Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5575281" data-attributes="member: 87792">Not at all.And that is a fundamentally boring question.&nbsp; It's a binary&nbsp; question.&nbsp; Can they play or can they not play.&nbsp; Yes or no.&nbsp; Pass/Fail.&nbsp;&nbsp; Simply rolling a perform check sucks.&nbsp; What matters is what you&nbsp; perform, how you perform, and how you got into the mess where you needed&nbsp; to.&nbsp; A &quot;roll one dice&quot; resolution simply isn't interesting from a game&nbsp; point of view.As for bluff, take acting.&nbsp; You think that the&nbsp; ability to make someone believe something implausible isn't the core of&nbsp; acting?&nbsp; You think making them &nbsp;If you think that comics don't make use of the intimidate skill&nbsp; while on stage, you've been listening to a lot milder comedy than I&nbsp; have.&nbsp; If you think that making the villain truly scary in a play isn't&nbsp; intimidating, why not?The trouble with 3.X&nbsp; this way was that there were 36 skills or skill categories (not&nbsp; separating perform skills, knowledge skills, craft skills, etc.)&nbsp; And&nbsp; even rogues only ever learened a fraction of those skills.&nbsp; Which meant&nbsp; it determined what you couldn't do at least as much as what you could.&nbsp;It's IMO better design than doing them badly - as 3.X does.&nbsp; (2e does them terribly with NWPs).&nbsp; And to do them well&nbsp; would take huge changes to the game - something like full scale social&nbsp; combat rules a la Spirit of the Century or Dogs in the Vineyard.That's one on my&nbsp; list, not one on yours.&nbsp; Making someone laugh is not a straight matter&nbsp; of technique and performance.&nbsp; What does this person find funny is the&nbsp; core question for a single person.&nbsp; It's not a simple perform check.&nbsp; At&nbsp; least not unless you want the whole thing to be tedious. Crossroads&nbsp; scenarios are common in myth.&nbsp; They all have something in common.&nbsp; The&nbsp; challenge at the crossroads is what the challenged person is best&nbsp; at.&nbsp; If the person is primarily a musician they get challenged as such.&nbsp; If they are an adventurer they will be challenged to that.Again, Scheherezade was not an adventurer.&nbsp; If she'd been a rogue,&nbsp; either the king would have wound up dead or she'd have simply escaped.&nbsp;&nbsp; But she wasn't.&nbsp; She used the only skills she had - a huge knowledge of&nbsp; history and the ability to tell stories.And I really do&nbsp; not think that rolling 1000 perform checks (one for every night) is&nbsp; anything other than a joke if you're trying to do the story of&nbsp; Scheherezade.She is also not able to take any PC class - all are&nbsp; too combat focussed.&nbsp; In 3e terms she's either an expert or a&nbsp; commoner.&nbsp; (Fortunately 4e allows seeming non-combatants as lazy&nbsp; warlords, implement-bards or even at times feylocks).But apparently you miss one important part of the trope.&nbsp; It is the primary area of specialisation&nbsp; that is always challenged.&nbsp; Knights get challenged to a joust.&nbsp;&nbsp; Tricksters to riddles.&nbsp; Musicians to music.&nbsp; And adventurers?&nbsp; Either by&nbsp; a party of adventurers or to a dungeon.Until this game stops&nbsp; being called Dungeons and Dragons and becomes Choirs and Chamber&nbsp; Orchestras, the expected challenge at a crossroads is not going&nbsp; to be a musical showdown.&nbsp; And a musical showdown will not fit the myth&nbsp; until we get characters who get their experience from music.Further,&nbsp; this sort of challenge is almost always solo.&nbsp; Your desire to have your&nbsp; musician challenged at the crossroads is a desire to have the&nbsp; non-musical 80% of the party sitting on their backsides, watching you&nbsp; take over the plot.&nbsp; It's a one on one story - further rendering it&nbsp; unsuitable for D&amp;D.As I said above, if you want to run that&nbsp; sort of duel, D&amp;D (any edition) is fundamentally the wrong system to&nbsp; do it in.&nbsp; A hacked version of Dogs in the Vineyard would probably be&nbsp; great for just about any duel - but the ability to devolve the whole&nbsp; thing to a single die roll just makes things worse.I'm&nbsp; sorry.&nbsp; Why is this relevant?&nbsp; Some of my characters are musicians and&nbsp; storytellers.&nbsp; Others aren't.&nbsp; But these are side-skills.&nbsp; Everyone has&nbsp; side-skills.&nbsp; And any attempt to write all of them down is going to lock&nbsp; people who don't have them written down out of their skills.Complete and utter nonsense.&nbsp; By eliminating those skills, I am allowing&nbsp; well rounded artist/adventurers.&nbsp; Even as fighters.&nbsp; 2+Int skill points&nbsp; is barely enough to allow a fighter to be an athlete.&nbsp; And if the&nbsp; skills are there and you don't have them, you can't do it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Skills indicate what you can't do as much as you can.&nbsp; If you need&nbsp; flower arranging, tea ceremony, an instrument, and a knowledge of&nbsp; heraldry to be a well rounded member of society you can barely do it in&nbsp; 3.X.Also you don't eliminate the possibility.&nbsp; Because what's&nbsp; important to the story isn't the sculpture, it's the what/how.&nbsp; Whether&nbsp; you succeed or not at building a sculpture isn't the important part.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's just a lump of rock.But the abstract skill isn't important.&nbsp; It's a d20 roll.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fundamentally boring.