You do not need rules to love someone, or hate someone in game. But rules to see how good your character is at seducing someone, or making someone so angry they lose their temper, that's a good thing to have. It's often as important to check whether or not your character can fool the guard as it is to check if your character can hit the bodyguard.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Impasse
- Thread starter DimitriX
- Start date
You do not need rules to love someone, or hate someone in game. But rules to see how good your character is at seducing someone, or making someone so angry they lose their temper, that's a good thing to have. It's often as important to check whether or not your character can fool the guard as it is to check if your character can hit the bodyguard.
DandD
First Post
xechnao said:
The games you mentioned are preferably played on the computer, and not with other people in a pen-and-paper-manner on the gaming table, which is going to be far far more clunky, making everybody displeased with the product. Also, what would be the role of the game moderator there? Is the gm going to be reduced to a slower fleshy CPU again, like it was implied in 3rd edition? I hope nobody is going to defend that brain-fart from Wotc in 3rd edition.
Not that I do like playing turn-based computer games, if I can have real-time alternatives.
Last edited:
A bit off-topic, but I just had a small revelation that should help me explain/formulate how to use social skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive et.) without reducing the interaction to rolling dice, or making dice meaningless: The dice roll simulates the "face to face" factor.
Imagine the conversation between player and GM like it was an internet message forum. The textual content can be clearly read, but lacking the non-verbal clues, it can often be misinterpreted. The exact same lines can be taken as a friendly comment, or a snub. For example rolling well on Diplomacy means that the meaning the recipient attaches to the lines is more positive.
Imagine the conversation between player and GM like it was an internet message forum. The textual content can be clearly read, but lacking the non-verbal clues, it can often be misinterpreted. The exact same lines can be taken as a friendly comment, or a snub. For example rolling well on Diplomacy means that the meaning the recipient attaches to the lines is more positive.
Well our experiences disagree. IMO there can be easily factored in tabletop games strategic positioning in the means of the requirements of player alliances or conflict in respect to resources for example. The role of the moderator is a different matter than needs to be discussed. And regarding real-time versus turn based, well there are some things that you simply can not do real time because of the mediums in each case -the way you can enter your input and the ways or possibilities of perceiving things and solutions.
I could find use of rules that tell you what happens when you love someone or when you do not love someone as "requirements" regarding your options. Something like "the sims". Of course freedom of choice or decision should be present but there should be some reasonable guidelines IMO. This way player feelings to direct things to the absurd can be avoided somehow in the games and in-game player relations by acquiring mechanical importance have a direct effect to actual players' relations in the game generaly.
If I decide my character hates or loves someone, then that's it. Barring magical mind control, no one else has a say in this. I never tell players what their character should feel, only what they see or otherwise perceive. How they react to that is entirely up to the player.
Shades of Green
Explorer
There's nothing in the world that forces you to buy and play the next edition of D&D (4E in this case) just because it is the next official edition of D&D. If it fits your playing style, buy and play it. If not, stick with whatever floats your boat - 3.5E D&D, 3.0E D&D, 2E AD&D, 1E AD&D, BECMI, OD&D and so on. In fact, you don't even have to play something with D&D written on its cover to have a gaming experience which is very similar to whatever D&D edition you like - there are commercial games such as Castles and Crusades and free games such as OSRIC, Mazes and Minotaurs, Labyrinth Lord or BFRPG that emulate the various pre-3E editions quite well.
Also, some editions (especially 3E/d20) have SO MANY books in existence that you could easily have a large enough book collection to play that edition for DECADES without too much repetitions.
In short, if you like 4E, buy it and play it; if you don't like it, simply ignore it. I didn't like the 4E previews so I am ignoring it (and 3.0E too, in fact) and I'm having quite a lot of fun DMing BFRPG.
Also, some editions (especially 3E/d20) have SO MANY books in existence that you could easily have a large enough book collection to play that edition for DECADES without too much repetitions.
In short, if you like 4E, buy it and play it; if you don't like it, simply ignore it. I didn't like the 4E previews so I am ignoring it (and 3.0E too, in fact) and I'm having quite a lot of fun DMing BFRPG.
Last edited:
I do not disagree with this. What I am saying is that the implications or requirements of deciding to hate someone should be represented somehow mechanically. If not and one could make really random decisions, crazy decisions he could potentially ruin the experience of the other players in the game table -I have seen stuff like this happen many times.
If that's a problem, then having rules that try to control the players' actions won't really help. Remeber the alignment debates?
If alignment was some kind of implementation to solve this problem it was not a good one IMO. But this does not mean that it can't be done a good one somehow. Beyond alignment various rpgs have taken their shots towards this direction.
Last edited:
