So at the level that the party is ready to fight eleven-headed hydras and adult white dragons, the Rogue has access to the advanced talent "Rumor Monger" which gives the following benefit:
---
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can attempt to spread a rumor through a small town or larger settlement by making a Bluff check. She can do so a number of times per week equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0). The DC is based on the size of the settlement, and it takes a week for the rumor to propagate through the settlement. If the check succeeds, the rumor is practically accepted as fact within the community; succeeding by 5 or more over the DC decreases the time it takes the rumor to propagate by 1d4 days. A failed check means the rumor failed to gain traction, while failing by 5 or more causes the opposite of the rumor or some other competing theory involving the rumor’s subject to take hold.
---
Ok, so... what are the mechanics for spreading rumors for the 9 levels before Rogues get rumor monger?
Allow the check, but without the "succeed/fail by 5". Just make it pass or fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the problem with post 2nd Ed - GM's get stuck on 'Rules, not rulings'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh no, one person had a problem? That must be indicative of a widespread epidemic! And no one in 2nd ed or before ever had that problem, oh no!
On-topic, roleplaying, mostly. I'm fairly sure that talent is there to give a basis for such things. Personally, I wouldn't require that talent at all, and only use it for the "succeed by 5 or more" bit.
Yeah that's it Ipslore, one person ever.
Previously it was the problem of having to make rulings in place of rules, now its people stuck on needing a specific rule for everything.
/slow clap.
Cool article :)
I think the issue stems with people now wanting/needing rules for everything, hence we get Feats for things people can already do (like Prone Shooter), and people asking how to spread a rumour.
I like the modern consistency, but like GM's to be able to navigate reasonably when it comes to unsignposted territory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with the Alexandrian rebuttal of Rules vs Rulings should be obvious to anyone who reads it:
In the "old school" style, there is a very concrete connection between the actions of the player and the result. Pouring water in the cracks finds the pit trap.
In the "new school" style, there is very little connection between the actions of the player and the result. Pouring water in the cracks merely results in a new search roll with a circumstance bonus. You might still roll a 1 though, and if that happens, your ingenious plan was quite irrelevant. The player might as well have just said "I search again".
In other words, the scheme to pour water in the cracks to find the trap is more or less only fluff in the "new school" style, whereas in the "old school" style it is essential to finding the trap. The primary difference between Old school and New school then, is that in one case "finding the right solution to the problem" is the resolution mechanic, whereas in the other "rolling high enough to beat the DC" is the resolution mechanic.
In the first case, judicious use of DM fiat helps ensure that a logical and satisfying result follows from the players' very sensible actions, whereas in the second case the rolling of "checks" serves to potentially undermine good decisions on the part of the player.
Now, I am certainly not an "old school" gamer, but I do see the wisdom of a using a rulings over rules mentality when appropriate. If a player were so creative as to come up with the water in the cracks thing, I'd probably let them find the trap without a check. I believe this creates a more satisfying result for the players, and allows them to feel as if their choices actually have a significant impact on the game world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I use Diplomacy on him".
Well, the hardest lesson to learn as a GM is that you don't need any rules at all. After that, being able to pick and choose the rules you need versus the rules you don't is a sign of skilled GMing.
Agreed 100%.
In my opinion, the inclusion of player options like Rumour Monger only serves to muddy the waters and make the DM's job more difficult. Frankly, I would probably let the player spread the rumour without even having to make a check, let alone taking a talent, if the scheme they came up with was convincing enough. If they don't have a good scheme, I might require a check. If they have no scheme at all, and they instead say "I want to spread a rumour" without further explanation, I would probably not even let them make a check and would instead ask them to elaborate.
I certainly would not require them to take a talent though.
I view this talent as a complete waste of space. In my ideal game (and I guess this is a very subjective opinion), player options would not be muddied up with trash like this. But I guess it might work well for someone else's game...
"I use Diplomacy on him".
Lol!
I am the only one that have the feeling that the op was not a serious question? but something more like, "hey this rogue talent sucks"
I think if you read the rest of the thread, you will find that you are not the only with that feeling...
Cool article :)
I think the issue stems with people now wanting/needing rules for everything, hence we get Feats for things people can already do (like Prone Shooter), and people asking how to spread a rumour.
I like the modern consistency, but like GM's to be able to navigate reasonably when it comes to unsignposted territory.
