I was flipping through an old Dragon I inherited from my cousin a couple days ago and ran across a brief paragraph that I think perfectly describes why I feel Pathfinder and Paizo are the best way forward (not the only of course).
It's in an article that is quite critical of the, at the time, recently released Fiend Folio, particularly lamenting the lack of detail on some of the entries. No, not the 3.0 one, the 1st edition one:
The beauty of the Ad&D rule system is its careful attention to detail, "serious" (i.e., treating monsters as creatures in a fantasy world, not as constructs in a fantasy game) tone, and consistency.
I think this quote delightfully sums up what I, personally, find best in D&D, and embodied in the work of Paizo. Attention to detail can be a matter of opinion, but the "serious" tone is a hallmark of their work, making everything they give us immersive and interrelated. Their consistency hits high marks, though no ever-expanding game can remain completely so.
So I just thought I'd share. The quote embodies a philosophy of gaming that I share. Others may not, and that's okay.
Oh, and the article the quote is from? Written by some guy named Ed Greenwood... ;)
Another vote for perfect agreement. If I can't figure out where it came from, how it fits into the ecology, history, and development of the world, and what its limitations and interactions with other things in the world are like, it doesn't go in.
The attitude displayed in that quote is one of the big differences between a role-playing game and a glorified board game. Monsters are a passion of mine (much like many people here, I'm sure) and the short shrift given to them by "certain products" is reprehensible.
Not that I disagree, but for the record, Ed Greenwood still plays 2nd edition AD&D. At least that was his system of choice halfway through 3rd edition.
Their consistency hits high marks, though no ever-expanding game can remain completely so.
I would agree. I would add that a game that gives you the basic building blocks can remain consistent without a need to expand.
Thats why I look foreward so much to the Pathfinder Bestiary every issue.
Yep, I looooves me the Pathfinder bestiary. Even if I'm not caught up on the homework, I can still look through the bestiary and even grab monsters from there to use in a game. I love how the aberrations and undead aren't underrepresented either. I often have the hardest time finding good aberrations, so this is an area where Pathfinder shines.
I've heard similar - he definitely favors more open-ended storytelling over hard rules, which I think put him off some of 3rd Edition.
But I really don't see how rules can impede storytelling.
Even when it comes to diplomacy and knowledge checks, you're always free to not make them. How is storytelling in 3rd Ed. less open ended than in other games?
But I really don't see how rules can impede storytelling. Even when it comes to diplomacy and knowledge checks, you're always free to not make them. How is storytelling in 3rd Ed. less open ended than in other games?
We had a recent discussion lately about a scene in CotCT, which I need not recap. I personally was in a distinct minority, because I suggested that I would have preferred some in-game rules explanation to be possible. The majority suggested that most events should freely violate the rules as much as needed to make a cooler or "more cinematic" scene.
My argument was similar to yours; I felt that an explanation within the rules would have been easy to provide, and that no impedence of storytelling need occur. That viewpoint, suffice it to say, was not popular. In general, the feeling seemed to be that game rules are antithetical to good storytelling, and that interest in rules consistency was to be condemned as "metagaming."
I've heard similar - he definitely favors more open-ended storytelling over hard rules, which I think put him off some of 3rd Edition.
But I really don't see how rules can impede storytelling.
Even when it comes to diplomacy and knowledge checks, you're always free to not make them. How is storytelling in 3rd Ed. less open ended than in other games?
Well, I think part of the concern when 3E came out was that people would try to overly use the skill system (for example) to pre-empty roleplaying.
I've run into it occasionally with people who aren't used to my group. For example, a new player might join and say something like "I use my Diplomacy skill to get the guard to let me inside." And then just leave it at that.
That won't work in my game - the player has to roleplay it out. What do you say to the guard, etc. But most of the complaints I saw came from people using skills to resolve what would have been RP opportunities in previous editions. It's easy to avoid the problem, though. Just don't allow a skill check alone to resolve such situations.
The way I usually handle the skill system and roleplaying is that the DC check for the situation is fixed but you get bonuses to your roll depending on how well you roleplay (or how hard you try; my one player tries hard but isn't very good at thinking on his feet). That way, anyone can just use the skill to resolve the situation but if they roleplay the situation they get bonuses. It provides a good incentive to my players to roleplay the important scenes and parts where a skill check failure (like failing to bluff your way past the guards) likely means something detrimental will happen to the party (like them being arrested or failing to get help).
