Charisma as anything other than a dump stat?"

2. "Do any of your players ever take ranks in social skills?"

3. "Is there any reason not to min/max your character into a combat monster?"

4. "How do you feel knowing that your "role-play" ideas work to the effect of encouraging min/maxing combat monsters?"

To which he replied:

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?

Could you point out where Voadam said that he likes "min/maxed power-gaming combat monsters"?

 

[Storm Raven]

Could you point out where Voadam said that he likes "min/maxed power-gaming combat monsters"?

Given that he asnwered in the affirmative to all of my questions, including the one where I asked if he was comfortable with the idea of his player's making min/maxed combat monsters, I'm think you aren't actually reading what was written by either of us. Either that, or you did, and are just too pig-headed to admit you are wrong on this point.

 

[Voadam]

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?

Another incorrect inference. Instead of phrasing your inferences as statements, you might try to phrase them as questions.

No.

Stopping to roll dice instead of continuing to just talk broke the flow of the game. Reactions occurred based on die rolls instead of based on what was happening. Significant failure from unskilled characters turned simple things awkward and situations bordered on silly and comic.

However I also played a maxed out diplomacy character and the mechanics were not fun for me as a player either.

 

[Storm Raven]

Alright. I understand better about the consistency.

Now, how is following the rules through and through more consistent than having a set of houserules known and agreed by the players prior to the campaign and not changing them afterwards?

It isn't except to the extent that I have often found that House Rules are more likely to lead to unexpected (and in many cases unwelcome) effects, leading to the need for revision. But the main point is that by sticking to a chosen set of rules, you are far less liekly to get arguments than if you don't.

And that's the weakness of 1e/2e: those rule sets had large, interstitial gaps in their rules where the DM had to improvise on a regular basis. Usually a DM had to improvise on the spot for an unexpected situation. And many times, the choice of improvised rule changed from one instance to another, or was deemed "unrealistic" by a player, leading to arguments. 1e/2e was rife with arguments over rules and DM decisions, because the 1e/2e mechanics were so sparse on so many issues.

 

[IcyCool]

Given that he asnwered in the affirmative to all of my questions, including the one where I asked if he was comfortable with the idea of his player's making min/maxed combat monsters, I'm think you aren't actually reading what was written by either of us. Either that, or you did, and are just too pig-headed to admit you are wrong on this point.

Perhaps I'm using a different definition of "Mechanically combat effective characters who can do other things like social interactions". One that doesn't equal "min/maxing combat monsters". Do you feel that these two are equivalent?