|
Yes; i realize that most of us roleplay our characters but, just how far do you require it to go. For example; If i have an assassin in the party, i do require him to actually assassinate others from time to time or no amount of experience will allow him to level up. Druids and Clerics are required to do their thing with their Gods-or nature spirits, respectively. Thieves are required to actually use the skills that they increase in per level. Never cared for the theif increasing in skills in an area s/he didnt practice. Example: When leveling, if the theif didnt pick one lock or person, then the theif doesnt increase in skills in that area. So basically, one must show attempts and aptitude in order to increase in skills. It just isnt handed to them as a reward for leveling. This really encourages my players to really enjoy the skills they have and to not just take them for granted-makes them better players as well. Anyone else do this? Please share any experiences.
Back to assassins as an example: Our assassins are required to either assassinate or attempt to assassinate one being per level. If the assassin doesnt, s/he doesnt level.
I actually picked up this idea when playing WFRP years ago. When the DM told me that to take on the pit fighter class, that my character had to actually pit fight and survive, that really set things into perspective. My character also had to slay a troll to become a troll slayer as well. You see my point. You just cant say what you are in my game, you character must be that class in behavior.
I rambled enough. I look forward to the responses.
Thoth-Amon
|
|
What you're saying makes sense. I certainly like the idea of the PCs actually doing what there class might normally do in order to level up. Take my AoW PC for example: He's a gestalt character, half-orc Fighter/Cleric of Kord. He's only 3rd level right now, and we are in the middle of the second adventure, but when we get some down-time I'm going to have him seek out a place where he can engage in some competive wrestling or other non-lethal physical competitions. And he'll try to do that alot. Otherwise, he'll just go around killing stuff.
|
|
I seriously thought about doing this a while ago. I really like this idea in theory. My problem is that it is simply one more thing to keep track of -- at least with the skills. I have enough things to worry about and think of and track that I don't want to be saying "ok, now did they actually try and open a lock last adventure?" My other issue is that it was really difficult to maintain a similar balance with things like feats -- and if you don't maintain a similar situation with feats, then rogues get the short end of the stick.
At least with the group that I play with, they instinctively look at what their character did recently and look to improve something that they felt their character was lacking in. I feel that this ultimately has the same or similar effect without the rules lawyer coming out.
That being said, I do try and have some kind of significant event happen to allow the character to take prestige classes to make it feel much more significant.
(Also, I don't like running evil characters in our group, so we would never have the assassin issues.)
Basically, I love the idea. It just didn't work for us in practice.
I've never attempted it, but I echo Moff. The concept is golden, but can be hard to implement. If someone found an easy, near-seamless method of integration, however, I'd be all over it.
Other systems like Runequest and Burning Wheel build this advancement style into the system. There can be pernicious effects (like the Runequest stereotype of whacking a creature with several different weapons for advancement reasons), but they make for an interesting difference.
For D&D, I'll stick with the current rules. I like the spontaneous little abilities that add flair and background... that this system would squash.
I don't mind it for a flavor element, especially if training times are enforced. Generally, if you require training times for leveling, then it's assumed that the character spends the time practicing the various skills needed. It's just taking it one step further and actually roleplaying out the training.
I /do/ feel it can get to be too much, however. It can easily become micromanagement, and really suck the fun out of things for your players.
Example: There's an online D&D game out there, a MUSH, that I once tried out. The setting was beautiful, the homebrew stuff was awesome, and I really felt it had potential to be a great game (games like this amount to campaigns with multiple DMs and a /large/ group of players). However, every time you leveled, you had to write a mini-app justifying your skills, what class you wanted to take, and other such things. It just wasn't something I wanted to deal with, so I left the game.
So, I'd go with something in between. Training times are easy, because it can be assumed they're doing all they need to pick what they want. It can even be glossed over, and even used for adventure hooks like:
* The assassin is assumed to have killed someone, but now the constabulary is digging into the crime and soon the party may have to contend with the long arm of the law.
* The rogue makes a roll on their skills at the old value. If they blow it, they still increase their skills but they've cheesed off someone important who's going to cause problems for the party. Maybe even demand they do a service to 'forgive' the offense.
* The wizard increases his knowledge skills, and on a successful roll based on the new (or old) value, he finds information that will lead to various hooks to new adventures.
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't overcomplicate it, and if you're going to do more than simply assume it happens, at least put it to use for further campaigning.
An interesting tact, Xellan. Though I doubt that I'll incorporate that level of roleplaying abilities, if I ever do, I'll keep in mind that it shouldn't be used to simply take up time and enforce "realism," but should serve to benefit the game as a whole.
Yeah it's a tricky one. The assassin in my last campaign had to actually meet up with a rep of the assassin's guild and pay a fee and train to join the class, but for things like increasing your Open Locks skill I guess I assume that if someone has OL 5 and they increase it to 6 while out camping, it doesn't mean that they suddenly became slightly better (without practice) while roasting a rabbit over the fire one night; it means that their abilities have averaged out slowly over the last few months, resulting from the experience they DID get at lock picking.
As I see it The ranks are there to reflect levels of skill NOW, not accurately represent education and improvement over time. I don't know how you could do that realistically without using fractions of ranks, and that would be ridiculously unwieldy and just as fake-seeming as whole ranks. Where would you draw the line?