&nbsp; It's the what and the how that matter.&nbsp; If I&nbsp; actually wanted to run a duel at the crossroads on a skill, I'd put away&nbsp; my D&amp;D for a while - and break out Dogs in the Vineyard.&nbsp; It is&nbsp; perfect for duels of any kind in a way D&amp;D never has been.As for Iamaro's 'flags', I normally sort that out by talking to the DM.&nbsp; Or talking to my players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5575281, member: 87792"] Not at all. And that is a fundamentally boring question. It's a binary question. Can they play or can they not play. Yes or no. Pass/Fail. Simply rolling a perform check [I]sucks[/I]. What matters is what you perform, how you perform, and how you got into the mess where you needed to. A "roll one dice" resolution simply isn't interesting from a game point of view. As for bluff, take acting. You think that the ability to make someone believe something implausible isn't the core of acting? You think making them If you think that comics don't make use of the intimidate skill while on stage, you've been listening to a lot milder comedy than I have. If you think that making the villain truly scary in a play isn't intimidating, why not? The trouble with 3.X this way was that there were 36 skills or skill categories (not separating perform skills, knowledge skills, craft skills, etc.) And even rogues only ever learened a fraction of those skills. Which meant it determined what you [I]couldn't[/I] do at least as much as what you could. It's IMO better design than doing them [I]badly[/I] - as 3.X does. (2e does them [I]terribly[/I] with NWPs). And to do them [I]well[/I] would take huge changes to the game - something like full scale social combat rules a la Spirit of the Century or Dogs in the Vineyard. That's one on [I]my[/I] list, not one on yours. Making someone laugh is not a straight matter of technique and performance. What does this person find funny is the core question for a single person. It's not a simple perform check. At least not unless you want the whole thing to be tedious. Crossroads scenarios are common in myth. They all have something in common. The challenge at the crossroads is what the challenged person is [I]best[/I] at. If the person is primarily a musician they get challenged as such. If they are an adventurer they will be challenged to that. Again, Scheherezade was not an adventurer. If she'd been a rogue, either the king would have wound up dead or she'd have simply escaped. But she wasn't. She used the only skills she had - a huge knowledge of history and the ability to tell stories. And I [I]really[/I] do not think that rolling 1000 perform checks (one for every night) is anything other than a joke if you're trying to do the story of Scheherezade. She is also not able to take any PC class - all are too combat focussed. In 3e terms she's either an expert or a commoner. (Fortunately 4e allows seeming non-combatants as lazy warlords, implement-bards or even at times feylocks). But apparently you miss one important part of the trope. It is the [I]primary area of specialisation[/I] that is always challenged. Knights get challenged to a joust. Tricksters to riddles. Musicians to music. And adventurers? Either by a party of adventurers or to a dungeon. Until this game stops being called Dungeons and Dragons and becomes Choirs and Chamber Orchestras, the expected challenge at a crossroads is [I]not[/I] going to be a musical showdown. And a musical showdown will not fit the myth until we get characters who get their experience from music. Further, this sort of challenge is almost always solo. Your desire to have your musician challenged at the crossroads is a desire to have the non-musical 80% of the party sitting on their backsides, watching you take over the plot. It's a one on one story - further rendering it unsuitable for D&D. As I said above, if you want to run that sort of duel, D&D (any edition) is fundamentally the wrong system to do it in. A hacked version of Dogs in the Vineyard would probably be great for just about any duel - but the ability to devolve the whole thing to a single die roll just makes things worse. I'm sorry. Why is this relevant? Some of my characters are musicians and storytellers. Others aren't. But these are side-skills. Everyone has side-skills. And any attempt to write all of them down is going to lock people who don't have them written down out of their skills. Complete and utter nonsense. By eliminating those skills, I am [I]allowing[/I] well rounded artist/adventurers. Even as fighters. 2+Int skill points is barely enough to allow a fighter to be an athlete. And if the skills are there and you don't have them, [I]you can't do it[/I]. Skills indicate what you can't do as much as you can. If you need flower arranging, tea ceremony, an instrument, and a knowledge of heraldry to be a well rounded member of society you can barely do it in 3.X. Also you don't eliminate the possibility. Because what's important to the story isn't the sculpture, it's the what/how. Whether you succeed or not at building a sculpture isn't the important part. It's just a lump of rock. But the abstract skill isn't important. It's a d20 roll. Fundamentally boring. It's the what and the how that matter. If I actually wanted to run a duel at the crossroads on a skill, I'd put away my D&D for a while - and break out Dogs in the Vineyard. It is perfect for duels of any kind in a way D&D never has been. As for Iamaro's 'flags', I normally sort that out by [I]talking to the DM[/I]. Or [I]talking to my players.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification