In response to boredgremlin:
boredgremlin said:
Gamer 1- he wanted to make a general based on spartacus. Unfortunately diplomacy and bluff suck for fighters. So his fighter had no chance to talk decently, and when he was talking to someone his sense motive sucked. So it was virtually impossible to turn a fighter into a rebel rousing, loyalty inspiring Spartacus.
He needed diplomacy, bluff, sense motive and knowledge (military tactics) to be a believable slave freeing Spartacus. Unfortunately 2 skillpoints per level and most of those being non class skills rendered Spartacus impossible to believably achieve as a fighter. Neither ranger nor palidan made sense so Spartacus was clearly impossible to have ever existed as a character.
Clearly, a charismatic and inspiring general, such as Spartacus, is probably not a pure and unmodified PHB Fighter. Personally, I am fond of the modifying character classes guidelines on page 174 of the DMG and of the multiclassing options available. For modifying the fighter class, I would probably just substitute out several class skills to create a set closer to what the player wants. I can't see this being much of a balance issue. To address the issue of number of skill points per level, I might recommend a great strategist like Spartacus should probably have an above-average Intelligence. With an Int of 14, a human fighter-based class would have 5 skill points per level. That's enough to keep all of the skills you mentioned at their maximum level, plus have one extra to fill in other details.
If modifying the core fighter is unattractive, then multiclassing might be the way to go, and there are a few options. Sticking with just core rules, a Spartacus-like character could be easily modeled by taking an occasional level of Aristocrat or Expert to fill in the skills required. I'm also sure that there are a number of prestige classes that would work. ("Spartacus" is probably not a first level character concept, anyway. He went through a soldier phase, became a gladiator, then did the rebellion and leadership thing. At least one interpretation of this might be several levels of fighter, then a different class.) If we go beyond core rules, a Marshall seems just perfect for the Spartacus role, either as a single class or mixed with fighter.
boredgremlin said:
Gamer 2- wanted to be an army ranger type character. It was medieval but he was a hardcase professional elvish soldier who hated magic and thought it was corrupting his people. Having some expertise in the area i told him he needed wilderness surival, weapons skills and great physical prowess.
Unfortunately this meant he needed wilderness lore, spot, listen, search, ride and handle animal to be a believable ranger in a fantasy setting. Of course the fighters 2 skill pts dont add up to be anyone decent at anything, so his very cool layout of a magic hating zealot who did all he could to protect his home got FUBAR'D into a non magical ranger variant from the unearthed arcana that we both hated.
Once again, probably not a pure, unmodified PHB Fighter or Ranger. (And yes, the variant in UA is less-than-great.) For a single class option, I'll throw in another recommendation for modifying the fighter, this time probably including dropping half of the bonus feats and maybe heavy armor proficiency for double or triple the skill points and a more aptly suited skill list. Similarly, you could take the ranger and exchange the spells for a number of bonus feats (like every 3rd or 4th level). On the multiclassing front, I recommend an even split of Fighter/Rogue. (Fighter/Expert would be okay, but Army Rangers act sufficiently like rogues, and rogues are strictly better than experts.) Venturing outside of core, I'd say Scout is another good choice (either with or without Fighter levels), too.
In neither case did d20 or D&D kill the concept. Trying to shoehorn a concept into an inappropriate (when unmodified) core class might have, but a little creativity (in modifying classes or in multiclassing) or research (into non-core options) goes a long way in making concepts work.
boredgremlin said:
I knew D20 was crap when i saw the bluff and diplomacy skills way back when. Any game that takes role playing and reduces it to rolling a D20 with a few modifiers has completely failed and killed real RP.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the Storytelling system has a Manipulation attribute and social skills of Intimidation, Persuasion, and Subterfuge. The only thing that would have to change for your quote to apply to White Wolf's system would be to change "a D20 with a few modifiers" to "a handful of d10s". Even the social combat system from Exalted 2nd Edition does not necessitate any immersion or story-driven dialogue on the part of the players (though it is somewhat encouraged via the stunt rules). The requirement to present immersive conversation is largely separate from the mechanics of resolution in both the storytelling system and in d20.
As an aside, what I found difficult about Exalted was the tendency to have the players' choices for character actions co-opted by the mechanics for Virtues. If someone challenges a character to a fight, they have to fail a Valor roll (roll a handful of d10s) to refuse. This seems to be the case regardless of their other virtues (my compassion for not beating a person senseless, my sense of conviction that my current mission is more important, or my temperance--which represents self-control and resistance to thoughtless impulse). Similar arguments apply to other virtues and actions. It doesn't seem that the new Virtue/Vice system is at all similar to that, though. It seems to exist as a way to recover Willpower, based on several subjective decisions from the ST (the opportunity to be present, the degree of severity of the "cost" to yourself or others, etc.).
boredgremlin said:
I forgot to mention that 3e has discouraged most new players i have dealt with. They galme a session or two, see a rules lawyer beat them badly in a competive sense and ask why. My response as a DM? He bought the 40$ book and read it cover to cover a few times to find every tiny rule he could game into a numbers advantage.
