Strategy or role-playing game?

[IcyCool]

Until you figure that out, you won't understand why what you arguing for is the antithesis of role-playing.

This is the funniest comment I've heard in a long time. And, oddly enough, the most depressing as well.

To the OP, I hope your questions/concerns have been answered. The bottom line is, you should game with people you enjoy gaming with. And leave the disgruntled, unfun players in the dust to cry "munchkin" or "elitist".

Happy gaming!

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

This all depends on your players, honestly. If your players are mature enough to overlook a given rule and/or rules when doing so would improve the game to the mutual satisfaction of everybody involved, then you'll get very few arguments. If your players could give two shits about the enjoyment of others and are hell bent on taking a 'What's in it for me?' approach to gaming, you'll get a lot of arguments whenever ignoring a given rule and/or rules doesn't benefit an individual player directly (even if it doesn't hinder them).

 

[Voadam]

Actually, he did.

Post 162

In response #1 I said I'm fine with characters not prioritizing Charisma.

In response #4 When you asked how I feel about my style of role play encouraging min max combat characters, I responded that I was fine with combat effective characters being good at social interactions.

With the RAW however you can make a very potent combat cleric or druid who has maxed diplomacy and huge social interaction mechanical power. Even a half orc druid with a 6 base cha can have a massive diplomacy score from skill ranks alone at higher levels. Fighers still don't have any real reason to pump up a high charisma, the skill modifiers are not that big a deal going from +0 to +2 under RAW.

I'm not seeing a huge distinction between using the social skill mechanic or not.

I'm fine with combat optimized characters or characters designed to meet a concept that leads to a less combat powerful character (multiclass caster, useless skills thrown in to meet a concept, etc.).

 

[Voadam]

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.

1 Sorcerers only got charisma skills in 3.5. Base charisma alone or cross class skills were not that big a deal. In 3.5 I think the sorcerers spell casting is more central to the class concept and effectiveness than the skill mechanics.

2 paladins without diplomacy checks are gutted? There are other skills on their class list. players under RAW who choose not to take diplomacy are "gutting" their characters?

3 Even bards under RAW can take all non social skills from their class list and make great scouts, etc. They have spells, lore, bardic music, and some combat stuff.

 

[Henry]

While I like a spirited discussion, this is passing "spirited" and right into "mean." Let's please tone down the rhetoric, please.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've seen several claims here that defined social rules make things somehow more fair in that they constrain the DM to make certain decisions. That's a flawed argument.

A moderate to good DM can take into account the personality of the characters, the players' effort - taking into account the player's ability and giving him a break if he's socially inept, the situation at hand, and make a good decision on what an NPC does. You don't need more fairness in this case.

A bad DM will do what he wants regardless of the roll. He can always claim situational modifiers or something along those lines. In this case the social rules don't help.

Either way social skill rolls provide no help and sometimes hurt with wonky results. I'll go without them in D&D, thanks. I can easily take the skill and charisma into account when making a judgement call as DM. This in no way hampers Cha based classes.

It sounds like some of the people arguing for social skills have just had bad experiences and think they'll have more fun by removing some power from the DM. It doesn't work. The DM has all of the power anyway, and even if you could take some power from him, a bad DM is a bad DM and your game won't get any more fun by limiting him. You want more control? Then DM yourself - players aren't that hard to find.

You want consistency? Players have control over the charcaters, I have control over the NPCs. That's consistent.

 

[Henry]

That said, I tend to fall into the "don't forget the roll" category, myself. If I find that points in diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and gather info have absolutely no effect in a given game, I will not bother to put points there, plain and simple.

Shaman, if you told me up-front that my 10 ranks in Bluff wouldn't do me any good in-game, I'd ask to rearrange stats or just change the character, because I don't want to be at a handicap with the other player in the group with the 5 charisma who traded literacy for another +1 to hit, to borrow from Bront's famous comic strip. If I see a 5 CHA guy being awarded the same respect and reverence as my "social combat monster," then it's as unfair as if he were casting spells with the same ability as the sorcerer in the group.

On the other hand, if the abilities WILL make a difference, even if I can't pretend to seduce someone to save my life and there will be a penalty for this, then I'm cool with it, and full speed ahead! Just as long as where I spend my attention isn't wasted.

EDIT: Looking back, I focused on:

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.

Can't there be a happy medium, however? In my campaigns, 90% of the NPCs can be swayed with good enough diplomacy or a good poker-face, same as the real world. The remaining 10% can't even be persuaded with a DC 100 check - they're resolved to their actions, and no one will change their view. Even a stellar hasty (-10 to check) Diplomacy check will only make them sympathize with the PCs rather than change their mind.

My recent Eberron game featured a nihilistic Psionic Warforged who planned to end the world - even the best Diplomacy roll only meant one thing - he spoke with the characters before enbarking on his plan to destroy it all. He felt sorry for them, explained why he had to do it, and continued on his merry way - he was, after all, being helpful, and "risking" his plan by stopping to talk and let them know there was no hard feelings. No amount of diplomatic "you don't NEED to do this" would have helped; he was tired, and that was that. There's plenty of room for unique NPCs, and plenty of room for Joe Merchant, who with a bit of die luck and a good word from the player can cut them an extra deal, or warn them that he heard a rumor of a threat to them.

 

[Greg K]

I think the game has both elements. However, the reoccuring "vs. __" and "Power Play" in Dragon Magazine where they gave tips on how to fight monsters or mini/max one's character along with the one designer saying that there was a goal to take the game back to the dungeon definitely gave me the impression that the designers intended placed some emphasis towards strategy game.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

There's a lot of different ways to roleplay, two of the more prominent being

1) Playing a role through social interaction. The character says what the player says and the world changes as a result. This is fun for a lot of people.

2) Playing a role by making decisions. You make decisions for your character and the world changes as a result. Also fun for a lot of people.

Side A in this discussion likes approach #2 and not #1. They'd rather abstract the result of the social interaction into a summarizing roll and then either roleplay it or not as convenient.

Side B like #1 and #2.

Side A claims side B is wrong, unfair, elitist, cheating, and not real roleplayers.

Side B claims side A is simplistic, inept, and not real roleplayers.

How about we instead recognize that people have different play preferences and that the preferences are legitimate if they're having fun games playing their way. If I play differently than you that doesn't mean either one of us is wrong.

Despite this being an internet message board, it _is_ possible to have a discussion of various play style without name-calling or being judgemental. I'm interested in further discussion of this issue, so I'd rather not see the thread shut down due to name-calling.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

No it doesn't. It just means that when you design your NPCs you need to think about their social skills too. You can't design a fighter with a 10 Intelligence and a 10 Charisma, no ranks in any social skills, and call him a "great leader of men", or a "skilled negotiator", because he isn't. If you want an NPC who is devious and crafty, you need to design him so he is devious and crafty. In point of fact, by making NPCs and taking the rules into account, you give them more depth and breadth than otherwise, because you need to make trade-offs to get them where you want them to be. Maybe Rudrik the mercenary captain isn't a single classed fighter, maybe he needs some sundry organizational and negotiating skills to be a good leader of men. Maybe he's a fighter/expert. That's a more interesting character right off the bat, because he's making trade offs and decisions about what he should be good at, rather than just having it all because it seems cool.