D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Staffan]

You're assuming larger parties include larger groups of players. There's nothing stopping people from playing more than one character each. Its more of a challenge in the modern game(s), but its not undoable.

With any game I'm interested in playing, I have enough on my mind (both mechanics- and roleplay-wise) running one character to be interested in running two or more.

 

[Lanefan]

Isn't this exactly the kind of ex post facto thinking that gets criticised in other contexts? 'Oh you rolled a 20, uhhh a whole encounter you had last night with some previously unmentioned NPCs now pops into existence'. This is quantum ogres all the way down. As a player I don't know for sure what my character did last night or what topics they have knowledge of until the dice tell me that an event or explanation of understanding must now be created in retrospect. Awful game design.

True, the "Barbarian in the bar last night" example isn't a great one.

However, we don't play out every second of our characters' lives, particularly that part which came before the start of their adventuring careers (which for long-lived species can represent a lot of years!). That's what the roll covers:

1 - by sheer chance have you happened across this bit of info at some non-played point in your life and
2 - do you happen to be able to remember it right now.

Given that we've all in real life learned all sorts of things, different to each of us, that we may or may not remember (or remember accurately) if asked about them right this minute, this abstraction seems quite believable.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with this is it turns into a degenerate case where the roll is almost pointless a lot of time because ot the probabilities of die rolls (and its even worse with linear rolls like a D20).

The key words there is "almost". Most of the time it's pointless and then just that key once, it isn't; which makes all the other times worthwhile (c.f. lottery tickets).

 

[TheSword]

I find that a little tautological: "We need skill systems so that people will have an incentive to invest in skills."

Rolling dice and gittin gud is fun. It is enjoyably in and of itself.

I agree, but you don't need a skill system to do that.

Chance is better when it’s random. Chance is less impressive when they DM has decided it.

I always tell players DCs, so they have a choice of whether or not to attempt something. (Of course, that requires consequences for failure, which I find very difficult to define for "do I know?" queries, which is why I don't use knowledge checks, etc. etc. etc.)

In any event, I as GM have no problem telling players how obscure a piece of knowledge is, especially if it's in an area where their character has some amount of expertise.

Sure, and to be clear it’s rare to hear me say this but the DM doesn’t need to do that. It’s more natural to let the other players interpret it themselves.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I was assuming that, because that's all you described: sailing across water.

The point I'm making is that if it was a deliberate choice to choose sailing over another option then, yes, the players should be weighing the risks/rewards of both (many?) options.

But if it's just something they need to do in order to continue the adventure, then they aren't really making a choice, even if they "elect" to do it. Any more than I'm choosing which card to play next in the card game War.

Forcing a dice roll with potential consequences in that case is not really "playing a game", it's just imposing simulationism.

First off, simulationism for some IS the game.

Second off, if the adventure requires them to get to an island then one of the obvious challenges is to figure out how to get there.

Take this sailboat someone's conveniently left here? Risky if we don't know how to sail, but fast and safe if we do
Chop down some trees and build a raft? Time-consuming to build and slow on the water, but safe
Use a water-walking spell or ability? Safe if the water is smooth, but it does mean splitting the party while the "ferry" gets everyone across (ditto, often, for flight)
Go back to town and hire a sailor to operate this conveniently-placed sailboat? Time-consuming but very safe.
Swim? Not bloody likely!

One could argue that "playing the game" involves some amount of being subjected to simulationism, but why? Why not excise those parts? We all have a finite amount of game time; I'd rather spend those precious minutes having players make interesting decisions.

Game time is never finite unless you're getting very old or have a poor lifespan prognosis. There's always another session, and another after that, and.....

My inclination there is to narrate past the uninteresting part. "Yes, you can take the sailboat across the lake. None of you know how to sail so there's a bit of comedy on the way, but you get there, noticeably more damp than before you embarked."

Again, play time is precious. I want to save it for the good stuff.

Except that "bit of comedy" could outright kill a character and will highly likely cause them to burn through some resources.

Play it out.

 

[soviet]

True, the "Barbarian in the bar last night" example isn't a great one.

However, we don't play out every second of our characters' lives, particularly that part which came before the start of their adventuring careers (which for long-lived species can represent a lot of years!). That's what the roll covers:

1 - by sheer chance have you happened across this bit of info at some non-played point in your life and
2 - do you happen to be able to remember it right now.

Given that we've all in real life learned all sorts of things, different to each of us, that we may or may not remember (or remember accurately) if asked about them right this minute, this abstraction seems quite believable.

No, rolling to see who knows the thing is still bad play. Let the players decide if they know the thing. Or have the GM decide who knows the thing. Or don't even have 'who knows the thing' be a conflict at all.

i have never spontaneously just had information appear in my head.

 

[Maxperson]

If you don't want to sling spells or have built-in supernatural powers, you're basically stuck choosing between "Fighter" and "Rogue." If that's going to be the case, I contend that the first needs to be more versatile to give proper representation to its archetypal fictional examples.

Give them the Skilled feat for free sometime in the first three levels.

 

[TheSword]

No, rolling to see who knows the thing is still bad play. Let the players decide if they know the thing. Or have the GM decide who knows the thing. Or don't even have 'who knows the thing' be a conflict at all.

i have never spontaneously just had information appear in my head.

I think you’re missing an option…

That the level of detail increases the higher the result.

Knowledge doesn’t have to be binary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

With any game I'm interested in playing, I have enough on my mind (both mechanics- and roleplay-wise) running one character to be interested in running two or more.

That's you though, not a universalization. I'm going to go as far as to say in the vast majority of games, anyone who can GM the game can also run two characters in it as a player.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The key words there is "almost". Most of the time it's pointless and then just that key once, it isn't; which makes all the other times worthwhile (c.f. lottery tickets).

I'll be blunt; I've never seen that true. One random failure in 40 rolls is not worthwhile.