EDIT: For clarity
If it's important to the story (not some minor B.S. check), I just don't allow the check until you role-play it.
Player: "I use diplomacy!"
Me: "How?"
Player: "I roll D20!"
Me: "The guy would look at you like you're an idiot, and besides, there's no d20 listed on your character sheet as gear."
Player: "You know what I mean!"
Me: "You should know by now what I mean."
Another example:
Player: "I Climb down the cliff! I got a 17!"
Me: "Are you rapelling down? Like, with rope and pitons? Or using your fingernails? Going down the falls in a barrel?"
See -- different skill checks, same rule. Diplomacy isn't unique.
|
I've heard similar - he definitely favors more open-ended storytelling over hard rules, which I think put him off some of 3rd Edition.
But I really don't see how rules can impede storytelling.
Even when it comes to diplomacy and knowledge checks, you're always free to not make them. How is storytelling in 3rd Ed. less open ended than in other games?
As a huge reader, I think Ed (and I am not speaking for him here, just interpreting things he has said) would prefer to spend more time crafting a story as a DM in his prep time than figuring out NPC stats or looking up special rules for certain monsters. So it isn't so much a matter of playing the game, but how much time you can spend creating the world and adventures.
Not saying I agree with this either, I am perfectly happy with 3rd Edition.
|
|
If it's important to the story (not some minor B.S. check), I just don't allow the check until you role-play it.
Player: "I use diplomacy!"
Me: "How?"
Player: "I roll D20!"
Me: "The guy would look at you like you're an idiot, and besides, there's no d20 listed on your character sheet as gear."
Player: "You know what I mean!"
Me: "You should know by now what I mean."
I do this kind of thing all the time as a DM (and a player too). Sort of like how a player can't just say they Use Rope to make a ladder - they need to have thought to have brought rope and written it down on their character sheet (and I am sure not reminding them to do so!). If a player can't figure out a way to use a skill like Diplomacy, even as simple as "I flatter the liches impressive collection of scrolls!" then it is a no go. Might be unpopular with some people, especially the RAW-only players, but I find it is more reasonable and realistic.
Similar things that have come up: trying to identifying a monster with a knowledge skill but the monster is just a dot on the horizon, making a gather information check in a hostile city and you don't speak the language, trying to use spellcraft to identify a potion on the spot, or a player arguing his character has an 18 Intelligence so I have to remind the player of everything his character remembers (that is what PAPER is for, it is your characters memory).
I look at it like this: sure, you don't have to actually act out when your fighter swings his sword, but you do have to decide how the fighter got close enough, which enemy he attacked, and what weapon he is using and what feats he might use on the attack, and how many times he will attack. That is a lot of decisions for someone who is just pretending to be a fighter, and yet we expect it as part of the game, and the end result is a die roll to see if the attack succeeds. By the same token, a player needs to explain how they are going to employ a skill, what they might say or do to initiate it, and what they are intending the outcome to be.
There is a tendency to argue against this style of gaming, by saying it is outside the bounds of the rules and it deters people who might not be intelligent or sociable enough to develop a suitable response - that they might want to escape reality and play a well-spoken, charismatic diplomat. My counter-argument to that is that just like how you can spend a theoretically unlimited amount of time deciding how to spend 6 seconds in combat, it is reasonable to allow the same leeway with someone who might not be adept at roleplaying certain abilities or skills. Have a problem talking to people? Okay, write down what you would say and pass it to the DM. Not very good with words? That's fine, let me know as the DM and I can interpret the intent of what you are saying rather than the literal meaning (especially if you roll well on your check). Worried you might say something stupid that could derail the situation? Well, that happens to the best of us, but the DM can be lenient with free knowledge checks so your character can "remember" a key piece of information to give you some hints.
I'm not saying that it is wrong to game in a style that allows die rolls to decide everything. I am saying I would not want to play such a game - a CRPG can achieve the same thing for me. If some of us want to encourage other players to think outside the box, expand their intellect, and engage in social interaction at the table, then we should be applauded for our efforts to try to improve other peoples gaming experience, instead of criticized for demanding too much of players.
