Strategy or role-playing game?

[Storm Raven]

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.

In other words, it seems as if you didn't like the fact that a skilled character could upset the apple-cart and do something you didn't expect, or an unskilled character might not make his way through a situation that you intended him to in furtherance of the adventure.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

Well, let's see:

The only reason his characters don't use Charisma as a dump stat is if they are playing a class that gives that stat combat advantages. The only reason his characters take social skills is if they have a combat use. The only reason not to build a combat monster is "character concept". And he's fine with that.

I'm not seeing where these characters are generally anything other than min/maxed combat monsters.

 

[Voadam]

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

You were responding to my answer about characters without charisma powers not making high charisma characters.

If stats are just for game mechanics then not placing an importance on a stat your character does not use is fine by me.

Effectively designed combat characters are fine by me. Most classes, even the generally weak bards, are designed to be mechanically balanced for combat situations. Combat capabilities should be balanced with each other. Social interaction ability should not be a balance against combat abilities IMO.

I am, however, also fine with suboptimally designed characters to reach a certain concept that appeals to the player (multiclass casters, etc.).

 

[The Shaman]

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".

Trolling is against the site code of conduct, Storm Raven - please knock it off.

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.[/quotre]

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....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".

As has been pointed out, and is an important point you and some other posters seem to miss - characters are not their players. This is a fundamental truth of the game.... 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.

I'll address these points together.

What both of these replies seem to sidestep is the fact that the GM is also a roleplayer at the table.

I'm not "playing myself" when I create a wizard who dislikes dwarves - I'm roleplaying a character. It's not "arbitrary" to rule that a veteran mercenary captain isn't swayed by an appeal from the adventurers on behalf of the king of the realm (without coin to back it up, that is) - it's roleplaying a character.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your respective responses seem to suggest that the players can decide what their characters think and feel, but that if the GM does the same for the NPCs, it's "arbitrary" and "wish fulfillment," and that somehow this is unfair to the players. My question to you is, why do you assume that the GM is less capable of making the distinction between character motivations and personal motivations than the players are? Or are the players merely "playing themselves in a different skin" as well?

Would you be comfortable playing in a game where the player characters are also subject to the social skills the way you think NPCs should be? Should a well-spoken vizier be able to make your characters friendly to the evil sultan by virtue of a Diplomacy check? (And before you start explaining how the rules don't work that way, yes, I know that's not the way the game is designed.)

The problem that I have with this way of thinking is that it takes my ability to roleplay interesting characters with complex motivations out of my hands as the GM, and makes the responses everyone in the world that's not a PC subject to the results of a die roll. That really removes any reason for me to create NPCs with any depth or breadth - they become nothing more than "targets" for characters with high ranks in the social skills to knock down, rather than contributing to the veracity and verisimilitude of the game-world.

It's also mind-numbingly, will-sappingly dull.

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....I've had players (at odds with Shaman's experiences) who're either new to roleplaying, or unsure of what to do, that make their best effort to roleplay and fall short. But they have characters with a good Bluff or Diplomacy. According to you, they should get no breaks at all - they can't roleplay, so screw 'em, right?...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'.

First, both you and Storm Raven chose to selectively ignore the section of my earlier post that describes how I take character abilities into account in adjudicating social encounters rather than relying solely on the roleplaying ability of the player.

But setting that aside for the moment, yes, I think good roleplaying should be rewarded - it's one of the ways to encourage it among all the players by presenting a positive example.

And if a "glib or very outgoing" player outshines others at the table? Well, that's life under the big top, my friend. Should I also reduce a character's BAB because the the player utilizes better combat tactics than another player, in order to "level the playing field?" It's a simple fact that some players are better at roleplaying games than others. It's also a fact that there is a learning curve that new players must surmount - I believe the GM has a responsibility to help them up the curve, and I think that dumbing-down the game is the wrong way to do that. Playing RPGs is a social experience, IMHO - if I want to play a game in which outcomes are solely determined by the abilities of the game pieces, I'll pull out my chess set.

And in the end, if a person can't hit, catch, or throw, then so much for playing baseball. Roleplaying games may not be for everyone.

 

[IcyCool]

Edit - I don't know why I'm arguing in a subjective topic. What a pointless waste of space. Sorry folks.

 

[Storm Raven]

And Voadam said that he likes "min/maxed power-gaming combat monsters" where, again? (Hint: he didn't.)

Actually, he did.

 

[IcyCool]

Actually, he did.

It certainly appears that way, doesn't it?

 

[Voadam]

Well, let's see:

The only reason his characters don't use Charisma as a dump stat is if they are playing a class that gives that stat combat advantages. The only reason his characters take social skills is if they have a combat use. The only reason not to build a combat monster is "character concept". And he's fine with that.

I'm not seeing where these characters are generally anything other than min/maxed combat monsters.

You discount character concepts too much then.

The dwarven cleric in my group is from a major smith family and he has domains and skills to represent that, but he does not use it to smith stuff to sell in game so he can get better combat stuff. It is a character hook for roleplaying and characterization. It comes up all the time in that context as he examines strange metal weapons or gets involved in guild politics or smoozes with another smith.

The arcane trickster was a street hustler wizard who got caught by the inquisition. He has maxed bluff and has never used it for feinting or distractions, it was to represent his hustler background. In game this is roleplayed as a character aspect and he plays it that way with his interactions with his fellow PCs and the NPCs.

