Strategy or role-playing game?

[Mishihari Lord]

Or they are following the rules as written when the social skill diplomacy comes into play.

DIPLOMACY (CHA)
Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check

The point I was trying to make is that if it's bad to use the rules on PCs (as per the rules) it's probably also bad to use them on NPCs. I like consistent rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

Its actually pretty simple. Requiring slovenly out-of-shape gamers to act out lethal hand-to-hand combats around your dining room table will land you in jail. Requiring them to talk will not... You can play out the talking. Its as simple as that.

So, your idea is that only the personally glib and socially skilled should play characters who have social graces? That seems so limiting. Do you require players to actually tie people up, climb walls, pick locks and jump over large distances? I mean, you could do all of those things without landing in jail too.

Or do you make exceptions for physical capabilities and not mental ones? If so, why have mental stats at all? If they make no in-game difference, shouldn't the game do away with them, and just record your character's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores, and the mental skills and so on just track those of the person playing them?

How do you feel about giving players who are awful strategists something like Knowledge: Planning, and reducing all in-game PC scheming to a skill check?

Well, I use the skills Knowledge: War and Profession: Soldier in my games. Characters with ranks in Knowledge: War can make skill checks to get clues about what their enemies are up to on the battlefield and gives ideas about what might be good maneuvers to use. Just because some characters should know a fair amount about military tactics and strategy doesn't mean my players all do.

 

[Storm Raven]

I can only say that, speaking in my professional capacity, social skills are a lot easier to train than physical ones, particularly in a role-playing environment where we try to remove most inhibitions. In my groups, we might accept a shy newbie, but I would expect her to come out of her shell quite readily after a few warm-up sessions. If someone in a group refuses to role-play, and refuses to grow in herskill set, then I don't see why the rest of the group should put up with her.

Many people don't game in order to "learn" or accomodate your desires for molding their personality. Why should they? They are there to enjoy themselves. Should we exclude those people who are not great orators from the game, or restrict them to only playing "grunts"? What if they try to role-play, but suck at it. Should their character be similarly bad at social interaction? Perhaps the fact that you think you need to "put up with" people you game with is an indication of the problems you have gaming in general.

 

[Storm Raven]

Okay, I'm in the minority here. But yes, to me 3.x DOES feel more wargamey. It's the almost fanatical reliance to a battle map and minitures I think that does it to me. In 2e and 1e days we played and never used mini's. We tossed fireballs and let the DM describe the effect it has.

Then you weren't playing by the rules of 1e, which gave defined areas (in inches no less) for the effects of fireball, and expected that you would map out the expanding volume of the explosive ball of fire. You could do the same thing in 3e: ignoring rules is not unique to any particular game system.

Today the party wizard agonises for five minutes on the best place to toss the fireball. Just like the guy trying to place his blast marker for an whirlwind missle shot in warhammer 40K. This relaice on what is the best way to get to my opponent without atracting an AOO, setting self up for the +2 because the guys flanked. That kind of tacticle thinking was never there when we had no battle map. We relied on the DM to describe the scene and we described our actions.

You could do the same thing with 3e, using the same method as 1e: just ignore a portion of the rule set.

 

[Rev. Jesse]

Many people don't game in order to "learn" or accomodate your desires for molding their personality. Why should they? They are there to enjoy themselves. ... Perhaps the fact that you think you need to "put up with" people you game with is an indication of the problems you have gaming in general.

I'm a little unsure how to respond here. Suffice to say, I don't need to put up with any problems players in any of my games and I am privileged to game with experienced gamers, all of whom enjoy role-playing. My gaming groups fit me and my boisterous role-playing perfectly. I probably would not game with someone who was too shy to emote at the gaming table or did not enjoy role-playing on some level, but I have not had that problem in many years.

I don't really think of myself as having a problem w/ gaming in general. I do, however, welcome any thoughts you, or anyone else, may have on my role-playing style or problems via email.


Thanks-

-Jesse

 

[vulcan_idic]

What 3e does do, is to place more importance on rule-playing as opposed to role-playing or even roll-playing. As mentioned by others, it stresses the rules involved more than the actual playing part.