This design attitude with Feats is really detrimental to the game in general because Feat creep has the effect of reducing creativity. Every time a feat is released to let you do something, even if it looks really cool on paper, that is one more thing that most characters suddenly now cannot do. This also happens because of class features (the Duelist's Acrobatic Charge is an especially egregious offender). This got really bad by the end of 3.5 with feats all of a sudden for things like customizing the look of your spells.
Good DMing is the ability to know when RAW is stupid and adjust it accordingly. Aka play via rulings rather than rules. This kind of thing also happens to be the root of my biggest beefs with PFS play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the problem with post 2nd Ed - GM's get stuck on 'Rules, not rulings'.
No, this is the problem with professional writers in an industry with very little money going through it.
The writers and editorial staff like to eat food and live in houses. So, Paizo publishes a steady stream of supplements. And they can't afford to have a couple of skilled rules guys go over everything, and they can't afford to throw out all the things that those rules guys would nix.
And that's why we get utter s%&$ like "rumor monger" and the titan maulers "massive weapons" - an ability that doesn't do what the author intended, because said author didn't check the rules for oversized weapons and nobody checked his work and caught it.
There's very little money in the industry, and the people who work for Paizo are not "rules guys", they are mostly storytellers. So the rules we get...need some finishing touches.
But, I enjoy playing characters that have abilities. I enjoy making plans, and that requires the ability to assess the odds beforehand. I like to know if my character is any good at fighting grappling monsters - which is something I can know, because grappling rules are a thing, unlike 2nd edition, where every f%&%ing grapplemonster had it's own grappling rules.
Ok, so... what are the mechanics for spreading rumors for the 9 levels before Rogues get rumor monger?
The mechanics are:
1 You roleplay spreading the rumors in the tavern or whatever.
2 Depending on whether the rumors are true or fabricated, you make a diplomacy or bluff check. The GM should set the DC and make a hidden roll for you.
|
I am the only one that have the feeling that the op was not a serious question? but something more like, "hey this rogue talent sucks"
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
My default joke when someone defends the Rogue is this (advanced) talent.
Maybe someone was wondering how to spread a rumor by mechanics (since it'd be some kind of diplo/bluff check), but by bringing up the Rogue's Advance Talent, it's really more lampshading the entire concept.
There's no mechanic. You just do it.
The presence of the Rumor Monger ability means some rogues are simply really good at it, not that nobody else can try it.
Ok, so... what are the mechanics for spreading rumors for the 9 levels before Rogues get rumor monger?
Well, unless your a charlatan, clearly you never got the ability to spread rumors in the first place, as did no one else in the world unless they were a rogue who took this talent.
Alternatively, you make up your own rules, and to be honest that's probably the best way to handle it. The idea that you have to hit a particular DC to start a rumor and that you can only do it x times is a little off. If I'd do it I'd just allow you to use diplomacy or bluff to start one and the roll determines how well it spreads. Preferably with some roleplay, of course.
This design attitude with Feats is really detrimental to the game in general because Feat creep has the effect of reducing creativity. Every time a feat is released to let you do something, even if it looks really cool on paper, that is one more thing that most characters suddenly now cannot do.
That's one of the wrongest statements I've heard in a good long time.
This design attitude with Feats is really detrimental to the game in general because Feat creep has the effect of reducing creativity. Every time a feat is released to let you do something, even if it looks really cool on paper, that is one more thing that most characters suddenly now cannot do.That's one of the wrongest statements I've heard in a good long time.
Depends a lot on who you play with. If people have the attitude of "well you need a feat" then its incredibly harmful. If its "well you can do it anyway" then its not that painful. When you look out your window and see the peasants revolting because you regularly release feats like this and similarly awful design like race traits or racial archetypes that have nothing to do with a race, then it might be a good time to self improve.
Great thread. I agree with just about all of you. There is indeed a growing dependence on rules rather than rulings.
I feel combat mechanics should have the most rules tied to them.
Roleplaying/PC or NPC interaction should be the most rule free section.
That's why to me, Rumormonger is a travesty and Disarming is cool.
Airdrop pamphlets.
Actually, isn't it something Diplomacy does now.
Airdrop pamphlets.
Actually, isn't it something Diplomacy does now.
I wish my diplomacy skills could cause pamphlets to rain from the sky. Haven't quiet learned that one yet.
This isn't a recent thing. It has been going on for well over a decade now and it's not like this has been happening in some kind of vacuum. Part of 3e's design philosophy included a broader scope for the rules, defining more actions and their results, because of a couple of things.
1) Skip Williams's influence on the game included a push to make those definitions because with more rule information in the hands of the players, particularly their chances of success and the consequences of the actions, the more they could make rational and meaningful choices for their characters.