There is a tendency to argue against this style of gaming, by saying it is outside the bounds of the rules and it deters people who might not be intelligent or sociable enough to develop a suitable response - that they might want to escape reality and play a well-spoken, charismatic diplomat.
Yeah, no need to BE a diplomat, but a player should at least tell me that his PC is being one!
I have no problem with die rolls determining outcome in accordance with the written rules. I just don't allow the die roll unless the descriptive stuff preceeds it. No need to act it out: you don't need to act out swimming, and a player need not give an in-person speech, either: but unless he tells me he's giving one, and what it's about, I see no way to give him a Perform (oration) roll for how good this non-existent speech is. Likewise, if he's supposedly swimming, he gets no check until he explains if he's removing his armor, how he's getting into the water, etc.
Again, I'll skip all this for off-topic rolls that aren't really part of the adventure. I've been known to say "OK, you make it," without rolling, if it's really unimportant. But when pursuing the main thrust of the adventure, I like for things to be as immersive as possible.
I look at it like this: sure, you don't have to actually act out when your fighter swings his sword, but you do have to decide how the fighter got close enough, which enemy he attacked, and what weapon he is using and what feats he might use on the attack, and how many times he will attack. That is a lot of decisions for someone who is just pretending to be a fighter, and yet we expect it as part of the game, and the end result is a die roll to see if the attack succeeds. By the same token, a player needs to explain how they are going to employ a skill, what they might say or do to initiate it,...
It is for this reason that I allow pure rolling but reward extra effort. If a player wants to say "I try to talk my way in, *rolling diplomacy*," that's OK. They are communicating sufficiently for me to know what their character is doing. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much the same thing as "I try to hit him with my sword." I don't need a complicated description of the sun glinting off the sword and the enemy's blood splattering across the wall, nor (to give a closer analogy) do I require my players to act the action out with cardboard swords. However, if they do those things, the action is more likely to succeed.
A way I've heard to describe GMing is that it's basically a complicated way of saying "No." If gaming is playtime with rules to make it possible to adjudicate, then the character sheet is a list of things the player won't get a "No" to. If I want to swing my sword and hit and I roll well enough, it is unfair for the sword to miss (all other things being equal). Similarly, it is unfair to the players to force them to go above and beyond the character sheet. If they don't want to, fine, that's their right. Obviously, though, it would make for a better game if the players want to describe everything in an interesting way. So, while the character sheet represents the baseline, it isn't the limit. If you swing off a chandelier while screaming the name of your murdered brother, you get a circumstance bonus to your attack roll, possibly to your damage roll as well. If we're using Action Points, I might give you back one. If the action is more than is necessary and would normally require a roll, it may automatically succeed. Thus, the players are given incentive to make the game more fun for everyone, and the incentive is itself fun (unlike "No, you can't do that, even though you spent character creation juice to be able to do it," which isn't).
[/game theory rant]
The way I usually handle the skill system and roleplaying is that the DC check for the situation is fixed but you get bonuses to your roll depending on how well you roleplay (or how hard you try; my one player tries hard but isn't very good at thinking on his feet).
This is what I do. Or give penalties if the PC says something really stupid in the course of his Diplomacy. It's a good compromise between just acting it out and just letting the die roll determine the outcome.
I give no bonuses to Swim checks if the player writhes on the floor as if it were a pool.
I give no bonuses to Diplomacy if the player suddenly decides he's George Peppard.
I feel that the player's actions shouldn't arbitrary affect the character's skills, because that makes my biases and whims have a disproportinate effect on how events unfold. I also don't want to put myself in a situation where Mike says, "Hey! I acted that out just as well as James did, but you gave his character Max a +5 on the roll, and you only gave Kyranoz a +1!"
I feel that the player's actions shouldn't arbitrary affect the character's skills, because that makes my biases and whims have a disproportinate effect on how events unfold.
Then you've answered the question as to why some people felt the rules were less RP friendly. Personally, I wouldn't want to play in that game, but to each his own.
The swimming example is a bad one, though. The situation clearly wouldn't be applicable. But I don't see anything wrong with a character playing a "role" in a role-playing game. If my player walks up to a guard and just rolls the dice and say "diplomacy," the PC is likely as not to end up with the guard's foot up his arse. Put some effort into it at least.
|
|
I'll try restating my issues in a different way:
Combat has just begun against a tribe of orcs in their camp.
The player says "I attack" and then rolls a die expecting you to give him a result.
In my mind, as the DM, I say the following:
"What are you attacking with, who are you attacking, how are you getting into position to hit them, how are you attacking them?"
Those are legitimate questions within the rules of the game, but not exactly explicitly laid out within the rulebooks.
Second example, the PCs are trying to get into the King's audience hall.
The player says "I use diplomacy" and then rolls a die expecting you to give him a result.
In my mind, as the DM, I say the following:
"How are you initiating Diplomacy, who are you speaking to, what language are you speaking, how are you being diplomatic?"
Furthermore, with more experienced players I often don't ask these questions, and just make default assumptions unless the player says otherwise (for example, if an experienced player makes a big long speech to the dragon and makes his diplomacy check, and fails to tell me what language they are speaking, I assume they are speaking their characters racial language, and the dragon is insulted rather than impressed if that isn't Draconic).
Chalk that up to being a jerk DM or encouraging roleplaying, either way I am fine with it.
A way I've heard to describe GMing is that it's basically a complicated way of saying "No." If gaming is playtime with rules to make it possible to adjudicate, then the character sheet is a list of things the player won't get a "No" to.
I wouldn't want to play with such a gm.
My idea of running a game, is that the players can try everything they want. The rulebooks cover the rules for the most common actions. And here comes the beauty of d20 in my oppinion: For everything else, the gm makes up a rule on the fly. If there's a skill or save, that can be used, or maybe an attack roll would sound good, you roll on that. If not, you can at least make an ability check. Add the GMs best friend, all you you need is to set a DC. 10 for things everyone could manage with not too great problems, 20 for things that really need an expert, and 30 for things that even make the pros sweat. In the game, it takes less time than reading this post.
And even if the action is impossible, still let the players roll, because the characters are trying.
As mentioned, for many groups it's about story telling, not about using the rulebooks.
I wouldn't want to play with such a gm.
You don't have a choice. That's what gaming is. You're having playtime, but to avoid the ubiquitous and inevitable "I shot you" "no you didn't" "yes I did" -fests, the GM says "No," and that's that. Unless, of course, there's a rule for it and you have access to the relevant mechanics to the sufficient degree, in which case the GM is simply being unfair if he says "No."
My idea of running a game, is that the players can try everything they want.
Try, sure. No one ever said they can't try. The character sheet tells them the degree to which the success of their attempt is guaranteed. A cop character in an action-movie d20 modern campaign can try to summon an elephant to fall on the bad guy's head, and while that can happen if the GM allows it, he's perfectly within his rights to tell the player to sod off. On the other hand, if the cop has some sort of class feature that lets him summon large mammals wherever he wants whenever he wants, the GM had darn well better let him do it, because his character sheet has given him a guarantee that he can.
That's just a description, not a GMing style or house rule suggestion. I think you must have misunderstood what I was trying to say.
@Kirth Gersen: They should be happy with the +1, but in truth they probably won't be. I usually just let them get away with whatever fun embellishments they can come up with, which I find is usually incentive enough to try them. If I do add a bonus, it's a standardized +2 across the board. One way you could do variables that minimizes whim is to set objective standards which everyone can agree upon. White Wolf's game Scion, for example, uses a three-tier "Stunt" system. Anything beyond minimal description is +1, anything beyond minimal description that takes the setting or plot into account gets +2, and anything which makes the whole group go "Wow!" gets +3. Mind you, Scion is about playing Gods, so most systems probably need the bonuses to be a little harder to get, but you get the idea.
@Jal Dorak: The point of the game is to have fun. Better descriptions of the players' actions generally makes the game more fun. However, some players may not be good at those descriptions. Forcing them to give them, therefore, may make the game less fun for them, and more fun for the group at the expense of a player who's not being disruptive is unjust, unfair, and probably ultimately unfun, since I know I wouldn't willingly engage in an activity which frequently puts me on the spot, make me uncomfortable, and punishes me for not simply playing myself + pointy ears. This is why I allow the players to get by with a bare minimum of description (as long as I know what they're trying to do, it flies), let them get away with actions with more description even if the rules don't quite allow them to, and sometimes give them little bonuses for going beyond the call. If weaklings can play barbarians, then wallflowers should be able to play bards.
Then you've answered the question as to why some people felt the rules were less RP friendly. Personally, I wouldn't want to play in that game, but to each his own.
Actually, you and I expect the same level of roleplaying. You give bonuses if they do it, so that in essence everyone's "real" skill bonus is some arbitrary amount higher than the one shown. I expect it as a default -- no bonus assigned, because everyone is expected to role-play in a role-playing game -- if they didn't want to do that, they'd play "Axis and Allies" or "Clue" instead. So, my players are happy with +0. No arguments, no claims of favoritism.
|
If it's important to the story (not some minor B.S. check), I just don't allow the check until you role-play it.
Player: "I use diplomacy!"
Me: "How?"
Player: "I roll D20!"
Me: "The guy would look at you like you're an idiot, and besides, there's no d20 listed on your character sheet as gear."
Player: "You know what I mean!"
Me: "You should know by now what I mean."Another example:
Player: "I Climb down the cliff! I got a 17!"
Me: "Are you rapelling down? Like, with rope and pitons? Or using your fingernails? Going down the falls in a barrel?"See -- different skill checks, same rule. Diplomacy isn't unique.
I see stuff like this a lot anymore.
"I roll a 'use rope' check- 25 and a 'climb' check- 21 and climb down into the pit." when it should be, "I pull out my rope and look for an outcropping or other sturdy thing to attach the rope to, if none are available I use my hammer and pitons to provide one. Then I toss the rope into the pit and begin climbing down. Someone toss a torch down here for light! *makes the rolls*".In the desire to speed the game up it seems like some of the good stuff gets lost if you let it. I see a lot missing in my current game and I will be making some changes to slow it down and sweeten it with more of the flavor that seems to be lacking lately.
|
|
But I really don't see how rules can impede storytelling. Even when it comes to diplomacy and knowledge checks, you're always free to not make them. How is storytelling in 3rd Ed. less open ended than in other games?
We had a recent discussion lately about a scene in CotCT, which I need not recap. I personally was in a distinct minority, because I suggested that I would have preferred some in-game rules explanation to be possible. The majority suggested that most events should freely violate the rules as much as needed to make a cooler or "more cinematic" scene.
My argument was similar to yours; I felt that an explanation within the rules would have been easy to provide, and that no impedence of storytelling need occur. That viewpoint, suffice it to say, was not popular. In general, the feeling seemed to be that game rules are antithetical to good storytelling, and that interest in rules consistency was to be condemned as "metagaming."
Not wishing a rehash, but it arguable that seeing the ruleset as the game "physics" can lead to odd judgements, such as the ones we had before. On the other hand, using the skill system can be used to actually propel the game and give your character some abilities that maybe the PC possesses but the player doesn't (like the classic example of the guy with CHA 4 playing the bard of CHA 18 - that might be a challenge if all you have is roleplaying, but on the other hand he can actually succeed at winning over the duke to his cause through Diplomacy).
I think to finesse the suggested "anti"-view, the rules should not be a prison that either requires the DM to come up with elaborate, complex explanations for, or feels he cannot justify inclusion of, an otherwise reasonable event that isn't properly covered by the rules. On the other hand, if an in-game reason can be arrived at that satisfies everybody, that's fine. And I agree that, in broad scope, nothing about a rules set precludes anything to do with running a particular campaign story arc (though they might be better suited to certain things than others).
On the other hand, using the skill system can be used to actually propel the game and give your character some abilities that maybe the PC possesses but the player doesn't (like the classic example of the guy with CHA 4 playing the bard of CHA 18 - that might be a challenge if all you have is roleplaying, but on the other hand he can actually succeed at winning over the duke to his cause through Diplomacy).
Excellent point. And it explains why I don't give arbitrary bonuses to the character played by the ham at the table, just because the player happens to be an extrovert. Even the introvert can describe what his PC is trying to do to convince the duke -- even if the player doesn't (or can't) fully act it out.
|
|
Fake Healer: That is some good DMing. Only the best DMs can analyze what is missing in their game and actively take steps to correct it. It will never be perfect, there is always give and take, but striving for excellence makes the game more fun for everyone! Lately, I personally find I often get so into combat that I get excited and make little mistakes in rulings, so that is my biggest area of work for now.