This, to me, is the absolute gold of the system. They provide the rules, so we can all agree on the basic nuts and bolts, or whatever subset or superset of those might be appropriate for any given game table. We then dress those bare mechanical bones in the flesh of our preferred world - whether a published setting or something we create ourselves. Our minds give life to mechanics and words leap off a page, add an 'L' to themselves and become worlds. The amount of "roleplaying" varies from table to table - I've had great fun with hack n' slash, and an equal joy from in depth character building. As long as we all have fun, and have a common idea of how much roleplay or rollplay is desired, then whatever the groups decision is works. I'm glad I'm not playing in a system that dictates *how* I play, but just provides me with the tools so I *can* play.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm a little unsure how to respond here. Suffice to say, I don't need to put up with any problems players in any of my games and I am privileged to game with experienced gamers, all of whom enjoy role-playing. My gaming groups fit me and my boisterous role-playing perfectly. I probably would not game with someone who was too shy to emote at the gaming table or did not enjoy role-playing on some level, but I have not had that problem in many years.

So, you've attracted people to your gaming circle who fit into your idea of how to play, but those who have personal limitations would not be welcome? They would be a "problem player" because they were shy or socially awkward? And thus you would exzclude them? That seems very limiting, very "high-school clique"ish. Not everyone is as skilled as everyone else at things like "emoting" and "fast-talk". It seems, according to you, that they should not be allowed to play characters who are good at "fast talking", or people who are skilled negotiators, because they are not.

Do you have similar rules for people who are bad at jumping or climbing? Are they prohibited from playing characters who are good at those things? How about people who don't know how to open locks, or have no ability to perform sleight of hand? Are they prohibited from playing characters who are good at those things? If you don't have such rules, how do you justify making the distinction other than to say "I don't like shy people"?

 

[vulcan_idic]

So, you've attracted people to your gaming circle who fit into your idea of how to play, but those who have personal limitations would not be welcome? They would be a "problem player" because they were shy or socially awkward? And thus you would exzclude them? That seems very limiting, very "high-school clique"ish. Not everyone is as skilled as everyone else at things like "emoting" and "fast-talk". It seems, according to you, that they should not be allowed to play characters who are good at "fast talking", or people who are skilled negotiators, because they are not.

Do you have similar rules for people who are bad at jumping or climbing? Are they prohibited from playing characters who are good at those things? How about people who don't know how to open locks, or have no ability to perform sleight of hand? Are they prohibited from playing characters who are good at those things? If you don't have such rules, how do you justify making the distinction other than to say "I don't like shy people"?

Let alone how you have a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, when your players are most likely really bad at wielding magic...

 

[Mishihari Lord]

So, your idea is that only the personally glib and socially skilled should play characters who have social graces? That seems so limiting. Do you require players to actually tie people up, climb walls, pick locks and jump over large distances? I mean, you could do all of those things without landing in jail too.

Or do you make exceptions for physical capabilities and not mental ones? If so, why have mental stats at all? If they make no in-game difference, shouldn't the game do away with them, and just record your character's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores, and the mental skills and so on just track those of the person playing them?

This is the argument that always comes up in these discussions, and it's still full of ... um ... air.

Design decisions as to what a player does and what a character does should be based on what makes sense fun-wise rather than an irrational need to handle everything the same way. Lock picking, running, and jumping might be fun but are generally too much trouble, so the "fun rule" says the character does them. Taking damage - no fun - the character does that too. Memorizing spells - too much work to be fun - characaters do that. Talking and persuading NPCs - fun, easy to do - the players do that.

Of course if talking to NPCs is not fun for your group or it's too hard, you can make your rolls. I've never had that issue with any of my groups.

 

[Jarrod]

Computers.

Seriously. Computers are to blame for the "more wargame-y" feel of modern gaming systems. In particular, computer games.

Take Pool of Radiance (the old gold-box). Where previously you might have had a GM describe a horde of orcs attacking you, you now saw every one and could place that Fireball to cover as many as possible. A bit to the right, and a bit down... yeah, covered one more Orc.

Suddenly *exactly* where things were became more important. You could do battlefield tactics based on occupied squares.

Then Baldur's Gate made the genre more popular, then NWN came along, not to mention the non-D&D games. But all of the computer games have an emphasis on battlefield layout. No more days of Adventure and Zork.

... and so that's how we think today.