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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 1544766" data-attributes="member: 463">(Warning: gonna use Ron Edwards G/N/S words now)  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> No, we're just playing a Gamist, success-oriented game, which is what D&D does best.  I'm no Simulationist player interested only in exploring the State of Being an angst-ridden vampire (or elf) - I like to 'step on up' and crush the orcs, whether by my mighty sword (hi Hong!) or a bit of dirty-Harry style "Feeling lucky, punk?" Intimidation (roleplay backed up by points in Intimidate skill, and hopefully a good roll!).From stuff you've said here & elsewhere takyris it seems to me you're probably an excellent GM with an uncommonly good grasp of the rules and the writers' intent, although personally I would never use the "play out the dice roll" approach you advocate, which I don't think was the intended approach of Tweet & co (though I could be wrong). I don't want to come across as a 'role-wimp' - in fact I left (A)D&D during 2e, I found its "Sim-drifted" style unsatisfying.  I much preferred the pure Gamism of 1e. In 1e though, although most games revolved around killing things and taking their stuff, the idea that social interaction could be resolved purely with a die-roll, without roleplay, didn't exist.  Sure you could kill the Wizard, BUT if you wanted to talk to the wizard you _had_ to roleplay it!Edwards and co at the Forge think that the more mechanics you have for something, the more you encourage it (same as w reward mechanism).  So lots of combat rules = lots of combat, lots of roleplay rules = lots of roleplaying.  I disagree w the latter analysis; in-character roleplaying in my experience, because the players can do it themselves (unlike combat or spellcasting) is an area that doesn't _need_ rules at all.  Most of the PBEMs I've run only had rules for combat & other physical actions, yet were 99% roleplaying to 1% hack & slash - the PBEM format encouraged that, the absence of rules didn't discourage it.Does that mean that having rules for character interaction (Diplomacy, Bluff etc skills) is a bad thing?  I think, not necessarily.  I believe it _can_ encourage people not only to 1) roleplay in-character, but 2) to play characters distinctly different from themselvesThose are two different things!  In 1e we routinely role-played in-character, but usually our characters were ourselves (or occasionally an alcoholic dwarf).  3e does seem to encourage (2), the playing of characters different from ourselves, which is what a lot of people seem to mean when they claim 3e promotes roleplaying - the unpleasant, unlikable player can now play the charming charismatic bard. But 3e encourages this playing of unlike-characters partly by enabling  an approach where players don't do (1) at all!I like (2), it's cool, but (1) is much more important to me.  Given a choice between them I choose (1).</blockquote>

Verification