D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ack- missed that- my bad!

 

[Hussar]

Some people are born to be adventurers, others have adventure thrust upon them.

Not everyone on an adventure is perforce a master of combat. See Frodo & Sam. See Avram Belinski. See Peter Martin. See many, many others in literature, TV and film.

And how many of those didn't face conflict or combat?

Which was the point of the original line of thinking here. That you can play D&D without conflict or combat. I suppose you could, but, wow, would that be a really, really boring game. Sort of like Waiting for Godot the RPG.

 

[Greg K]

I bet if you ran the challenge enthusiastically and in the manner suggested in that post, your players would think it's great.

You would be wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And how many of those didn't face conflict or combat?

Most of them avoided combat and conflict by preference, only fighting when forced.

(And my non-combatant PCs have been entertaining.)

 

[Dannager]

You would be wrong.

I'm sorry to hear that. Your players sound difficult to please.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not a DAMN one of those skills has anything at all to do with playing your instruments proficiently and/or with feeling- the bleeding heart of the challenge.

All that challenge describes is the process of finding the right piece to play and if you have the stamina to play it (if its a long one), not whether your performance can be described as "mechanical", "pedestrian", "soulful" or "brilliant".

And just what do you think the Bluff and Intimidate skills are other than the skills to make people believe what you are saying and to tug on their heart strings, drawing emotion from them. Possibly I allow more out of intimidate than canon rules (it's a weak skill otherwise).

Only part of it, since most of it is my own (I have no masonry, weapon/armormaking or metalworking skills). And all of it was accumulated before age 20. (I've improved since then, too.)

...

Again, see above: that background was an embellished version of my own teenaged years. Not exactly "elderly", and well within the age projections traditionally associated with many PC classes (at least, the more scholarly ones, like arcanists & divine casters).

About that word "embellished"... But being serious, you've managed to explain why I have serious problems with detailed skill systems withoug massive lists of defaults. They say what you aren't competent in. If there's a skill and you don't have it then you can't be competent in it. And with so many different craft and knowledge skills you need to take if you are to claim a well-rounded education, you cripple yourself on the directly relevant skills if you wish to be an adventurer.

Which misses the point of every instance this has occured in myth, legend and fiction.

The key to the challenge isn't whether you know what to play. Its whether you play so well you can beat the Devil (or his champion). It won't matter if you can pick the right piece if you can't play it. It won't matter if you make the audience laugh if they're not laughing at the right thing. In short, its about the performance- end of story.

The only cases I can think of where this is true are The Devil Went Down To Georgia and the story of Arachne (and possibly Tenacious D come to think of it). And by claiming to be "The best there's ever been", it claims there's an objective scale of who's the best musician. Who's better - Bethoven or the Beatles? Elvis or Orpheus? More commonly in mythology you get stories like the story of Orpheus - where his songs were enough to soften Hades heart. It's normally about the right performance at the right time in the right way - and showing up with the wrong music for your target would fail utterly.

Besides, with incredibly rare exceptions (e.g. Orpheus), most people who take part in such duels are musicians. Not adventurers. Their primary focus and skill is music and they'd be about as much use in a dungeon (or combat) as your average barbarian warrior would in a chamber orchestra. We aren't talking good musicians here, we're talking legendary ones. Ones whose primary focus is music. Becoming that good isn't a couple of years at a liberal arts college, it's a lifetime of dedication. And no, 4e isn't very good at Choirs and Chamber Orchestras. Nor is 3.x or any other version of D&D. One little skill isn't a reflection of the overwhelming focus of someoene's life.

But if it's an event that can happen very occasionally as a change of pace and with a goal of moving the audience far more than expected rather than claiming to be the best there's ever been, then the skill challenge is up to the job.

 

[Greg K]

What I prefer about doing that way is that the player isn't forced to make a decision between min/maxy skills that get used all the time in adventures and ones chosen more for flavor reasons but that come up in RP situations and the like. (I also wish utility powers didn't force that decision point as much as they do but that's a rant for another time.

As a DM, I am the opposite. I don't want min/maxing. I refuse to run for min/maxers/Char Ops players (as opposed to those that Char Op for theory to see how the system can be pushed and twisted, but don't play that way). There is a reason they had been considered a bane to the hobby and why we, now, get stuck with the 4e skill system with its overly broad skills, lack of skills like performance, and +1/2 per level bonus. I'd rather players create a character with varying ranks of skills to reflect their culture, hobbies, training (formal and/or informal) and develop characters organically. As a DM, I can always take into account their character's skills and proficiency when assigning challenges and their difficulties.

 

[Greg K]

Who's better - Bethoven or the Beatles? Elvis or Orpheus? More commonly in mythology you get stories like the story of Orpheus - where his songs were enough to soften Hades heart. It's normally about the right performance at the right time in the right way - and showing up with the wrong music for your target would fail utterly.

In my opinion, having situationally relevant skills or songs simply provide bonus modifiers( the wrong music would be a situational penalty). How well, you technically play or sing still has a lot to do with it. Show up with the right song and play or sing it poorly due to technical incompetence is probably not going to get a great reaction. Show up with music that is not inappropriate, you can still win over a hostile audience with a great performance based on your skill at singing or playing an instrument .

And, I would rather have the perform skill and switch the modifying ability score depending upon circumstances. I'd also allow perform to be substituted for intimidation in a musical competition.

 

[Ryujin]

Yes it does- meaning STILL that there is no concept of actual skill in the challenge- all PCs of like attribute and level are indistinguishable in their arrtistic endeavors (sticking with the cuttin' heads example). And that is contra to the nature of the challenge.

Contra to simulationism, which seems to be the direction that you were going, but as has been said so many times 4e isn't necessarily about simulationism ("I think anyone who plays an instrument (like I do), or crafts things (as I do) or cooks (as I do) can take a bit of umbrage at this.")

 

[Imaro]

Contra to simulationism, which seems to be the direction that you were going, but as has been said so many times 4e isn't necessarily about simulationism ("I think anyone who plays an instrument (like I do), or crafts things (as I do) or cooks (as I do) can take a bit of umbrage at this.")

I don't think this is necessarily about simulationism... I read very few, if any, narratives where everyone in a group of adventurers suddenly turns out to be great musicians when a musical challenge is encountered. I guess a case could be made for it being gamist, as in everyone has a fair shot at overcoming the challenge. YMMV of course.