2) This sort of thing is exactly what players have indicated they wanted for many years before 3e's debut. How many people experimented, heard about, or read about house rules that included a perception score in 1e and 2e? Gamers have been kitting up more specific and exacting rules than were (even are) included in D&D for a long time. Small wonder the 3e design team responded to the obvious demand for them.
Meanwhile, of course, everyone seems to forget there are games other than D&D out there that have had various perceptive or searching rules since the very beginning. PER rolls in Champions. Spot Hidden in Call of Cthulhu.
This is old news and it's a pretty standard fight between adherents of one style vs adherents of another. That's really all it is.
I wish my diplomacy skills could cause pamphlets to rain from the sky. Haven't quiet learned that one yet.Airdrop pamphlets.
Actually, isn't it something Diplomacy does now.
Touche.
Its easy.
Have the High charisma Bard tell some teenage girls the rumor at the local fast food joint and then tell them its a secret and they cannot tell anyone.
And a growing contingent that can't see they are one and the same.
I'll refer you back to BardicDave, Pupsocket and LazarX's excellent and concise posts.
That's one of the wrongest statements I've heard in a good long time.
This design attitude with Feats is really detrimental to the game in general because Feat creep has the effect of reducing creativity. Every time a feat is released to let you do something, even if it looks really cool on paper, that is one more thing that most characters suddenly now cannot do.
Well wrong as you think I am this has been a problem that was first noticed way back in 3.0. Go read my examples about Acrobatic Charge, and then take a look at the kind of b*%~$@#~ that gets discussed day in and day out on the PFS boards if you still need convincing.
My players keep falling over their feet because we can't find the rules mechanics on tieing their shoelaces. Worse yet, we can't even figure out the rolls for tripping over their laces. Please help!
Appreciate the sarcasm, however what will eventually happen is that some bright spark will release some shoelace tying Feat in 'Hobbits of Golarifoot' and because a Feat involving tying shoelaces now exists, no one lacking the Feat will be allowed to tie shoelaces.
I'm pretty sure that situation will never happen.
I mean, sure, some GMs are going to ban players from trying to use their shield to cover their allies now that Covering Defense is out. But no one is going to ban them from tying their own shoes.
Sure, but I think the point people are making is that there appears to be a bias in the rules towards a "permissive" system (whereby you must have explicit permission from the rules in order to do something). This is actually how PFS operates, so I am told.
The inclusion of certain ultra specific "niche" (and I use that term generously) player options seems to reinforce this, and frankly it's not something that a lot of us like. Covering defences may not cross the line for me, but the Rumour Monger talent definitely does. The whole structure of that talent is somewhat absurd, especially the weekly limit part (the implication being that once you have used up your weekly limit, you can no longer spread a rumour).
Having to weed rules like this from the system is an exercise in futility for me. The game is just so full of this kind of stuff, and frankly I find it wearying, as a DM. The inclusion of one useless talent like Rumour Monger does little to ruin my enjoyment of the game, but the inclusion of scores and scores of such player options... it really doesn't jive well with my style of play and it leads to a feeling of fatigue with the rules system.
Anyway, that's just my own opinion and preference. I'm sure other people's experience will vary.
This discussion has been ongoing since D&D started. The first time I remember seeing / hearing it was in a discussion over the then new Thief classes percentage based skills and how they cut into roleplaying. 1975 iirc. I'm sure it happened many times prior to that as well as innumerable times after that. As long as you have a system with any rules it will keep happening. Some people need rules for everything and others don't want rules for everything.
Personally I think there is a line between the reasonable and necessary rules and the unreasonable and unnecessary ones and this one has crossed it. We all have our own demarcation lines for this. I can almost see a use for mechanics on rumor spreading beyond the use of rp and existing skills (if you lend me a good pair of binoculars), but making it a 10th level Rogue talent is... *sigh* Well, it crosses my personal line into "not in my game" territory. Ymmv.
Personally I think there is a line between the reasonable and necessary rules and the unreasonable and unnecessary ones and this one has crossed it. We all have our own demarcation lines for this. I can almost see a use for mechanics on rumor spreading beyond the use of rp and existing skills (if you lend me a good pair of binoculars), but making it a 10th level Rogue talent is... *sigh* Well, it crosses my personal line into "not in my game" territory. Ymmv.
You just said exactly what I was trying to say, but much more concisely and eloquently. This quote incapsulates my feelings on this matter exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait wait wait...are you telling me rogues can spread rumors now?
F@*$ing OP class. Nerfstick plz!