You hate "munchkin"? Here's the term *I* hate!

[Tom Cashel]

It is perfectly 100% possible to integrate role-playing and rolling the dice. Especially in the d20 system. Just use the GMs impressions of how beleivable the portrayal is and use that as a modifier to the dice roll.

I think we're in agreement. Just pull back on the reins a bit, okay? You started a discussion...every single post is not necessarily directed at you. Just because I agreed with you doesn't mean that I'm saying you don't feel that way.

Jesus, there are some flaring tempers in this thread.

Look, if you're going to post about a term that irks you, why would you use perjorative terms like "drama queen" (which obviously irk other people) in the very same post?

Funny, I think you're missing your own point here.

Right back atcha.

 

[Dinkeldog]

How is this different from always making bad tactical decisions on the battlemap for each PC played, because the player is bad at tactics?

If you're as good an actor as you claim, you should be able to roleplay charisma less than your own, when you want to.

You have points Dinkeldog, and I agree with them, but I think that what makes sense with regards to mapping PC ability to player ability depends on what you focus on in particular.

Hey Rounser, I'm an excellent actor. I fooled the Navy and Marine Corps for 9 years, after all.

As for the first question, as DM, I stop the players when they're going to do something stupid that the character should know.

As for the roleplaying charisma, okay I wouldn't use it as a total dump stat, but I think you get the point. I wouldn't waste skill points somewhere that they're never going to get used.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think these are real issues that are worth struggling with. (And by "struggling," mind you, I don't mean, "making obnoxiously snide and sarcastic snipes at other posters.")

IMC, I have a player who really likes playing leaders. He really, really likes playing leaders. But his latest character has a charisma of 8, and we've been going back and forth on how to reconcile that with his vision of his character becoming a major leader.

I do require my players to talk in character, and don't accept excuses. I'll give bonuses to players who do a good job, but I'd only penalize a player who makes no effort.

Daniel

 

[Psion]

IMC, I have a player who really likes playing leaders. He really, really likes playing leaders. But his latest character has a charisma of 8, and we've been going back and forth on how to reconcile that with his vision of his character becoming a major leader.

Hmmm... methinks if he had a vision of being a great leader, he should not have allocated that 8 to charisma.

IMO, you cannot dismiss the players role in shaping the character. But you should not dismiss the character's statistics, either. In essence, I see the character as a conflation of the stats and the character as portrayed.

As dinkledog alludes to, it is not exactly fair to let a player who is smart and eloquent "bypass" allocating high stats to intelligence and charisma (putting them instead into other statistics) and minimize the effect of this decision by playing the character intelligently and charismatically. To me, that is poor role-playing in the same way that describing a character as "peaceful" and then playing him violently, or describing a character as "generous" and then playing the character as rather stingy. It's a dissonance between the character as conceived/designed and the character as played.

 

[Luscious Mageris]

I prefer "art-fag" and "dice-jock" myself. Less confusion

Daniel
art-fag extraordinaire

All I know is I would never call myself any kind of "fag" and roll playing is what its all about. Go play Vampire in the streets at midnight if you want to be an actor.

3E is a total hack oriented game anyway. When you can make your own magic items at 5th level- its got to be a power munchkin system.

 

[Henry]

Psion said:

Hmmm... methinks if he had a vision of being a great leader, he should not have allocated that 8 to charisma.

IMO, you cannot dismiss the players role in shaping the character. But you should not dismiss the character's statistics, either. In essence, I see the character as a conflation of the stats and the character as portrayed

However, I could also contend that there is nothing wrong with this PC still becoming a great leader. SKILLS can bypass this deficiency, if the player is willing to allocate into them. By making skills such as diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate his primary skills, the PC is overcoming their natural shortcomings to succeed.

I know in real life individuals who have a tendency toward bad attitudes and tempers, because they get fed up with "stupid" people, and people who do not agree with them. However, they have learned to overcome this natural tendency by working on their "people skills" and through this they excel. They do not do as well as those who are naturally receptive and charismatic, but they are able to work with people well.

My problem is also with players who pick a high score in a stat, spend no skill points in anything related in that stat, and then assume that they are as competent as someone who has spent lifetimes working on those things. If you really are a diplomat with an 18 charisma, then by golly they had better have spent more than one point on Diplomacy! A silver tongue doesn't work if you can't offer what the person really wants.

 

[LostSoul]

No? I've only read the first Dune book, the player knew more about him - I hear that he gets killed and cloned a lot, though! Come to think of it, that probably does imply something about his wisdom.

What was particularly unwise about him?

I think it has more to do with him hanging out with the Bene Gesserit and God-Emperors than anything else. When you're next to somebody with an 18 or 20 Wisdom, your 12 to 14 doesn't look so good.

Cool character concept. I think I see him as a Ranger/Fighter/Paladin.

 

[Katerek]

Roll-Player. Munchkin. Role-Player. Artfag/Dice Jock. Actor. Troupe. Rules Lawyer. Number Cruncher. Black T-Shirt Crowd. Hack Job. Vampire vs DnD. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Jeezus people. There is really only one label, if you think you need one, that fits ALL OF US.

DORK.

The fact that this thread exists, and this conversation has gone on SO OFTEN is a testimony to what a bunch of dorks we are.

Why label at all? It isn't like the gamer community doesn't have enough social stereo types that are less than positive without our own divisiveness making it worse.

I game with lots of folks. One guys works as a pipe fitter during the week and rides rodeo during on the weekends. Another is literally a nuclear engineers. We have our gamut of technophiles and software engineers. We have our share of Ren-festers. We have a guy that drives a bread truck, a guy that drives a UPS truck, a chick that works in marketing and advertising, and one guy that apparently does nothing.

Basically, we have a melting pot. We have thousands of differences, and under other "normal" circumstances we would never hang out. But once a week, we all come together, we aside our differences and relish in our dorkness.

Just get along folks.

 

[Psion]

3E is a total hack oriented game anyway. When you can make your own magic items at 5th level- its got to be a power munchkin system.

I'm wondering whether to dismiss you as a troll, or flame you. I'll go the middle ground and just say that I think you are wrong.

3e can and is played with much roleplaying, depending on the desires of the group. Further, this mode of play in NOT just something the group has to add; it is supported in the books. For examples, see this post on RPGnet:

http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=5&i=61889&t=61846

Now it that is not the way you play, and you don't want to play that way, then more power to you. But to say that D&D is a "total hack oriented game" is outright wrong.

 

[Psion]

However, I could also contend that there is nothing wrong with this PC still becoming a great leader. SKILLS can bypass this deficiency, if the player is willing to allocate into them. By making skills such as diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate his primary skills, the PC is overcoming their natural shortcomings to succeed.

I know in real life individuals who have a tendency toward bad attitudes and tempers, because they get fed up with "stupid" people, and people who do not agree with them. However, they have learned to overcome this natural tendency by working on their "people skills" and through this they excel. They do not do as well as those who are naturally receptive and charismatic, but they are able to work with people well.

My problem is also with players who pick a high score in a stat, spend no skill points in anything related in that stat, and then assume that they are as competent as someone who has spent lifetimes working on those things.

Well spoken... er, written. I agree.