I just have one major concern I have to shout out loud:
"PLEASE! Stop making every aspect of the game, the classes and the feats focussed on Combat!"
The Rogue(Thief) was once the ultimate Skill-Monkey. Now (especially with his new capstone) he is just another fighter type (but with skills). If you look at the rogue it is: Sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack.
The same goes for the wizard and the sorcerer. All those ideas about bloodlines and improved specialists/universalists are GREAT. But almost everything they get is: +Armor, more damage, touch attack, magehand for fighting with weapon...
It's just sad. Pathfinder really has the opportunity to become more than what WotC has done.
Please, take a look again and think about it.
Thanks.
|
I just have one major concern I have to shout out loud:
"PLEASE! Stop making every aspect of the game, the classes and the feats focussed on Combat!"
The Rogue(Thief) was once the ultimate Skill-Monkey. Now (especially with his new capstone) he is just another fighter type (but with skills). If you look at the rogue it is: Sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack.
The same goes for the wizard and the sorcerer. All those ideas about bloodlines and improved specialists/universalists are GREAT. But almost everything they get is: +Armor, more damage, touch attack, magehand for fighting with weapon...
It's just sad. Pathfinder really has the opportunity to become more than what WotC has done.
Please, take a look again and think about it.Thanks.
Well said.
May be too late to change it man but you make a very good point
I agree. But still one could make the point that outside of combat the rules are just in the way. When you talk about roleplaying, do you realy want alot of rolling dices or is that the perfect place to just wing it.
Me, myself, and I think, for instance, that it a roleplaying encounter can be ruined by such small things as Bluff or Diplomacy rolls.
On the other hand. What I think your talking more about is that everything in the rulesbook is about combat. Other (older) roleplaying games used to have extensive sections about worldbuilding, and DMing and things like that. But I think Pathfinder is doing this jusst fine by not having that much rules in their splatbooks instead.
Just my two SEK (that's swedish currency by the way).
"PLEASE! Stop making every aspect of the game, the classes and the feats focussed on Combat!"
Well... let's think about it for awhile.
How do you quantify "roleplaying?"
Skill points?
Social skills?
Lack of combat ability?
How is the Rogue not the "ultimate Skill-Monkey" anymore? He has the same number of skill points, he has less skills to invest in, and he still has the greatest number of skill points. So... why is granting the ability to use Sneak Attack more often a detriment?
-Matt
Why can't you use the combat abilities for RP in general.
Rules are rules, everything else is just flavortext.
Besides, combat and the like needs the most crunch, fluff comes on its own.
I agree totally with what you say Set. The rules do not complicate the roleplaying aspect of the game.
Kuj, I trust that when you use the term "fluff" it is not something negative. =)
In my games, we DO roleplay the combat(to some degree, it is rather difficult to maintain RP when you have like 5 rounds of no one hitting), as well as the skills the rules present. Woe to the player in my group who says "I use Intimidate" and picks up a die to roll!
The rules are just that, the rules. Perhaps this is why they seem to be what is most often presented. I agree, going through the PFRPG that arbitration and scope of game are under-presented. I had not really considered that aspect until this post, being a gamer since the blue-box days of D&D those items are not really necessary to my game at this point. I am sure there will be more products of that nature forthcoming once the game itself is released. It is a HUGE undertaking, and I feel the people at Paizo are VERY involved and committed to the game (and to us players!) as a Role Playing Game, not a stat-based, rules-heavy miniature game. It is up to the DM and the players to bring the rules to life in a RP sense.
|
The rules are just that, the rules. Perhaps this is why they seem to be what is most often presented. I agree, going through the PFRPG that arbitration and scope of game are under-presented. I had not really considered that aspect until this post, being a gamer since the blue-box days of D&D those items are not really necessary to my game at this point. I am sure there will be more products of that nature forthcoming once the game itself is released. It is a HUGE undertaking, and I feel the people at Paizo are VERY involved and committed to the game (and to us players!) as a Role Playing Game, not a stat-based, rules-heavy miniature game. It is up to the DM and the players to bring the rules to life in a RP sense.
Huzzah!
I know I post a lot of crunchy stuff here, but here's my philosophy on rules: Learn them so well you no longer even have to think about them - then the game becomes the focus...not the rules.