There is a mechanical incentive for a rogue to take bluff for hiding and feinting, but no skill is really that big a deal.

My players generally take skills to meet the concept they have for the character, but skills don't come into play that much for the most part as mechanical checks.

They do lots of noncombat stuff, politics, investigations, research, etc. but most things can be handled by interactions and player choices.

 

[Jim Hague]

And if a "glib or very outgoing" player outshines others at the table? Well, that's life under the big top, my friend. Should I also reduce a character's BAB because the the player utilizes better combat tactics than another player, in order to "level the playing field?" It's a simple fact that some players are better at roleplaying games than others. It's also a fact that there is a learning curve that new players must surmount - I believe the GM has a responsibility to help them up the curve, and I think that dumbing-down the game is the wrong way to do that. Playing RPGs is a social experience, IMHO - if I want to play a game in which outcomes are solely determined by the abilities of the game pieces, I'll pull out my chess set.

And in the end, if a person can't hit, catch, or throw, then so much for playing baseball. Roleplaying games may not be for everyone.

See, that's an attitude I really can't countenance - the 'better than thou' elitism. Your so-called 'simple fact' is anything but...unless, of course, you can provide a mutally agreed upon definition of 'role-playing games'. And I didn't miss your statement about character abilities affecting play at all - I focused on your clear intent to convey that you're going to favor some players over others, seemingly regardless of the character's abilities in the matter.

While I admire your honesty in this matter, I'm rather disgusted by the elitism. It's not a matter of choosing who you play with that irks; rather, it's the tone that's being taken, that your playstyle is somehow 'better' for being exclusive. IMO, it smacks of the cheap theatrics I happily left behind in high school - the 'in' crowd. I've personally witnessed several gaming roups broken up by the 'that's life under the big top' attitude - by favoring those glib or witty players, congratulations, you've lost your impartiality as a GM. By giving special attention to the people that entertain you and not the entire table, you are, in effect, cheating other players who may not be as outgoing, whose play may be solid but workmanlike, out of equal table time. You're employing the fallacy of 'social Darwinism', and as always, no good can come of it.

In any case, we've drifted far off topic on this thread, and given the ugly tone things're taking, I don't intend to respond further. Thanks to the folks that have posted, whether I like or agree with them or not. Me, I'm outta here.

 

[Storm Raven]

Trolling is against the site code of conduct, Storm Raven - please knock it off.

I wasn't aware that punching holes in your tissue paper thin arguments was now defined as "trolling"

What both of these replies seem to sidestep is the fact that the GM is also a roleplayer at the table.

I'm not "playing myself" when I create a wizard who dislikes dwarves - I'm roleplaying a character. It's not "arbitrary" to rule that a veteran mercenary captain isn't swayed by an appeal from the adventurers on behalf of the king of the realm (without coin to back it up, that is) - it's roleplaying a character.

No, actually it is not role-playing. It is railroading. You have determined, ahead of time, how this character will react, and no amount of actual skill will change his mind. As usual, hostile reactions to the use of game mechanics appear to be little more than a shield for a railroading DM to hide behind.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your respective responses seem to suggest that the players can decide what their characters think and feel, but that if the GM does the same for the NPCs, it's "arbitrary" and "wish fulfillment," and that somehow this is unfair to the players. My question to you is, why do you assume that the GM is less capable of making the distinction between character motivations and personal motivations than the players are? Or are the players merely "playing themselves in a different skin" as well?

You have completely misread the wish fulfilment aspect of the discussion.

Would you be comfortable playing in a game where the player characters are also subject to the social skills the way you think NPCs should be? Should a well-spoken vizier be able to make your characters friendly to the evil sultan by virtue of a Diplomacy check? (And before you start explaining how the rules don't work that way, yes, I know that's not the way the game is designed.)

Then why bring it up? Bringing a non-sequitur concerning how the game is not designed doesn't seem to be helping your argument.

The problem that I have with this way of thinking is that it takes my ability to roleplay interesting characters with complex motivations out of my hands as the GM, and makes the responses everyone in the world that's not a PC subject to the results of a die roll. That really removes any reason for me to create NPCs with any depth or breadth - they become nothing more than "targets" for characters with high ranks in the social skills to knock down, rather than contributing to the veracity and verisimilitude of the game-world.

And doing so essentially amounts to railroading. NPCs will act a certain way, regardless of the character they deal with. If the glib bard negotiates, it seems to make no difference when compared to the same player bringing his gruff dwarven fighter, or surly half-orc barbarian, so long as the player behvaes the same. Basically, your players aren't role-playing then, they are just playing themselves in funny suits.

It's also mind-numbingly, will-sappingly dull.First, both you and Storm Raven chose to selectively ignore the section of my earlier post that describes how I take character abilities into account in adjudicating social encounters rather than relying solely on the roleplaying ability of the player.

So, you use a combination of character ability and player ability for "role-playing encounters". Why, then, is it not necessary to take both into account for combat encounters?

"I'm sorry Bob, Thud the Barbarian does have really good stats for combat, but you are a couch potato who couldn't lift a throw pillow without assistance, so Thud's attacks will be penalized for your physical ineptitude."

That doesn't make much sense does it? It doesn't make any more sense when applied to social encoutners. Until you figure that out, you won't understand why what you arguing for is the antithesis of role-playing.