So if you want to keep up with the power gamer o newbie you must take home this book and read it cover to cover a few times and take good notes..... How many played more then 3 sessions? 25%.
That seems to me to be somewhat an exercise in hyperbole. The degree of difference between an optimized, tricked out character and one that is merely competently designed is typically much smaller than the range of randomness of the d20, especially at low or middle levels. (Assuming, of course, the competition is not, say, a foot race between a human barbarian in a chain shirt and a gnome fighter in banded mail or a sneaking contest between an leather-wearing halfling rogue and that same fighter.) I really hope that no one recommends to any new player that reading and studying books is the key to rewarding gaming, especially using such dismissive terms as "newbie." I would actually be surprised that 25% returned, if that were the case.
A better tactic might be to just show them the difference in the bonuses and how the new player could achieve similar scores. Another way to encourage the new players might be to point out the areas where the specialized character has fewer advantages over their character. (Often in d20, when one character can do something really well, to the point that they can "beat [another character] badly in a competitive sense," they are very specialized in that area.) For a human fighter vs. a half-orc barbarian, for instance, the raging half-orc can hit much harder, but has limited rages/day and each is of a limited duration. The fighter is more consistent and has a better AC. Another area might be some of the convolutions players go through to raise AC; they often neglect offense or other areas.
boredgremlin said:
They dont have to read and memorize hundreds of pages or spend hundreds of dollars on optional books to keep up. Newbies in a rules lite system can just walk in with an idea and thier RP concept and play a good solid game where they are fairly balanced with even the veterans.
On this, I can somewhat agree. The disconnect with rules-light games is not usually the balance between characters built by novices vs. those built by veterans (though that can still come up). One disconnect can be the difficulty in establishing the meaningful mechanical differences (in a system-supported manner) between two distinct concepts (a fencer vs. a more well-rounded warrior, for instance). Another is, as mentioned upthread, the fuzziness of how actions will be resolved.
Some players want to be comfortable and familiar with what actions they can undertake and the resolution for those actions. For example, suppose a character wants to leap atop a table during a bar fight. In D&D, it's an easy jump check (DC: 10) that is equivalent to moving 10 ft and that gives a +1 bonus for fighting from higher ground. In a rules light system, one GM might allow it, but ignore it for task resolution; another might have the character make an roll on one ability to get a bonus in the fight (like D&D); a third might throw obstacle after obstacle at the character (did you roll to jump, to balance, to avoid tripping over the stuff on the table, etc.) and give no advantage (no, the jumping was your action); and yet another might just give a bonus at no cost (like the stunt system for Exalted) just for the panache (or description/interaction with environment).
As far as character creation goes, I find the biggest barrier to most people is the fact that their concept is not suitable for a particular (low) level. In some games (usually point-buy), you make the character you want to play and, if you have enough points, you can start just how you envision the character. In D&D, you figure out what you want to play and then determine how best to get there. This is similar, but not identical, to the "plot out your character from levels 1-20 and beyond" mentality; the difference is the point to which you pre-plan the character. I find D&D characters become viable as heroic concepts about 5th-13th level. I plan that far, but let the character develop more organically after I have met my goal.
For the Spartacus example, above, I'd certainly plan out my character to the point where the mechanics of the game support my ability to talk an unfriendly person into being friendly on a reliable basis (whether through the Diplomacy DCs in the PHB or with Manipulation + Persuasion in ST or through social combat in Exalted). In D&D, I'd be sure to take the Leadership feat (and perform actions that raised my score, too), while in ST or Exalted, I'd take (or aim to buy with experience) the Backgrounds (Merits) that support a group of warriors that follow my orders. I would also be certain to have a well-skilled warrior as the base for the character. In any game, I'd try to immerse myself into the situations and come up with good dialogue for why it would be good to follow me into battle. I'd also be sure to display my concern for my men.
____________________________________________________
To directly address the original post, the amount of cognitive energy that is devoted to the system (mechanics) does necessarily reduce the amount of cognitive energy available for storytelling and immersion. If the total cognitive energy required for both parts of the roleplaying experience is more than what is currently available, each person or group will make choices as to which is more worthy of their attention and energy. Keep in mind, though, that some people may have to invest cognitive energy into ignoring "fuzziness" in a rules-light system, so immersion may suffer there, as well. The main thing is to invest your energy in a manner that is enjoyable, and it seems that you are doing so. That is something that I, personally, applaud.