I prefer a rules based game to a freeform one myself because then as a player I feel I have the ability to affect how things turn out for me - making decisions have foreseeable likely outcomes. I prefer a rules based game as a DM because it's quicker to adjudicate things, even things outside the rules, by applying a systematic mechanic that is fair to the players, but fun and challenging to play.
And I prefer a DM screen - in my case usually metaphorical - because there are times when the rules get in the way of the game - a DM's job is to recognize that and correct it when it happens.
Sure but that's the point!
Just take a look on the amount of thinking used for combat stuff!
Sure, combat needs to be clear, but we went that road a long time ago.
Now we have dozens of tons of combat maneuvers, feints, flanking, flat-footed, millions of specialized combat feats and more, more, more.
I never said "I don't want combat anymore".
My point is that ALL classes and with them the whole game (insert -feeling if you must) is FOCUSSED on combat.
It's like all classes (and therefor all characters) are training for combat in the first point.
Just compare the plain number of combat related feats and special abilities with the number of all non-combat feats.
Then you'll know what I mean.
Example:
We get tons of combat feats (Improved Disarm, Manyshot, Cleave to name only 0.01%) and what do we get for skills?
Skill Focus. Thanks.
Or for Magic?
a bunch of Metamagic feats barely anyone takes.
So, again: I say combat got enough crunch. Now it's time for all the other parts of the game!
what do we get for skills?
Skill Focus.
Well... let's think about it for awhile. What would a "roleplaying" feat look like to you?
-Matt
Damn. I never asked for a "roleplaying" feat.
I say Roleplaying ITSELF is (or can be) more than combat, so I would like to see
1) non-warrior classes get class abilities not (mainly) focused on combat
2) about the same amount of thinking and "love" to other parts of the game than combat
3) more interesting feats not related to combat.
Maybe it won't be an improvement of overall power, but replacing the skill focus with a bunch of specialized skill feats might be a start.
Examples:
Free Climber
Climb 4+
Receiver +4 on climb checks when climbing without rope and other equipment.
City Slicker/Streetwise
Receive +2 on Gather Information, Perception, Stealth checks when in a community of at least village/small city size.
Or some new special abilities tied to certain skills like Track was before.
Those might not be good feats, but they were born within 5 Minutes.
If Paizo (and we) would contribute the same amount of time to this stuff like on combat there were lots of cool talents I say.
|
|
I never said "I don't want combat anymore".
My point is that ALL classes and with them the whole game (insert -feeling if you must) is FOCUSSED on combat.
It's like all classes (and therefor all characters) are training for combat in the first point.
I will agree with you in part - fighters and paladins need more skill points so they can do stuff outside of combat. They don't need to be super skill monkeys of roguishness. They need to be able to have skills they can use in roleplaying situations. 4 skill points will not make fighters overpowered compared to Wizards - or even close to equal. But it will make them fun in a wider variety of situations. Isn't that the point of the game? To have a character and have fun with it?
In general, I don't want a lot of rules associated with roleplaying, honestly. I think the skills system handles a lot of that admirably - and I don't want to feel restricted by rules in the story part of the game. Rules are important in combat, magic, saving throws etc. because they can kill your character. I prefer the roleplaying aspects - character development, NPC interaction, story development - to be open to interpretation more.
|
|
Well... let's think about it for awhile. What would a "roleplaying" feat look like to you?
I would consider the idea of a 'roleplaying feat' to be a contradiction, since that sort of thing should never be a *mechanic.*
But some feats, such as Investigative (from the Eberron Campaign Setting) or 'Favored in House' for a member of a merchant house or noble family, would serve as examples of non-combat Feats that don't provide any real statistical benefit, but might be very useful in moving the plot along (or generating their own plots).
Some, like Investigative, would give new uses for skills, developing them into new areas. (On the other hand, those new uses for skills could also be introduced as skill tricks, or just higher DC uses, or bog-standard uses, of skills in the first place, and not made Feats at all!)
Others, like 'Favored in House,' 'Elf-Friend' or 'Bonded Location' would deal with connections to in-game organizations, locations of significance, noble families, merchant houses, particular cities or regions or species, etc. and come with bonuses like the right to hospitality, cheaper or free services of some sort, the ability to call up resources / items / NPC aid from that group or region, etc. (Many of the benefits of Associations end up being the sort of benefits one would get from these sorts of Feats.)
And the reason why these sorts of Feats *shouldn't* be in a core book? They're over-specialized. If there is a Feat that makes me a ranking member of the Clergy of Sarenrae in Qadira and can requisition cash loans, healing services, continual flame items and caravan-service when my camel is broken down in the desert, that Feat is likely going to be *very* different if I'm a ranking member of the Church of Asmodeus in Cheliax and can requisition slaves, infernal aid, the occasional Hellknight enforcer loan and legal advice. There are twenty odd major churches, and those churches might be significantly different in different countries as well. There are a dozen countries that might have regional feats with role-playing, non-combat applications. Each country might have a dozen factions or noble houses or whatever that comes with it's own special stuff.
It would be, IMO, *insane* to try and come up with all of this at once. Instead, what *I* would recommend, would be to come up with some blanket outline and say, 'Okay, if you want to have a 'favored in church' status for your character, you can get X worth of value, and as you increase in level and do more favors for the church, the feat 'grows' in value as well. Just like an Association, really. Get a set amount per month or whatever of free room and board for your friends, idenitification of items, curing of diseases, etc. and for the BIG stuff, like Raise Dead, or borrowing a magic item, or a 'gift' of some healing potions, wands, etc. you'd better be willing to go on some mission for the church.' Come up with a set value per month per level that the character can *reasonably* ask for, and then allow them to 'go into hock' by requisitioning something bigger, or earn gold back by going on a mission or fulfilling a church objective.
While I've used 'church' in the above example, the same basic benefits structure could be used to handle noble family, merchant house, regional factions, secret society affiliations, wizard or crafting guild ties, etc. Any yob off the street could get the 'do this, get that' benefit, as that's just trade, but the Feat user would get X amount of 'free' stuff per month that they could take advantage of.
This would save writing up a codified list of benefits for the 'Church of Asmodeus in Cheliax' versus the 'Academy of the Arcane in Korvosa.' X amount of 'favor' with the Azzies might get you some cheap slaves. The same amount of 'favor' with the Academy might get some items identified. Either one could provide room and board, or 'sage advice' (whether on matters arcane or legal).
D&D in all its forms has always been rules light when it comes to roleplaying versus combat. The responsibility to roleplay vivid characters and have a deep and compelling story is placed on the shoulders of the people playing the game. I see no great need to reinvent the wheel on this matter as no amount of added rules depth is going to make the players more creative, or more talented actors. There are rules there for social interaction that get the job done without being obtrusive or placing your character on auto pilot, and if the DM is worth his salt he will reward good RP as well as good hack and slash.
Things like tracking, mind reading, Post-cognition, things that would apply to social and political arenas and storylines of intrigue and the like.
Well, rewriting Diplomacy to give it some depth would be a good start, without damaging backwards compatibility, even.
-Matt
The Rogue(Thief) was once the ultimate Skill-Monkey. Now (especially with his new capstone) he is just another fighter type (but with skills). If you look at the rogue it is: Sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack.
First of all, it's Rogue. The Thief class is gone forever, and good riddance.
And second, while the rogue does get more combat-relevant powers, not all his powers are merely combat-related. There's fast stealth, ledge walker, major magic, minor magic, and rogue crawl. While they can be used in combat, they're also quite useful for the skill monkeying the rogue is all about.
And as an indirect benefit, the skill consolidations mean that he gets even more skills for his skill points.
All in all, the rogue hasn't changed: He's still the best skill user, and still has abilities that for both combat and out-of-combat situations.
|
yes KaeYoss... but what about the rest
i agree that there should be a bit less focus in combat, making skills more relevant would help (yes if a fighter can't do nothing outside combat for the lack of skills i think skills are not considered relevant to the game)
this is one of my few complains since 3.5
fighter, cleric, paladin, wizard, sorcerer
the 5 of them should be boosted a bit on skills... for RPG reasons, for background reason for lots of reasons... characters should not seen as "it works as a wizard, fighter or cleric... so he doesn't need any more"
i like to play characters not classes... skills help put emphasis on this
|
I agree totally with what you say Set. The rules do not complicate the roleplaying aspect of the game.
Kuj, I trust that when you use the term "fluff" it is not something negative. =)
In my games, we DO roleplay the combat(to some degree, it is rather difficult to maintain RP when you have like 5 rounds of no one hitting), as well as the skills the rules present. Woe to the player in my group who says "I use Intimidate" and picks up a die to roll!
The rules are just that, the rules. Perhaps this is why they seem to be what is most often presented. I agree, going through the PFRPG that arbitration and scope of game are under-presented. I had not really considered that aspect until this post, being a gamer since the blue-box days of D&D those items are not really necessary to my game at this point. I am sure there will be more products of that nature forthcoming once the game itself is released. It is a HUGE undertaking, and I feel the people at Paizo are VERY involved and committed to the game (and to us players!) as a Role Playing Game, not a stat-based, rules-heavy miniature game. It is up to the DM and the players to bring the rules to life in a RP sense.
Can always do something similar to what City of Heroes does...if you miss 2 rounds in a row, have an auto-hit mechanic, to liven up the game...
possibly have a cumulative combat modifier, every attack that misses adds 1 to the next attack, until you finally hit...as you learn how your opponent moves, after they get hit, they're gonna change how they attack. (make it so power attack/combat expertise can't be used with this bonus, as they are using feats actively...)this would make mobs have a greater chance to hit the longer a combat goes on as well. I might have to try this...
I just have one major concern I have to shout out loud:
"PLEASE! Stop making every aspect of the game, the classes and the feats focussed on Combat!"
The Rogue(Thief) was once the ultimate Skill-Monkey. Now (especially with his new capstone) he is just another fighter type (but with skills). If you look at the rogue it is: Sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack.
The same goes for the wizard and the sorcerer. All those ideas about bloodlines and improved specialists/universalists are GREAT. But almost everything they get is: +Armor, more damage, touch attack, magehand for fighting with weapon...
It's just sad. Pathfinder really has the opportunity to become more than what WotC has done.
Please, take a look again and think about it.Thanks.
I think you mean to say that non-combat aspects of the game are very important (rather than 'roleplaying'). If so, I completely agree with you. Non-combat spells, abilities, skills, powers and so on, are extremely important for me to have in the game. Without them, the game would be rather boring for me. I think the reason for the tendency towards making everything combat-oriented (and the Pathfinder RPG is much, much less guilty of this than 4E) is that combat abilities are easier to balance. Ultimately, though, if the game is boring, and for me the removal of non-combat abilities does serve to make it boring, it doesn't matter how balanced it is... (I am by no means implying that the Pathfinder RPG is boring in this regard - it is a general statement.)
You cannot roleplay when you are hauled off to the nearest temple that provides resurrection. Therefore, a good combat system and, at least, semi-balanced classes are important, if you're assumed to fight regularly (you are, in DnD).
Also, by the nature of D&D, after you get past low levels, non-combat, non-roleplaying challenges cease to matter one by one (because magic=win and >>> skills), and minor bonuses to solving them hardly ever matter at all. No one cares about skill bonuses to Climb, when every character has some form of flight, or can obtain it easily. You cannot solve that problem unless you make mundane skills as a whole way, way better, therefore actually useable past initial levels (IMO, that would have been a good idea in general, but looks like it is not going to happen in Pathfinder).
|
|
As Set pointed out, it is possible to make feats and abilities that are story rather than mechanic (roll) related, but these are best done setting specific rather than in core which must accommodate a wide range of settings.
What he said?
That's what I should have said, if I wasn't such a freaking motormouth...
|
|
That's one of the things they're implementing in the PA APs...the traits from the Second Darkness and Elves of Golarion, really help solidify background info for characters, AE/AU also had background feats that helped create more role-play possibilities.
But, role-play should be based upon the players knowledge of the game world and fleshing out his own character, how many players actually fill out information such as parents, siblings, first (if any) kill, favorite color, favorite food, likes, dislikes...these are all things we know about ourselves, but do you know it about your own characters?
Rules are primarily for combat, you don't need to roll any dice in role-play situations in reality...diplomacy/bartering can be done without a single roll.
|
|
That's one of the things they're implementing in the PA APs...the traits from the Second Darkness and Elves of Golarion, really help solidify background info for characters, AE/AU also had background feats that helped create more role-play possibilities.
But, role-play should be based upon the players knowledge of the game world and fleshing out his own character, how many players actually fill out information such as parents, siblings, first (if any) kill, favorite color, favorite food, likes, dislikes...these are all things we know about ourselves, but do you know it about your own characters?
Rules are primarily for combat, you don't need to roll any dice in role-play situations in reality...diplomacy/bartering can be done without a single roll.
yes but not every player is a master diplomatic... and his/her character sheet could say that HIS character is
the rules right now focuse themselves to much in combat, i like the traits that give some moredeep connection to the setting
cof and i know not every player does give himself a background... i asure you i try to push them toward that, but its ... complicated
i myself like to write my backgrounds... half my dm hate me if they are bigger than 2 or 4 pages
but i am an exception
I have to admit that I agree with DracoDruid. I never understood the whole "combat needs rules and everything else should be handwaved" philosophy -- that attitude leaves us with no interesting rules for negotations; Diplomacy rules that are static, ill-suited to anything outside of a narrow band of skill, and frankly feel tacked-on as an afterthought; a Knowledge (nature) skill that's good only for identifying weak points of monsters; no ability whatsoever to simulate an exciting chase; etc. Go ahead and yell at me, too, everyone. I'd like some space in the rules devoted to non-combat stuff -- what most people contempuously dismiss as "fluff" that's unworthy of mechanics (or, worse yet, who claim that any mechanics somehow destroy their ability to play, which to me implies a DM who wants nothing to interfere with their delusions of grandeur and a game centered around divine fiat).
For example, Victory Games' James Bond 007 rules had excellent mechanics for chases, allowing you to ramp up difficulty with stunts by accepting greater risk of more severe injury. THAT'S cool stuff. They also had clear guidelines for seduction: different stages (with associated DCs), time estimates, and ideas as to what you could get away with or what kinds of confidential information you might elicit at each stage. In my opinion, that didn't eliminate the role-playing AT ALL; it just gave guidelines for more complex interaction than just a DM arbitrarily deciding by whim, "OK, she likes you and tells you everything."
That leads me to an important point: "role-playing" is not the opposite of "combat," in my mind, nor is "role-playing" something that can happen only when no rules exist. A good game can include combat stuff, social stuff, exploration stuff, investigation stuff. Any of those four can be "role-played" and to hell with rules, just as any of the four can be unfortunately "roll-played," with or without more detailed rules, and without any meaningful role-playing. Ideally, each of the four should involve some degree of BOTH role-playing and adjudication by rolling (rather than by DM whim). I never ask for a Diplomacy check, for example, until the interaction has been played out: no role-playing = no roll-playing, at my table. The two can exist very nicely in tandem, and indeed make for a better game when they're both used together.
|
|
Lots of, well, just crazy talk
Have I called you a doodoohead lately? ;)
Seriously though, yeah, it seems that with the advent of 3x, the "role" in "roleplaying" has a pesky extra "l" in it, and misses an "e" someplace...
Sure, you can just kinda wing all the roleplaying aspects of the game, but it would be nice to have some solid guidelines (and not just lip service) for activities outside of combat, and it would be nice if most publishers stopped treating urban adventures as some kind of open air dungeon (invariably leading to the "real" dungeon of the sewers/basements/hidden door to the underdark...).
And I agree with the Ops sentiment that not every class needs to be the "uberroxxors1337!!!JAJAJAJ!!!" in combat (or whatever the kids say these days...). I had fun playing my worthless cleric until he died. I'm having fun playing my rogue who hears everything, gets the jump on everything, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a planetoid. I just wished both of them had more to do when the steel wasn't swinging and the magic wasn't flying...
|
|
And I agree with the Ops sentiment that not every class needs to be the "uberroxxors1337!!!JAJAJAJ!!!" in combat (or whatever the kids say these days...).
It would be interesting indeed if the class powers being added to the Cleric Domains, Wizard Schools and Sorcerer Bloodlines were almost exclusively *non-combat* abilities.
Imagine if the Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer had to rely on their spells for their combat contribution (instead of getting at will lazor beams), but had a bunch of fluffy at will abilities like Mage Hand or Tenser's Floating Disk or Disguise Self or Detect Foo? Spells that nobody wants to take in place of Magic Missile (or, for Sorcerers, eat a 'Spell Known' to learn), but are cool and fun and don't do damage.
It's kind of the opposite direction of where the Warlock and Reserve Feats have led us, so it would definitely be swimming against the tide of history...
|
|
Actually, the skills were expanded quite a bit in what was covered as well...which is nice...and they cover many non-combat related questions.
I'm not saying all the rules should be is about combat, don't get me wrong, but, primarily rules are for the combat interactions.
It doesn't say Hand of the Apprentice can only be used in combat...but it doesn't say it can't either, so if a universalist wants to use it to fetch his book off the shelf, excellent go for it...
If the fire evoker wants to use his ray of fire to start a fire, or light his pipe, cool, or even reduce it's power and singe someone's but as a practical joke, all cool with me as a DM, but I don't need hard-defined rules to say exactly what these special powers CAN or CAN'T do definitively...
As an example, I used a tanglefoot bag to save the fighter from a fall in our Play by Post a couple weeks ago, is it written that it can do that? No, but I tried it, and the DM allowed it to work that way...
Just remember the DM is the final arbiter in how the game plays.
I just wished both of them had more to do when the steel wasn't swinging and the magic wasn't flying...
I have to admit that I agree with DracoDruid. I never understood the whole "combat needs rules and everything else should be handwaved" philosophy -- that attitude leaves us with no interesting rules for negotations; Diplomacy rules that are static, ill-suited to anything outside of a narrow band of skill, and frankly feel tacked-on as an afterthought; a Knowledge (nature) skill that's good only for identifying weak points of monsters; no ability whatsoever to simulate an exciting chase; etc. Go ahead and yell at me, too, everyone. I'd like some space in the rules devoted to non-combat stuff -- what most people contempuously dismiss as "fluff" that's unworthy of mechanics (or, worse yet, who claim that any mechanics somehow destroy their ability to play, which to me implies a DM who wants nothing to interfere with their delusions of grandeur and a game centered around divine fiat).
That leads me to an important point: "role-playing" is not the opposite of "combat," in my mind, nor is "role-playing" something that can happen only when no rules exist. A good game can include combat stuff, social stuff, exploration stuff, investigation stuff. Any of those four can be "role-played" and to hell with rules, just as any of the four can be unfortunately "roll-played," with or without more detailed rules, and without any meaningful role-playing.
Roleplaying games are SUPPOSED to be "handwaved", or rather something that is created between the players and the DM, not a ruleset. Creating a system for every possible aspect of roleplaying outside of combat would be an exercise in futility. You use some decent examples from the James Bond Game, but let's face it, those are core aspects (chase, seduction, etc) that define that genre, whereas in a fantasy world it's about survival, magic and battle. The rules exist to moderate the experience between DM and player during times when there IS combat.
There are PLENTY of skills that are used outside of combat. If all your players can think of to use Knowledge (Nature) for is to determine the strengths/weakness of a creature, that is their shortcoming, not the games. Knowledge (Nature) becomes very important in a situation where lets say the party is out of food and wonders if those yellow fruits are edible, or as the Druid in my last game used it, to try and determine if the Alpha Wolf was present, or to determine if the crows that seem to be following them are natural or something else entirely.
The list of out of combat Skills is pretty extensive really: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge, Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Survival, Swim. The vast majority of them in fact!
There always comes a time, in ANY game, where a player, through roleplaying, will come up with something not covered by the rules at all. This is what makes the game exciting for a DM, the social intercourse if you will. Otherwise it's just work, work, work, and in fact a DM wouldn't be needed at all if everything could be covered by rules; you could just randomly roll through an adventure. Combat is at the heart of MOST D&D, and that is a fact that has not changed in my 20+ years of gaming. You do know that originally there were NO skills at all, right? *grin*
Can always do something similar to what City of Heroes does...if you miss 2 rounds in a row, have an auto-hit mechanic, to liven up the game...
No way. It screams "computer game" to me. And doesn't make sense, either: If a little child fights against Dahak, the child won't be able to hit him automatically after 20 seconds. Not even after 20 years. Same goes for Sorshen. Or even any 10th-level fighter.
then they're not actually role-playing if they are using their own abilities rather than their cahracter's lack of diplomacy...which I've had some half-orc play their diplomacy as more intimidation, leading to their arrest.
So if the shy guy with a rather average intelligence isn't able to actually remember all the actual incantations for all the spells his wizard character knows, or isn't able to convince the GM that his master diplomat should be able to negotiate a peace, he's not roleplaying?
Also, by the nature of D&D, after you get past low levels, non-combat, non-roleplaying challenges cease to matter one by one (because magic=win and >>> skills), and minor bonuses to solving them hardly ever matter at all. No one cares about skill bonuses to Climb, when every character has some form of flight, or can obtain it easily. You cannot solve that problem unless you make mundane skills as a whole way, way better, therefore actually useable past initial levels (IMO, that would have been a good idea in general, but looks like it is not going to happen in Pathfinder).
Try easily acquiring magical flight when you're on the bottom of a pit that is rapidly filling with acid and you need to get out now.
And such a change would probably be quite fundamental, i.e. not possible in a revision. Which PF RPG is.
|
|
GodsDog, good point, but remember: Gygax spent a LOT of time talking about aspects that had nothing to do with combat, in both the PHB and the DMG, and the MM was chock full of critters that you weren't supposed to fight.
Just saying, throwing in my 30 years of experience ;)
yes but good Gygax give you experience for every GP you got in treasure :P
i have read some of his notes in dragon... maybe it was not all about combat... but it sort of sounded like that :Pagain i want something that rewards roleplaying, but also not that punish a player because he is not a actor or master diplomatic
thanks KaeYoss i agree in your answers
GodsDog, good point, but remember: Gygax spent a LOT of time talking about aspects that had nothing to do with combat, in both the PHB and the DMG, and the MM was chock full of critters that you weren't supposed to fight.
Just saying, throwing in my 30 years of experience ;)
Yes, I think I addressed that PFRPG lacks the RP arbitration aspect, but it is taking a game system that most (if not all) of us have used and are familiar with. It really surprised me, for instance, how much of WoTC DMG 3.5 had more helpful information for the DM than actual sets of rules! I am not sure if Paizo made this choice based on number of pages (PFRPG is all inclusive in one book after all), or just oversite by the creators who also have many years experience with gaming. Basically, my point is that D&D roleplaying is something that comes from the hearts and imaginations of the people who play it, and as such should not be arbitrated by a set system of rules.
The beauty that I have found within the Paizo products is the level of imagination it sparks through it's other products (aside from the rules).You're old too! =p
|
|
GodsDog, good point, but remember: Gygax spent a LOT of time talking about aspects that had nothing to do with combat, in both the PHB and the DMG, and the MM was chock full of critters that you weren't supposed to fight.
Just saying, throwing in my 30 years of experience ;)
Yes, I think I addressed that PFRPG lacks the RP arbitration aspect, but it is taking a game system that most (if not all) of us have used and are familiar with. It really surprised me, for instance, how much of WoTC DMG 3.5 had more helpful information for the DM than actual sets of rules! I am not sure if Paizo made this choice based on number of pages (PFRPG is all inclusive in one book after all), or just oversite by the creators who also have many years experience with gaming. Basically, my point is that D&D roleplaying is something that comes from the hearts and imaginations of the people who play it, and as such should not be arbitrated by a set system of rules.
The beauty that I have found within the Paizo products is the level of imagination it sparks through it's other products (aside from the rules).
You're old too! =p
i believe its pagecount
specially because they needed to give us the rules that were going to be playtested, the DM recommendations i believe would be going to the Final Product|
|
Can always do something similar to what City of Heroes does...if you miss 2 rounds in a row, have an auto-hit mechanic, to liven up the game...No way. It screams "computer game" to me. And doesn't make sense, either: If a little child fights against Dahak, the child won't be able to hit him automatically after 20 seconds. Not even after 20 years. Same goes for Sorshen. Or even any 10th-level fighter.
then they're not actually role-playing if they are using their own abilities rather than their cahracter's lack of diplomacy...which I've had some half-orc play their diplomacy as more intimidation, leading to their arrest.So if the shy guy with a rather average intelligence isn't able to actually remember all the actual incantations for all the spells his wizard character knows, or isn't able to convince the GM that his master diplomat should be able to negotiate a peace, he's not roleplaying?
