Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3687631" data-attributes="member: 1003">Reading the above threads, I think the problem currently being discussed is that players who learned D&D in the OD&D -- AD&D days learned with a system that (on paper) generated woefully incomplete persons.  They thus learned to make PC's where a PC's character sheet was only a single facet of who the character was.  There was no skill system until Non-Weapon Proficiencies, and that system was so absurd as to be ignored.  One look at it and you had to immediately conclude "This can't be all my character knows, so it must be only the stuff I'm really good at."  You would then mentally fill in the gaps, just like SHARK did in his examples.  Since there was no codified way of writing these things down (other than with a narrative type character history), you were forced to "wing it", as in SHARK's examples.  The character sheet was "spells & combat stuff only."3e attempted to provide a system for generating more feature-complete characters, and it did so successfully.  Now you know exactly how good your character is at Intimidation relative to the other PC's and the public generally.  It also is good enough, and complete enough, to "trick" people into thinking that their character classes and levels are a definitive record of who their PC "is".  There's nothing else.  If it's not on the page, you can't do it (or you can, but you provoke an AOO <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />).The "new" problem is that the class & level system does not accurately model how people actually learn stuff (I say "new" in quotes because it's not a new problem at all - class and level has never accurately represented how people learn, but because of the change discussed above class and level is the new constraint* on roleplaying).  In "real life" there is no link between fighting skill and how good a swimmer you are (as a lifeguard who never got past yellow-belt in Tae Kwon Do, I am living proof of this).  The problem that SHARK is alluding to is that many people (particular older players who are not used to being skill-limited by their character class and level) want to make characters that know more stuff, without actually being better fighters.  I think a fairly simple House Rule that allowed for skill acquisition independent of level advancement would address SHARK's need for flexibility while also addressing Patryn of Elvenshae's and Doug McCrae's concerns about "making stuff up as you go along."  The example of SHARK's noble-fighter could be simply addressed by a higher starting age in exchange for some "free" skill points to distribute to Diplomacy, Knowledge (Nobility) and the like.  This would reflect the time spent on his noble education.  A house rule like this is necessary because of 3e's multi-classing rules. It simply is the case that taking levels in NPC classes such as Expert or Noble is a sub-optimal choice, but given the RAW, that's currently the only avenue open to you if you want more skills than your adventuring-class level otherwise qualifies you for.Thus, the rules have evolved to increase the "completeness" of your character sheet, such that it is now a more accurate description of what your PC is (the "roll player"), but simultaneously it has been revealed to be an inaccurate description of what a real person (the "role player") could/ would/ should look like (because the false link between the class & level mechanic and the skill sub-system are the new constraint on roleplaying).* - This is a term of art. Search WikiPedia for the Theory of Constraints to get a fuller grasp on what I mean.</blockquote>

Verification