On the other hand, using the skill system can be used to actually propel the game and give your character some abilities that maybe the PC possesses but the player doesn't (like the classic example of the guy with CHA 4 playing the bard of CHA 18 - that might be a challenge if all you have is roleplaying, but on the other hand he can actually succeed at winning over the duke to his cause through Diplomacy).Excellent point. And it explains why I don't give arbitrary bonuses to the character played by the ham at the table, just because the player happens to be an extrovert. Even the introvert can describe what his PC is trying to do to convince the duke -- even if the player doesn't (or can't) fully act it out.
I think that is where some of the arguments may be coming from. I'm not (and I don't think Kirth is) advocating a demand for all players to roleplay as if they were on stage in Stratford playing Hamlet, but if your player can tell you or write down what their character can do in combat, they can do the same thing with skills or roleplaying. If they can't, then as a DM you should encourage and teach them to do so, as it will increase the rewards of the game.
Actually, you and I expect the same level of roleplaying. You give bonuses if they do it, so that in essence everyone's "real" skill bonus is some arbitrary amount higher than the one shown. I expect it as a default -- no bonus assigned, because everyone is expected to role-play in a role-playing game -- if they didn't want to do that, they'd play "Axis and Allies" or "Clue" instead. So, my players are happy with +0. No arguments, no claims of favoritism.
I disagree.
First, I give bonuses or penalties rather rarely, if there is really an extremely good bit of rationale (or bad one) floated out there. It has nothing to do with the person being able to act. They just need to tell me what they say.
If they want a guard to let them in and a character says "Let me in or I'll tell your mom when I sleep with her tonight" the guard is going to be pissed and things are likely to go downhill. Just letting them make a Diplo roll and going with the die result would make no sense at all.
Conversely if they come up with something that strikes me as particularly brilliant, the perfect thing to say to this particular guard, I may give them bonuses or may ignore the Diplo roll entirely and just have the guard let them in.
In social situations, if you just go by the die roll no matter what the players say or do it seems to me you'll get some odd end results.
Furthermore, with more experienced players I often don't ask these questions, and just make default assumptions unless the player says otherwise (for example, if an experienced player makes a big long speech to the dragon and makes his diplomacy check, and fails to tell me what language they are speaking, I assume they are speaking their characters racial language, and the dragon is insulted rather than impressed if that isn't Draconic).
Chalk that up to being a jerk DM or encouraging roleplaying, either way I am fine with it.
See, that wouldn't strike me as roleplaying as much as DM entrapment. Either the character knows that dragons usually speak Draconic or he doesn't presumably; whether the player states it explicitly or not shouldn't be terribly relevant.
I certainly wouldn't like to see a case like:
Me: I tie a rope around a stalactite and climb down into the pit.
DM: Aha! You said "stalactite" instead of "stalagmite", so your rope is almost sure to slip off. Furthermore, you didn't specify whether you're using a granny knot, a sheepshank, or a clove-hitch; I assume you're using a granny knot, so I'll give you a -10 penalty on top of that.
(O.K., that's probably a bit of an exaggeration. :-)
It occurs to me we might be talking about two different things - roleplaying as opposed to acting. I don't consider them synonymous.
For example, say the characters have been enjoying the hospitality of a lord's estate for a few days, and they want to convince the lord to let them stay a bit longer.
I have one player who will get out of his chair, kneel, and say something like "Good sir, we have been honored by your kindness and generosity of the past days and are loathe to leave your beautiful estate and fine company. Might you find it within yourself to allow us two more days?" Diplo roll.
I have another player who will say "I thank the lord respectfully, tell him we've enjoyed our time at the estate, and ask if he minds if we stay longer" Diplo roll.
Those two scenarios are treated the same way in my game. They're both roleplaying in my view, though one is acting and the other isn't.
The situation that won't work in my game is where the players simply says "I try to convince the lord to let us stay." Diplo roll.
In the last scenario, I want more info.
|
|
See, that wouldn't strike me as roleplaying as much as DM entrapment. Either the character knows that dragons usually speak Draconic or he doesn't presumably; whether the player states it explicitly or not shouldn't be terribly relevant.I certainly wouldn't like to see a case like:
Me: I tie a rope around a stalactite and climb down into the pit.