I try not to think about it :)
That said I am a big fan of the "if you wanna be a pit fighter you have to jump in a pit and fight someone at least once or twice" school of thought.
This is a great question, one I have struggled with over the last few years as my group continues to grow.
I LOVE the concept of "kill a troll first to become a troll slayer", but what if my adventure doesn't have any trolls in it? We would then have to sidetrack the adventure to have one player fufilling a prerequisite. Then the other eight players would have to do the same... and we never get the adventure done.
I try to work hard to make sure my adventures have a place where each character can shine. It's not always easy, but just adding little things that require obscure skills the players sank ranks into makes them smile. This way they get to "roleplay" rather than "rollplay" which we do ALOT of to keep everyone involved.
Just my two coppers,
-Roth
|
Frankly, while I can see the logic, I dislike the idea. Think about magic: you can't cast a fireball until you can cast a fireball, or something. And it's restrictive - a PC has lots of downtime when he isn't adventuring. He could be practicing this skills off-screen, even if he doesn't use them much in play. So I would not restrict a PC like that. If that is what you really want, there are other systems that do it better, like d100 (which has no levels, only skills).
Well, we play a modified 2nd edition so I'm not sure my experiences are exactly what you're looking for ... but we do exactly what you're talking about.
Skills (or what we still call non-weapon proficiencies) don't have "ranks", they are expressed by percentages (34% in knowledge:geography or whatever). They don't automatically increase but only increase (by 1%) each time the PC actually attempts to use that skill. If the character undergoes formal "training" they are allowed to increase a specific skill by up to 10 percentage points to reflect that training.
The same is true of thieving skills, although with the slight variation of 15 points minimum gained per level so if for some crazy reason you didn't use your abilities a combination of 15 times you just get the extras "free" (this almost never happens).
The players and I love this system (it is one of the biggest modifications to the game rules we have). It prevents people from just choosing skills that are inappropriate or unbalanced; ie, blind-fighting, swimming...IMC, you can't just say "ok, I'm 5th level, now I can fight in the dark". Sure, you can *take* that skill (or NWP) but you only start at 10% so if you never practice it, you're likely going to fail when you finally *do* stumble into that situation where you're fighting and the lights go out.
The system is good, IMO, because it reins in min/maxing, it encourages role-playing, and it requires logical progression of character abilities. Ever tried to learn a foreign language? I took 3 years of French but I'd be hard put to have any kind of coherent conversation with a Frenchman. On the other hand, we lived in Okinawa,Japan for several years and though I never took a class I could communicate effectively with the locals. Practice makes perfect. I acknowledge the fears that this kind of realism can bog the game down but this has honestly never been a problem for us. Players all have a scrap paper on which they keep track on various data, their skill advancement is just part of that. A rogue is attempting to open a lock? It's not a tremendous effort to put a tally mark on the player's scrap paper under the open lock category.
In answer to the OP's assassin example, though I've never had a player choose to play an assassin, the character would certainly be required to at least attempt to assassinate someone per level. If the DM or player chose to skip the specifics and just said "this is covered by my training at the assassin's guild" I would accept that but their skill in the art of assassination would not improve automatically when they leveled up without this kind of justification.
|
|
A thought I always had is that certain classes have certain training exercises that they practice when not actually fighting. A fighter wakes up in the morning and limbers up by going through his attack forms, some calistentics, and a bit of muscle or dexterity developement exercises. A rogue practices rolling coins along his knuckles, tossing his dagger in the air and catching it by the tip, subtle sleight of hand techniques, maybe some tumbling exercises, all to limber up and advance his manual dexterity skills.
I have never liked the "you have to train for each level" line of thinking. I find it cumbersome and not very realistic. You learn the basics during some early training and then develope your abilities further in the field through real-life experiences. When you do have down time you would probably take the extra time to research more about your style of combat, but to enter a school for fighters when you are 15th level seems ridiculous. You have all the knowledge that you need, you just need to better incorporate it into your style of fighting. Training won't help but practicing during your morning exercises and trying to use it on the field of battle is what would let you get a grasp on how an action works in combat.
Every miss in combat is a lesson learned. You see which strikes work better in a certain situation. The more you swing a sword the faster you get. Every spell that doesn't bypass a creature's SR, or that fizzles due to lack of concentration helps the caster to learn how to cast better. Every movement that a stealth-based character makes is a practice session on how to be quick, light, silent, and unseen.
I find it silly to say "OK, we killed the dragon and his minions and saved the town. Now I need to enroll in fighter college for 12 weeks so I can gain my +1 BAB and a feat and this is all for the low-low price of 6,000 gp." Didn't the fighter learn anything through his struggles in the field?
You can take martial arts classes for 5years and spar in the classroom all you want. A street fight is totally different. I have known (and am) a lot of martial artists who thought they were untouchable (black belts) that walked into a bar and got their arses handed to them by some fat biker that never took a bit of training in anything. I have had to fight in real life a lot. I know what works in real life situations over what doesn't more through actual fighting than training.
The best training, IMO, is real life experiences. Not that formal training isn't required, but it is more of a foundation and guide to help develope combat/real life techniques and to train the body into shape to handle the rigors of a preferred method of combat.
Too many people watch the Martial Arts movies where the hero gets smacked down by BBEG and goes back to the dojo to learn some obscure finger-pokey method that helps him to lack a return smacky-smack on BBEG. It doesn't work that way in real life.
Sorry for the long post.
FH (BB in Tae Kwan Do and Tang Soo Do, 3 years of boxing/kickboxing, and 2 years of Wing Chun Kung Foo)
not that any of that has any bearing on my credentials for this thread.
I agree in full.
Despite the extra time or thought that it may require, it's only logical that the PCs would be working their skills or feats as they advance.
This could be done while resting, sitting at the pub/inn, out camping, anywhere really... Even mid-quest while moving through the dungeon or whatever. i.e. - move silently, listen, diable device, etc...
I mean, where's the role-playing if you just depend on you X skill points every level to better your char?
"Yay! I killed such-and-such and leveled up, now I can throw X ranks into that one skill that my char has never used before, making him better at it than that commoner who has done it his whole life..."
Feats are the same way. For example, make a PC use (or at least train with) the exotic weapon he wants without the proficiency feat for a while. Giving the char time to learn about it; not just pick up some random weapon and be able to effectivly wield it...
-Kurocyn
You could just require the players to make a list of the skills and feats that they will be advancing in/gaining next level. You then know what's coming and can assume that, over the course of this level, they are preparing themselves and learning those techniques. When they actually get to the next level, they have mastered them and can pull them off with regularity, or have seen a noticeable improvement in their abilities. No new mechanic, but still avoids the "Ding! Power Attack!" situation.
As for training, if I were to enforce it, it would only be at low levels, stopping at around 5th or 6th. I can see someone needing to have instruction up to that point, but from that time on out, there just aren't enough people around that know more than you do and are willing to train you. Plus, you've got a good foundation, and are ready to make it in the world on your own abilities, and know how to teach yourself from there on out.
Also, the low levels are where there is a lot of resting and stopping in towns, i.e., more downtime, due to more fragile characters and less options for travel. At higher levels, parties can teleport all over the world, right from Mr. Quest Giver to Dungeon X, and they can stay in Dungeon X for huge amounts of time without retreating to rest. They may find themselves ready to level in the middle of the adventure, and face a BBEG who isn't willing to hold up his plans for world domination long enough for the party to go train for a week or two.
But training also seems inapropriate for some characters. Certainly, a knight training and sparring and taking formal lessons makes sense, as does a wizard pouring over his books, or a priest studying his theology. But a barbarian? Who's going to train him? What about the rogue that grew up as a guttersnipe on the streets? I don't think she needs any training. How about the ranger or druid, who just spent a lot of time in the woods and began to feel the energies around them and the call of the animals and elements? Sorcerers? What there? Back to clerics, what about a tribal holyman? Where did he go to school?
So, training also doesn't seem right for every class, and it hardly seems like a good thing to require it of some classes, but not others.
|
|
Keep in mind that 'fun' is my #1 concern; therefore, i dont get too critical when it comes to keeping track of all a persons skills-just the primary ones that are class specific. I actually have the guy/gal playing the theif-as an example here-let me know when s/he is checking off a pick locks skill, so i know at level advancement that s/he attempted it. Usually, when my characters are in town between 'jobs,' they need to make some money. Therefore the assassin goes to the assassin guild and picks up a job-its that easy. Also, the rest of the party may never know his true class for i have never had an assassin admit his 'talents' to the rest of the group. They just sell themselves as a rogue/theif. Of course, even though assassins are members of assassins guilds, they can be active members of thieves guilds as well. They even pay dues, take worthiness tests, and further their training in such guilds. Fighters usually sell their skills in town for money and further their training per level-usually at training academies. Wizards-same thing. Rangers usually sell their 'bow' to hunt food for the town &/or sell their tracking skills to earn some money. Clerics gather at their respective churches and heal the sick and do the ritualistic stuff as well as train for the next level. You get the idea.
All your points are great and only after reading them did i realize that i was a bit too vague. I require this with the party for i dont want the party theif or fighter or cleric working as a dishwasher in town because s/he is afraid of the local authorities. If one is a theif-for example-one needs to take the necessary risks of said class. Got to keep in good standing in the guild, after all. That's all. And as far as the trollslayer class goes; i was just pointing out an example that really wouldnt work in DnD anyway, for it wouldnt apply-outside of bragging rights. WFRP uses classes to advance, not levels. Again, i was vague and that was my bad. Believe me when i say; it really does take up very little time compared to adventuring.
Thoth-Amon
I'm not saying that it's something that needs to be inforced, I think it should come naturally to those who actually role-play their chars.
Back in the last campaign I played in, whenever the party came into a town, we'd all do our resting, shopping, or quest related stops, but if there was spare time or it was an extended stay, all of the players would eventually split up, doing their respective "training." Each player did it, just because that's what they saw their character doing. The bard hit the taverns, the fighter found the arena, the wizard thumbed through the library, the ranger explored the rural areas outside of town... Any of which could easily cover most, if not all, class skills. All it would take is a little one-on-one time with the players. Result: both the DM and the player get to know the PC better...
As for leveling up mid-dungeon, the characters are always leveling up, always learning. It's not like they reach a new level, then stop until they level again. Yes, that's how the system is set up, but what's to say that the PCs aren't getting those skill points or feats while leveling up? Or at least working on them?
It's all in the role-playing.
-Kurocyn
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
An interesting tact, Xellan. Though I doubt that I'll incorporate that level of roleplaying abilities, if I ever do, I'll keep in mind that it shouldn't be used to simply take up time and enforce "realism," but should serve to benefit the game as a whole.
Saern, you made my day by putting realism in quotes!
I agree with Saern and Aubrey (shocking, I know). It depends on the type of adventure you're running, but it's particularly poor for an adventure path type campaign. "Sorry I can't be of more help on this island full of dangerous monsters guys, but I really need to assassinate somebody before I can be of some use. Hey have you guys noticed we have way too many NPC's?" Interrupting the action to perform some trivial task to level up is cool once in a while (e.g., many prestige classes and some feats require this), but it'd be a huge pain to do every level.
As for the skills, once again the end result in systems like WHFRP is that people are constantly and needlessly using their skills in the hopes of increasing them. The price you pay for the increased "realism" is bogging down action at the table. It's not worth the trade to me, but YMMV.
Besides, ultimately a good player will roleplay acquiring his skills on his own. A better way to encourage this is with a carrot (bonus xp for good roleplaying) rather than a stick (no leveling for you!)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And as far as the trollslayer class goes; i was just pointing out an example that really wouldnt work in DnD anyway, for it wouldnt apply-outside of bragging rights.
Sure it would. The trollslayer prestige class would have "must have slain a troll" in combat. There are many prestige classes with these sorts of requirements.
|
|
An interesting tact, Xellan. Though I doubt that I'll incorporate that level of roleplaying abilities, if I ever do, I'll keep in mind that it shouldn't be used to simply take up time and enforce "realism," but should serve to benefit the game as a whole.Saern, you made my day by putting realism in quotes!
I agree with Saern and Aubrey (shocking, I know). It depends on the type of adventure you're running, but it's particularly poor for an adventure path type campaign. "Sorry I can't be of more help on this island full of dangerous monsters guys, but I really need to assassinate somebody before I can be of some use. Hey have you guys noticed we have way too many NPC's?" Interrupting the action to perform some trivial task to level up is cool once in a while (e.g., many prestige classes and some feats require this), but it'd be a huge pain to do every level.
As for the skills, once again the end result in systems like WHFRP is that people are constantly and needlessly using their skills in the hopes of increasing them. The price you pay for the increased "realism" is bogging down action at the table. It's not worth the trade to me, but YMMV.
Besides, ultimately a good player will roleplay acquiring his skills on his own. A better way to encourage this is with a carrot (bonus xp for good roleplaying) rather than a stick (no leveling for you!)
I.........am.........in.........total........agreement.........with........ .Sebastian! GASP!!! OMG!! That was a hard sentence to write.
No, seriously I find what Sebastian wrote to be a perfect reflection of my own opinion on this matter. I always find his point of view to be well thought out and not just a knee-jerk reaction. I don't always agree but I do respect the thought put into his opinions.As a player and DM, I hate the stick in any form. The carrot is more inline with friends getting together to have fun, while the stick is when 1 person wants to make sure all these people who are under his rulership stay within his control. Doesn't sound too fun does it?
Fun is what it is all about.
FH
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I.........am.........in.........total........agreement.........with........ .Sebastian! GASP!!! OMG!! That was a hard sentence to write.
No, seriously I find what Sebastian wrote to be a perfect reflection of my own opinion on this matter. I always find his point of view to be well thought out and not just a knee-jerk reaction. I don't always agree but I do respect the thought put into his opinions.
As a player and DM, I hate the stick in any form. The carrot is more inline with friends getting together to have fun, while the stick is when 1 person wants to make sure all these people who are under his rulership stay within his control. Doesn't sound too fun does it?
Fun is what it is all about.FH
Saern using "realism" in quotes, Fakey agreeing with me, all this thread needs is for Amberzombie to post that maybe Fox news is a little biased and it will be the best thread ever.
And ditto FH. I always appreciate that you argue with me to the bitter end and don't hold a grudge. Besides, anybody who rolls with the TI-99/4A is my kinda guy.
Sebastian
(losing his edge, must be the holidays making him mushy)
|
|
My fello paizo members,
This is a 'my bad' alert.
I realize the initial topic could be misleading(we are limited on space after all) but, after reading my initial comments i would think that it was pretty obvious that this thread was directed towards others who incorporate this specific type of roleplay into their games and their thoughts and experiences thereof. Not whether of not it should be done at all. I already realize there are differing opinions on said topic. I just wanted to hear from others who have incorporated it into their games.
Now that that is cleared up, let me re-emphasize my initial question, found in sentence one in my initial comment:
"Yes; i realize that most of us roleplay our characters but, just how far do you require it to go."
I definitely do appreciate everyones comments but i was really just looking for specific experiences on said matter. I would really hate for this thread to go into a direction not originally intended.
Apologies if i wasnt clear enough.
Game on!
Thoth-Amon
|
Keep it playable.
If you demand requesites which are hard to meet, you take fun out of the game. Assume that the PCs get training between adventures when they return to their tutors, teachers, guilds etc. ...
As usual exceptions confirm the rule: E.g. PrC starting requesites.
Stressing the word "starting":
Starting requesites make play more interesting and challenging, requesites at each new level of a class discourage players.
Btw. whatever your decision might be, it doesn't make your game any more or less rollplay/ roleplay.
This is rather decided by the playing style your players prefer.
If your players prefer role playing, it should be their decision which part of their class to roleplay.
"Ordering" to use all their skills rather resembles shepherding than dm'ing. But that is just my point of view.
If your players are happy, keep it!
Greetings,
Günther
|
|
Keep it playable.
If you demand requesitives which are hard to meet, you take fun out of the game. Assume that the PCs get training between adventures when they return to their tutors, teachers, guilds etc. ...As usual exceptions confirm the rule: E.g. PrC starting requesitives.
Stressing the word "starting":
Starting requesitives make play more interesting and challenging, requesitives at each new level of a class discourage players.Just my opinion.
Greetings,
Günther
sigh
Again; this thread is directed towards others who also incorporate it into their game play. As far as how much time it takes away from said game, let me quote my earlier comment:
"it really does take up very little time compared to adventuring."
Thoth-Amon
I would really hate for this thread to go into a direction not originally intended.
Thoth-Amon
Heh, good luck with that. But, to the point, someone mentions above the Burning Wheel system. It's an excellent one that incorporates game mechanics in with character level progression. Look into it.
As ever,
ACE
|
|
I would really hate for this thread to go into a direction not originally intended.
Thoth-Amon
Heh, good luck with that. But, to the point, someone mentions above the Burning Wheel system. It's an excellent one that incorporates game mechanics in with character level progression. Look into it.
As ever,
ACE
What the heck; this thread train has derailed beyond the possiblity to ever get it reasonably back on track, so tell me more about this burning wheel system. Sounds interesting. Where could i find out more about it?
Thanks,
Thoth-Amon
|
|
sigh
Again; this thread is directed towards others who also incorporate it into their game play. As far as how much time it takes away from said game, let me quote my earlier comment:
"it really does take up very little time compared to adventuring."
Thoth-Amon
Pooh!
First I hadn't finished editing my posting when you already answered.Second and just stating my experiences and my point of view: ;-)
I found out that D&D has its limits when it comes to simulating "real" life. E.g. combat, speed of level progression, magic itself... This is why I stopped trying to make it more "realistic". I prefer to keep it playable and don't follow all the rules to the letter.As written above: If your players are comfortable with your style of DM'ing, there is no reason for changing it!
Greetings,
Günther
Well, please realize that their are alot of assumptions being made here with other posters. I dont test every skill and it only take a few minutes and adds to the flavor the game. Therefore, it stays 'playable.' i dont care to follow all the rules to the letter either and have yet to find anyone that does in all the years that ive been playing.
Thoth-Amon
|
|
sighAgain; this thread is directed towards others who also incorporate it into their game play. As far as how much time it takes away from said game, let me quote my earlier comment:
"it really does take up very little time compared to adventuring."
Thoth-Amon
Sorry, Thoth-Amon. But if you have a closer look at the posting times, you will realize that our postings just coincided. I was just too busily editing my mail to read your clarification...
Greetings,
Günther
|
|
sighAgain; this thread is directed towards others who also incorporate it into their game play. As far as how much time it takes away from said game, let me quote my earlier comment:
"it really does take up very little time compared to adventuring."
Thoth-Amon
Sorry, Thoth-Amon. But if you have a closer look at the posting times, you will realize that our postings just coincided. I was just too busily editing my mail to read your clarification...
Greetings,
Günther
Ha. I know and no worries. Ive given up on this thread anyway. So on a lighter note; who of us has ordered the 'Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Board Game?'
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What the heck; this thread train has derailed beyond the possiblity to ever get it reasonably back on track, so tell me more about this burning wheel system. Sounds interesting. Where could i find out more about it?Thanks,
Thoth-Amon
*shrug* The thread title was begging for somebody to jump in without reading carefully and make a big munchkin/anti-munchkin post. I think the fact that you did not get such a response makes this a highly successful and on-topic thread. Maybe Luke Freeman will pop in with something - he likes to link magic use to feats, a similar type of rule, so this is probably a topic with which he has experience.
|
|
*shrug* The thread title was begging for somebody to jump in without reading carefully and make a big munchkin/anti-munchkin post. I think the fact that you did not get such a response makes this a highly successful and on-topic thread. Maybe Luke Freeman will pop in with something - he likes to link magic use to feats, a similar type of rule, so this is probably a topic with which he has experience.
What the heck; this thread train has derailed beyond the possiblity to ever get it reasonably back on track, so tell me more about this burning wheel system. Sounds interesting. Where could i find out more about it?Thanks,
Thoth-Amon
Of course another possiblity may be because others with similar playing styles decided they didnt want to be criticized on said game play. Speaking as a consistent paizo poster; i know i never respond to post topics that others have derailed by not reading the 'fine print.'
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Of course another possiblity may be because others with similar playing styles decided they didnt want to be criticized on said game play.
Heat, Kitchen, etc. You're posting about D&D on the internet, not discussing your sexual inadequacies with your significant other - a certain level of callous responses is to be expected. If you can't handle people disagreeing with what you post, I would suggest that the internet is not the proper forum for you. And this is even one of the more friendly D&D internet communities I can think of. Barring a few bad apples like me and Takasi, this is a great place to find people that will disagree with you without attacking you.
Anyway, I didn't realize that the original post soliciting opinions about how people handled the situation excluded those who handle the situation by not entertaining it. That's normally a legitimate response to a question:. "How do you handle getting the oil changed in your car?" Answer: "I avoid the problem of oil changes by not having a car, you should consider that solution." Compare with: "I can't give up my car, how does everyone handle oil changes?" Answer: "Something other than give up your car."
The Ace - This is your cue to start a new thread about threadjacking so we can threadjack it and talk about zombies.
|
(...)I think its all a matter of what the DM wants and doesnt want his players doing. A red dragon has about as much affinity to other dragons as a dragon hunter does... coincidentally thats the type i was gonna choose too :P
You're right!!!
My experiences (to answer the original post):
I do it the same way, but only lightly. If I see, that a pcs haven't used a given skill for the last two levels and now wants to increase it, he has to train (ingame time) for it with a master!
Stuff pcs can do to show they are "woth the xp's" (if you want to say so) can be fun and once totally took me (as the DM) by surprise:
Years ago, my party came upon a couple of farmsteads who has been burned down, with no survivors, other than some animals, to find. As they had been on a hurry to find the marauding orcs (for which they had been paid), I expected the party to just walk along to get them. But the Druid said, he takes his time to milk all the cows, as these farms must've been ransacked days ago, and the udder of the cows need to get milked or else they would burst, or at least giving the cows tremendous pain. It took them almost two days to find the free-running cows and milk them to the last one! I loved that idea and gave him an extra 10% xp bonus back then!
What the heck; this thread train has derailed beyond the possiblity to ever get it reasonably back on track, so tell me more about this burning wheel system. Sounds interesting. Where could i find out more about it?
http://www.burningwheel.org/
Sorry, don't know how to link here, but this is the website. And, i think if you read about how this system sets up character level progression, you'll gain some insight on how others have integrated game mechanics in with what your origional post is asking...
As ever,
ACE
|
|
Of course another possiblity may be because others with similar playing styles decided they didnt want to be criticized on said game play.Heat, Kitchen, etc. You're posting about D&D on the internet, not discussing your sexual inadequacies with your significant other - a certain level of callous responses is to be expected. If you can't handle people disagreeing with what you post, I would suggest that the internet is not the proper forum for you. And this is even one of the more friendly D&D internet communities I can think of. Barring a few bad apples like me and Takasi, this is a great place to find people that will disagree with you without attacking you.
Anyway, I didn't realize that the original post soliciting opinions about how people handled the situation excluded those who handle the situation by not entertaining it. That's normally a legitimate response to a question:. "How do you handle getting the oil changed in your car?" Answer: "I avoid the problem of oil changes by not having a car, you should consider that solution." Compare with: "I can't give up my car, how does everyone handle oil changes?" Answer: "Something other than give up your car."
The Ace - This is your cue to start a new thread about threadjacking so we can threadjack it and talk about zombies.
Ignorance must be bliss for i never soliciting criticism.
I also never asked whether you agreed or disagreed with my post; i was merely asking others to share their comments based off of their experience with a specific kind of game play. Therefore, 'disagreement' isnt even applicable in said post.
If everyone attacked others with assumptions, this site would no longer exist. Think about it. So if you want to create a 'jerk' site, then go ahead. You wont get many members.
It isnt me, by the way, who has the sexual inadequacies-real mature, by the way. I didnt, after all, go out of my way to ignore the real design of this thread and derail it to prove to myself and the other nameless/faseless people in Tronland of your bloated sense of self-worth.
All this behavior does is discourage other players of like mind to discuss their favorite games. Where is the fun-and support in that, after all?
You, and others like you may find it entertaining to thread-jack folks, but i promise you, you are in the minority on paizo.
Besides, sharing unasked criticism w/o all the facts, just makes one a jerk!
It really does take only a few bad apples...
Thoth signing off on this thread.
|
I was denied entering the Dragon deciple pretige class once cause the DM stated i had to show some afinity to dragons....
Throughout that game i had assisted in the killing of a young blue, stumbled, with my party, into a dragon graveyard and taken treasure from it, meanwhile the quest was to bring down some dragon cult.... What was i supposed to do... say "hello dragon, i like you and i dont mean to be in your graveyard stealing treasure and i dont want to fight back when attacked"
I think its all a matter of what the DM wants and doesnt want his players doing. A red dragon has about as much affinity to other dragons as a dragon hunter does... coincidentally thats the type i was gonna choose too :P
Communication is key. I strongly recommend to anyone reading this that if you're planning on going into a prestige class (even a boring one like archmage or something) talk to your DM from the beginning.
Take Contemplative (Complete Divine) as an example. You have to have contact with your deity to qualify. So telling your DM, at 8th level, "Hey, I'd like to take the Contemplative PrC. Can you throw my god into this adventure," isn't likely to get you far. But if you tell him from the beginning, he may be able to work that into the campaign arc somewhere that it makes sense.
It may not be too late. Talk to your DM about what it would take to get your character in the Dragon Disciple class.
To the OP: I would avoid hot-button words like "Rollplay" if you're looking for thoughtful responses. The "Roleplay vs Rollplay" (I hate that expression, by the way) topic stirs passionate debate wherever it rears its ugly head. Consider thread titles like "Training and Practice in Character Advancement" instead.
The Ace - This is your cue to start a new thread about threadjacking so we can threadjack it and talk about zombies.
HAHAHAH...i had considered reposting message board etiquette, but i think another futile effort to talk about threadjacking IS in order! Stay tuned for that thread immediately...
As ever,
ACE
To vindicate myself in the eyes of this thread somewhat, my old group went in the "use it or loose it" (kinda) vein for a while of their own accord. Typically, if the character realized that he'd been using a skill a whole lot over the last level or so, he'd spend most of his ranks to increase it at the next level up, even though that wasn't what he had planned and might not have been the most optimal thing for his character.
However, they never went the other way and didn't raise an ability just because they hadn't used it, unless the player decided that he didn't like using the skill anymore and found something more useful and fun to put ranks into (which was typically discovered through play over the course of the previous level and thus falls under the first paragraph again).
About thread derailments- ya, it happens a lot here. See, watch this.
Anyone seen OotS #386? I was on campus when I read it and had trouble not bursting out in a fit of snorting laughter when I read it. It has to be the funniest one yet! To threadjack my own threadjack, "Erfworld" really isn't capturing my interest very much. Although the hammer turning walnuts into pidgeons was good, and I like the dragon crapping on the croakamancer in the last panel.
In general, I'm fairly strict about prestige classes when it comes to level-up time (ding!). Example: One of my players has a Druid/Speaker of the City. There has been several times that I have barred him from progressing in that class, as he has not used the skills of that class, or we have not had any urban adventures. Those ground rules got set up pretty early, though, so I haven't had to hit the players over the head with it at all lately. Fortunately, the player in question is using his Speaker of the City abilities in new and interesting ways out of his home city, so I've been giving him some brownie - er, experience points in that area.
I'm blessed with players that will tell me that they like prestige class X, so I'll do my bestest to work it in to the storyline (via a side quest or three). I won't let them take the prestige class until I do, or I'll say "You don't have access to those class abilities...yet."
As far as skills and such - don't use my kung-fu DM grip on those, unless it's something totally bizarre. Then I require an explanation.
Other systems like Runequest and Burning Wheel build this advancement style into the system. There can be pernicious effects (like the Runequest stereotype of whacking a creature with several different weapons for advancement reasons), but they make for an interesting difference.
RuneQuest was problematic on that sense that it indeed encouraged people to try to use all the skills they could possibly think of whether that had effect on adventure or not (one character of mine for example did a little musical number in every session...even when I was a munchkin I had flair :))
Better system for this are systems like Ars Magica, White Wolf games and GURPS, where one get certain (small) amount of experience points and then discuss with GM how to use them, typically either involving something from last few sessions or requiring to find a trainer or something.
This might not actually involve a game mechanic, roll or anything, typically explanations like "I chatted with those people about that subject, so I want to raise Knowledge skill" is ok.
But as said, D&D rules do not support system like this...it is a good idea to balance a bit or at least come up with an explanation when one wants to multiclass ("exactly how does your sorcerer train to take level in barbarian?" "well, she originates from barbarian society so the abilities and knowledge have always sort of been there but before she has concentrated more on her magical abilities...")
|
|
Ignorance must be bliss for i never soliciting criticism.
I also never asked whether you agreed or disagreed with my post; i was merely asking others to share their comments based off of their experience with a specific kind of game play. Therefore, 'disagreement' isnt even applicable in said post.
If everyone attacked others with assumptions, this site would no longer exist. Think about it. So if you want to create a 'jerk' site, then go ahead. You wont get many members.
It isnt me, by the way, who has the sexual inadequacies-real mature, by the way. I didnt, after all, go out of my way to ignore the real design of this thread and derail it to prove to myself and the other nameless/faseless people in Tronland of your bloated sense of self-worth.
All this behavior does is discourage other players of like mind to discuss their favorite games. Where is the fun-and support in that, after all?
You, and others like you may find it entertaining to thread-jack folks, but i promise you, you are in the minority on paizo.
Besides, sharing unasked criticism w/o all the facts, just makes one a jerk!
It really does take only a few bad apples...
Thoth signing off on this thread.
For someone complaining about people not reading his (her?) initial thread, you haven't really read Sebastian's (admittedly though nevertheless typically) truculent response to your postings very closely. I think he was being robustly humorous rather than accusing you of sexual dysfunction. I was personally mildy irritated by being accused of threadjacking when I was merely providing what I considered to be a relevant comment on the initial post, though not sufficiently to mention it. And posting on here, as Sebastian points out, is a great way to get people to disagree with you. And it isn't like you didn't have plenty of support too. But if all you want is people who will agree with you this isn't the ideal noticeboard.
I think it would be a shame if you pack up and walk away from a community which is generally polite and supportive (and that includes, funnily enough, Sebastian), especially over a misunderstanding. Hopefully it won't put you off - this stuff happens from time to time.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For someone complaining about people not reading his (her?) initial thread, you haven't really read Sebastian's (admittedly though nevertheless typically) truculent response to your postings very closely. I think he was being robustly humorous rather than accusing you of sexual dysfunction. I was personally mildy irritated by being accused of threadjacking when I was merely providing what I considered to be a relevant comment on the initial post, though not sufficiently to mention it. And posting on here, as Sebastian points out, is a great way to get people to disagree with you. And it isn't like you didn't have plenty of support too. But if all you want is people who will agree with you this isn't the ideal noticeboard.
I think it would be a shame if you pack up and walk away from a community which is generally polite and supportive (and that includes, funnily enough, Sebastian), especially over a misunderstanding. Hopefully it won't put you off - this stuff happens from time to time.
