Strategy or role-playing game?

[The Shaman]

And you have completely failed to answer why the player's abilities matter when engaging in social interaction in game, but their physical abilities do not? "Just because" is still not an answer, just as it was not an answer at the begninning of this thread.

Because I can put myself inside the character's psyche to gauge the persuasiveness of an argument (and make allowances for the character's ability when it's obviously superior to the player's), but I can't simulate swordplay or archery or longjumping across pools of lava or casting a spell in the same way.

 

[apoptosis]

I tend to run social skills similar to Shaman. If the game has got to the point of just saying "i roll a diplomancy check" to do something, I would simply quit playing, it would not be very interesting for me.

While ability scores and skill ranks are important for social skills, player interaction is really more important in our games. My gaming group believes this, I believe it, so it works well for us. How other people play makes me curious, but I dont really care, they can play whatever way makes them happy.

Is our way unfair..probably, but my group are all great roleplayers, good at drama and not socially inhibited. I frankly dont desire to play with people who are otherwise; anymore than i want to have deep conversations with people who are ignorant, dull and illogical or play competive sports with people who are awful at them..it is not enjoyable for me. Yes, this is probably an elitist view, but this is for fun, so why would I play with people who do not or cannot play in a way i enjoy.

I do have a question though, do people do the same with Int checks. If a player is going to do something rather stupid or illogical or cant figure something out, would you just roll an Int check. A murder mystery, why wouldnt you just roll and Int check and say the smart character figured it out. Decision making is connected to Int (yes some very Intelligent people make bad decisions) or Wis, depending on your view, would you short circuit this as well and just roll ability checks.

I wouldnt. The same applies to social skills. The ability and skills definitely impact the success but the players interactions and ways of dealing with these dramatic situations is what is most important to me and my group.

Apop

 

[Mallus]

Because penalizing a player who is not a good role-player for his personal shortcomings when he is playing an eloquent bard is not the same thing.

Its exactly the same thing.

lt'd be the same thing as penalizing a player who is a fat, couch potato for his personal shortcomings when playing an athletic and strong fighter by reducing his damage bonus.

No.

For the simple reason physical abilities have absolutely nothing to do with pen-n-paper RPG play. They are mental activities. They are played by talking. In fact, that's the only thing you actually need to play an RPG; a method by which the participants can communicate. RPG players are penalized for not choosing the correct actions for their players (be they spoken words, combat manuevers, spell selections, etc.).

I understand your point: RPG's simulate other aspects of a characters existence, so why should social interactions be any different?

Its not a bad point, either, but I'd wish you'd at least listen to what other people are saying, instead of repeatly accusing them of making paper-thin arguments. Two reasons for not handling social interaction entirely in the abstract...

1) Its the only part of RPG play that doesn't need to be simulated in the abstract. Players can actually do what their characters are doing. Some people like the sense of immersion that provides.

2) Players like having their input factor into their character's success. Tactical players want their cunning tactics to matter. Social players want their cunning words to matter. Its less satisfying to handle everything with a die roll. Imagine combat run in such an abstract manner than all player tactics were irrelevant (let's say the DM didn't want to penalize those players who are poor tacticians...). How enjoyable would that be?

If you don't factor in the player's actual choices and actions (including social interaction), then what's left of the game? What constitutes play if the player's abilities are removed from the equation.

We'd all by playing something like Yahtzee, right?

 

[buzz]

Any thoughts?

Your DM is a poody-head?

 

[buzz]

It's that 1E had far _fewer_ rules, and so players and GMs had to/could roleplay to fill that ambiguous space.

No, 1e had far fewer rules that anybody could understand, so we had to wing it all the time. I read the books now and think, "Wow, is that how it was supposed to work?"

3e has fewer rules, but they are comprehensible and rigorous, and thus come into play a lot.

 

[Vindicator]

The rules for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive (and maybe relevent charm spells) are about all you need to run a full night of role-playing your characters in the royal court.

Yup. Typically goes like this:

DM: You encounter a town guard.

Player: I'll bluff him! I got +8 for my Bluff skill!

DM: Go ahead.

Player: [Rolls d20] Sweet! I got 22!

DM: You bluffed him!


Great role-playing, that.

 

[Vindicator]

No, 1e had far fewer rules that anybody could understand, so we had to wing it all the time. I read the books now and think, "Wow, is that how it was supposed to work?"

3e has fewer rules, but they are comprehensible and rigorous, and thus come into play a lot.

Dude, if you think 3e has *fewer* rules than 1e, then you need to crack open your 1e books again. I like 3e as much as the next enworlder, but it has about 1,000,000 rules. WAY more than 1e or 2e ever did.

 

[Jim Hague]

Yup. Typically goes like this:

*snip*

Great role-playing, that.

Dude, if you think 3e has *fewer* rules than 1e, then you need to crack open your 1e books again. I like 3e as much as the next enworlder, but it has about 1,000,000 rules. WAY more than 1e or 2e ever did.

Hi! Could you please not come on and threadcrap? The thread just got back under control, and some interesting points're being made. Posts like yours don't contribute anything meaningful, and they're not particularly funny. Thanks.

 

[buzz]

If you don't factor in the player's actual choices and actions (including social interaction), then what's left of the game? What constitutes play if the player's abilities are removed from the equation.

But if you don't factor in the numebrs on their sheet, you're negating the choices they made when creating the character and the usefulness of the ruleset. The game then becomes either an exercise in Mother-May-I or collaborative ficiton-writing, making one wonder why you bothered spending money on the rulebooks in the first place.

Good gaming is a mix, IMO. Characters should not be penalized for the shortcomings of their players, and players should be allowed to bring their individual talents to the play experience. Individual groups will lean one way or the other based on preference, but both elements need to be present. If they are not equally represented, you should instead just go play MageKnight or write novellas, respectively.

 

[buzz]

Dude, if you think 3e has *fewer* rules than 1e, then you need to crack open your 1e books again. I like 3e as much as the next enworlder, but it has about 1,000,000 rules. WAY more than 1e or 2e ever did.

Crack open your 1e books and look at home many differnent die resolution methods there were, or how many distinct subsystems were invovled in combat, or how psionics didn't work anything like magic, or how thief skills worked nothing like NWPs, each class had a unique XP table, or...

(Just look at the combat chaper in the 1e DMG. 3e combat is cake, dude. )

3e has one die mechanic at it's core, and all the rules show recurring patterns and similarities. These basics have been greatly expanded upon and reapplied throughout various supplements, but, as basics, they remain unchanged.