DM: Aha! You said "stalactite" instead of "stalagmite", so your rope is almost sure to slip off. Furthermore, you didn't specify whether you're using a granny knot, a sheepshank, or a clove-hitch; I assume you're using a granny knot, so I'll give you a -10 penalty on top of that.
(O.K., that's probably a bit of an exaggeration. :-)
Well, I think your slactite example is perfectly reasonable (except for the knots, that is a little too specific) - if I was dealing with an experienced player with which I was familiar.
With my dragon example, there are rules for languages - you choose them on your character sheet. If your characters starts wandering around talking to everybody, in my experience the players always assume they are speaking the "right language". But there is no guarantee of that. Sure, if a character had knowledge (arcana) they could make a quick knowledge check to remember that dragons prefer speaking draconic, but if said player ignores that privilege and just starts babbling at the dragon, how is the DM supposed to know how they are speaking?
Allow me to liken it to combat. A player says they attack the werewolf, rolls to hit, succeeds and deals damage with a longsword equal to 8. As the DM I say "you didn't specify what weapon you were using, and since your default weapon is your cold iron longsword, you deal no damage." Now, the player can argue that their character wouldn't use a cold iron longsword against a werewolf, at which point I would say "you've never fought a werewolf, you have no ranks in knowledge (nature), so you don't have a solid idea about using silver to hurt them, and since you didn't specify your silver longsword, I have to assume you weren't using it, because you normally don't."
If I just assumed everything went the best possible way for the players, they would never have to make any decisions or preparations. "Well, I threw a whole bunch of different weapons in my haversack, let's go roll to hit things, because invariably I will use the right one."
As another example, let's s you are from England, your native language is English, but at some point you learned how to speak German, but never really studied Germany at all. You meet a man on the street wearing a German flag on his backpack. Since you don't recognize the flag, you start speaking to him in English and he doesn't understand you, gets frustrated, and walks away.
Another option I allow my players is to roll a Diplomacy check as a knowledge substitution to gain insight into the best way to approach the situation, at which point they make their case and then make the actual Diplomacy check. A much more subtle method of Diplomacy, and negates having an entire check hinge on one roll - it breaks down the skill into smaller subskills that the players can choose to activate.
At this point, I should probably point out that I am not trying to convince you that my style of gaming is better, I'm just trying to show you how I like to play the game in the hopes that we understand each-other. I don't mean any of this as argumentative, just illustative of my playing style. :)
|
If it's important to the story (not some minor B.S. check), I just don't allow the check until you role-play it.
Player: "I use diplomacy!"
Me: "How?"
Player: "I roll D20!"
Me: "The guy would look at you like you're an idiot, and besides, there's no d20 listed on your character sheet as gear."
Player: "You know what I mean!"
Me: "You should know by now what I mean."Another example:
Player: "I Climb down the cliff! I got a 17!"
Me: "Are you rapelling down? Like, with rope and pitons? Or using your fingernails? Going down the falls in a barrel?"See -- different skill checks, same rule. Diplomacy isn't unique.
Yes, absolutely. This is how dungeons and dragons is designed to be played. There are occasions for expediency where making the players roll, and describing the detail to fill the abstraction of dice results works as well. For example, as new players learn, I will encourage them to try, but I'll go easy at first, perhaps asking for the roll, then asking them to describe.
As for seasoned players, they should be expected to describe and explain, to role play and co-develop scenes. This makes for strong synergy at the table, and avoids deferment to dice for everything.
I agree strongly with Kirths view. Players are developing their creativity, imagination, and often learning something about the real world along the way.
The d&d rule system (PRPG included) is most assuredly, a beautiful thing.
With my dragon example, there are rules for languages - you choose them on your character sheet. If your characters starts wandering around talking to everybody, in my experience the players always assume they are speaking the "right language". But there is no guarantee of that. Sure, if a character had knowledge (arcana) they could make a quick knowledge check to remember that dragons prefer speaking draconic, but if said player ignores that privilege and just starts babbling at the dragon, how is the DM supposed to know how they are speaking?