For someone complaining about people not reading his (her?) initial thread, you haven't really read Sebastian's (admittedly though nevertheless typically) truculent response to your postings very closely. I think he was being robustly humorous rather than accusing you of sexual dysfunction. I was personally mildy irritated by being accused of threadjacking when I was merely providing what I considered to be a relevant comment on the initial post, though not sufficiently to mention it. And posting on here, as Sebastian points out, is a great way to get people to disagree with you. And it isn't like you didn't have plenty of support too. But if all you want is people who will agree with you this isn't the ideal noticeboard.
I think it would be a shame if you pack up...
Thanks Aubrey, I really appreciate you stepping in to translate (and the kind words). My post was absolutely meant as general humor and not a personal attack - in retrospect, I should have phrased my comment as "We're talking about D&D, not our respective sexual disfunctions." The point is that you get a variety of views on a forum such as this because the topic of discussion is not and should not be a topic near and dear to your sense of self, as compared to a topic about your private affairs with a loved one. This forum invites a certain type and a certain flavor of commentary, and that commentary frequently takes the form of advising alterate ways of approaching a situation rather than just methods of solving a problem at hand.
Again though, thanks for the post Aubrey. It didn't look like there was a good way for me to make the points that you did without furthering the he-said, he-said aspect of the dialogue that occurred up until this point.
Sorry for the extended threadjack about whether a threadjack is occurring. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
|
I agree with Lilith and Celestial Healer; you gotta have reasons for advancing your PC in certain directions.
This is a ROLE playing game!! Players that are allowed to spend skill points, take prestige classes or even chooses alignments without having good "character reasons" should stick with video games.
But to answer what the original thread asks: at the end of each session the players tell the DM various things their PCs did during play (a great "recapping tool") and the DM awards XP based on those reminders. Therefore, If the PC did things against alignment the DM may take away some XP. If the PC used certain skills or feats or whatever as appropriate, then they are awarded XP. Then, when it's time to level up, the PCs and DM have an already spoken history of what a PC can advance in.
A PC Dwarven barbarian, for example, couldn't just declare that he'll recieve the iron will feat just because he has a low save. Likewise, a wizard can't just automatically gain an item creation feat without spending some time learning how.
YOU DON'T HAVE to run this stuff "in game," though. It is sufficient for the player to say, "I want to ask Manzorian (or Tenser) to teach me how to craft wondrous items." He could even loan the PC a manual on this so the PC could read it on the way to Alahster.
-W. E. Ray
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Speaking of low will saves, here I go again...
This is a ROLE playing game!! Players that are allowed to spend skill points, take prestige classes or even chooses alignments without having good "character reasons" should stick with video games.
This is a role playing GAME!! Players that can't follow even the most basic rules should go back to playing pretend tea parties with their toys in the backyard.
I like the peanut butter, you like the chocolate. These preferences are not mutually exclusive.
Ignorance must be bliss for i never soliciting criticism.I also never asked whether you agreed or disagreed with my post; i was merely asking others to share their comments based off of their experience with a specific kind of game play. Therefore, 'disagreement' isn't even applicable in said post.
If the point of the thread was to discuss a specific style of gaming that had to be clear. A thread starter essentially has nothing but his initial post to try to set boundaries to what is being discussed.
You open up with
“Yes; i realize that most of us roleplay our characters but, just how far do you require it to go.”
What a fair number of people responded with was essentially something along the lines of “not very far at all because I feel, for reason A, B and C, that this is a flawed style of gaming.
Once this happened it was essentially inevitable that others would respond “No way. Its a great way to game. It brings E, F, and G to the table and enhances the game in so many ways.”
...and their off as the debate sweeps down the thread with the pros and cons being tossed out right and left. It seemed to me this whole thing only really degenerated into flames when attempts were made to stiffle the debate or rigorously control its content.
The real problem is that there was an interesting question at the root of this that was not what you had hoped to discuss. The idea that players should or should not be required to perform activities related to their choices when they level up is actually a pretty interesting question. It was clearly one that a lot of posters wanted to talk about. It has not been discussed recently on these boards. Its pertinent to D&D in general and to different styles of playing D&D. The design of the game itself seems to encourage it in some cases (some prestige classes for example) while not usually acknowledging the issue the majority of the time. OK that might not have been the question you had initially intended to ask but it was the one that was picked up and it was picked up because it was of interest to many of the posters.
My feeling is if a thread has not really covered what you wanted to cover but moved on into a related topic maybe starting another is in order. Starting threads is free after all and a second attempt allows the OP starter to more clearly outline what they had hoped to discuss and maybe explain why they felt this issue had not really been examined in the first thread they started.
Well said, Jeremy.
I think that the method described is actually more rollplaying, not roleplaying. If all you have to do is "skill grind" to make sure you level, then it takes the 'role' right out. Then you have this issue of guilds-why is it that the assassins guild in thoth's campaign requires killing every level? Do you need a bop from the magical 'level stick' that the guildmaster carries and he will only give it to you once you do some jobs for him? While some training is obviously involved for assassin (It is a spellcasting class) it seems to me that once you receive the initial training you can figure it out for yourself. The guy's an adventurer, he spends his weekdays killing *monsters* who are angry and charging right at him, not joe bob the sleeping commoner who forget to pay his protection money.
To sum up, when I am forced to shell out gold for 'level training' and do quests to do so as well, it feels too much like a video game. And that is a bad thing.