Ah...I see where we differ. In your case, it looks like a character will only know something if the player remembers to ask for a Knowledge check. I guess I'm just used to play-by-email games where the DM rolls everything (including Knowledge checks as appropriate). On the flipside, if the player asked to speak Draconic but the character wouldn't have known to use it, I'd consider that metagaming (although I don't really care too much about metagaming, personally).
I just don't like the idea that the DM will try to trap me unless I word my actions with painstaking care (even though my character might consider an action second nature).
Allow me to liken it to combat. A player says they attack the werewolf, rolls to hit, succeeds and deals damage with a longsword equal to 8. As the DM I say "you didn't specify what weapon you were using, and since your default weapon is your cold iron longsword, you deal no damage." Now, the player can argue that their character wouldn't use a cold iron longsword against a werewolf, at which point I would say "you've never fought a werewolf, you have no ranks in knowledge (nature), so you don't have a solid idea about using silver to hurt them, and since you didn't specify your silver longsword, I have to assume you weren't using it, because you normally don't."
That's perfectly fine. But generally I find that players specify which weapon they draw anyways.
If I just assumed everything went the best possible way for the players, they would never have to make any decisions or preparations.
How many of your PCs have died from a ruptured bladder?
|
|
Another example:
Player: "I Climb down the cliff! I got a 17!"
Me: "Are you rapelling down? Like, with rope and pitons? Or using your fingernails? Going down the falls in a barrel?"See -- different skill checks, same rule. Diplomacy isn't unique.
I may agree with some points on Diplomacy and disagree on others, but I just wanted to jump in and say that I absolutely loathe this example. Do I expect my players to roleplay a bit when they use Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Bluff? Sure. That's fine and dandy. Do I expect my players to know anything about Climbing when making a Climb check? Hell no. I don't know jack **** about climbing, whether that involves bare hands, rope/pitons, whatever, and I certainly would be irked if a DM asked me to clarify exactly HOW I was Climbing.
My character knows how to Climb, I roll for him. I want him to get from point A to point B, and if there's nothing really distracting him, I don't expect to have to do more than roll.
With Diplomacy, it's a slippery slope. On one hand, the DM likes it when his players role-play. On the other, some people just aren't comfortable with it. Why do they play D&D then? Why does it matter? Maybe they like hitting things, maybe they're trying to learn. Especially with the latter, if they are trying to learn to be a better role-player and still aren't great, I would definitely encourage them to role-play, but if they came to one situation and are a bit uncomfortable, I'll let them roll.
Sometimes people like playing characters that can do things they (the player) know absolutely nothing on how to do. That's probably one of the main reasons people play fantasy games.
Do I expect my players to roleplay a bit when they use Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Bluff? Sure. That's fine and dandy. Do I expect my players to know anything about Climbing when making a Climb check? Hell no.
I often play with people who don't know a thing about Diplomacy, either. Typically, I play with other geologists, so we maybe know more about climbing, spelunking, and mining than the average participant. But, still, D&D is often considered a "geeky" pastime, so I think it's not unreasonable to expect that the average participant's grasp of social skills is equally as slight as his grasp of hand-to-hand combat techniques (or, in my case, it's unfortunately a lot less well-developed).
I agree. After reading Paizo's Classic Monsters Revisited Ogres became than just muscle they got a background story.
You've pointed out one of the things I hate about 3rd ed - monsters as collections of skills and feats. A dragon doesn't NEED weapon focus, ability focus, improved grab, or anything else, it just needs to be a dragon. It also doesn't need diplomacy, climbing, swimming or (ugh) sense motive. I know monsters have to have game stats that fit into the system, but they shouldn't just be a collection of stats, they have to have purpose and reason - and just be monsters, not PC's that come in funny shapes.
|
|
If I just assumed everything went the best possible way for the players, they would never have to make any decisions or preparations.How many of your PCs have died from a ruptured bladder?
Actually, there was a monk one time who pucnhed himself in the gut once on a fumble and ruptured his kidney. ;)
You know, I just might try asking when players are doing "that"!
I find my style of gaming works with my players, they get immersed in their characters. But really, taking care of business is second nature - but if a situation came up where it would have an IMPACT on gameplay, I would ask specifically (quick example, let's say the party is trying to evade a bunch of bloodhounds and makes camp for the night - I would probably need to know what they were doing to determine if the dogs find them).