Also, by the nature of D&D, after you get past low levels, non-combat, non-roleplaying challenges cease to matter one by one (because magic=win and >>> skills), and minor bonuses to solving them hardly ever matter at all. No one cares about skill bonuses to Climb, when every character has some form of flight, or can obtain it easily. You cannot solve that problem unless you make mundane skills as a whole way, way better, therefore actually useable past initial levels (IMO, that would have been a good idea in general, but looks like it is not going to happen in Pathfinder).
Try easily acquiring magical flight when you're on the bottom of a pit that is rapidly filling with acid and you need to get out now.
And such a change would probably be quite fundamental, i.e. not possible in a revision. Which PF RPG is.
Yeah, the idea did come from a Game, so yup, it would smack of video game! LoL
A reason why roleplay needs more rules: The player is not his character
A player that rolls a character is under no obligation of sharing his character traits, and should not be penalized for it.
-The fact that the character has 10 ranks in Diplomacy doesn't mean the player has the same amount of social skills.
-A player should be under no obligation to be a real-life Criminologist to roleplay a detective properly.
This kind of players more often than not need help on how to conduct their characters properly, that's where "roleplay crunch" comes in the picture.
The games I use to run barely have a fight scene every 2 to three gaming sessions, so most of the 'action' is instead crunchy roleplay action... and yeah, uses plenty of rules (even when plenty of times such rules are extrapolations and GM judgement calls).
I do agree that the social interaction part in RPGs shouldn't be reduced to "I roll diplomacy to persuade the king" or "I roll Int to solve the puzzle", I do think that there should be rules to adjudicate a character's success or failure in such endeavours.
After all, when you have to make a strength check, the GM doesn't point you to a boulder on the lawn and tells you that your character succeeds in his str check if you can lift the thing.
You do know that originally there were NO skills at all, right? *grin*
That was a source of constant frustration in our 1e games. Someone wanted to know if he could out-ride someone else, and jump over obstacles, and we had to sit there and invent rules on the spot. Yeah, that's a kind of freedom, I guess, but mostly it was a pain in the neck. 2e wasn't much better -- we finally got our skills, but they had no real ranks. 3e was a HUGE improvement over all that. I'd like to see this trend of increasingly more importance on skills continue. You obviously don't. That doesn't make me a newbie worthy of a bunch of scorn (I've been playing since 1981 or so); it just means I place less importance on combat than you do (indeed, I've most enjoyed the skill-based game systems, in which combat skill is just one of many skills -- but alas, Paizo doesn't write adventures for those systems).
I feel that, if all skills should be hand-waved, and have no guidelines, then combat should be the same way: throw out the dice, and we'll all just make up a story however we want and all decide the outcome without any guidelines, so that it's a creative writing club instead of a game. I'll happily ignore rules if it makes for better play, but I prefer that to be an exception, not the norm. I feel that the game world is more immersive if it's dictated by natural laws, so to speak, rather than by whim.
|
|
You do know that originally there were NO skills at all, right? *grin*
how boring :S
That was a source of constant frustration in our 1e games. Someone wanted to know if he could out-ride someone else, and jump over obstacles, and we had to sit there and invent rules on the spot. Yeah, that's a kind of freedom, I guess, but mostly it was a pain in the neck. 2e wasn't much better -- we finally got our skills, but they had no real ranks. 3e was a HUGE improvement over all that. I'd like to see this trend of increasingly more importance on skills continue. You obviously don't. That doesn't make me a newbie worthy of a bunch of scorn (I've been playing since 1981 or so); it just means I place less importance on combat than you do (indeed, I've most enjoyed the skill-based game systems, in which combat skill is just one of many skills -- but alas, Paizo doesn't write adventures for those systems).
i agree Kirth
Skills are important to make character realistic and enjoyableany videogame can give you good combat...
our group itself have found that sometiems we do not get a combar encounter in 1 or 2 sesions, maybe even 3...
how do we fill this?
a good story, which is enhanced witht he use of skills
as you mention i have found quite more atractive than 3.5 systems like Alternity that focuses less in combat while gicving the option and using it as just another skill
systems like that make me believe that the central part of an interesting RPG are the skills which let the players customize their character and do other things than just combat.
i know that most, including the developers, do not agree with this opinion, they give us wodnerful stories and interesting characters adn encounters... but the world fall short of options sometiems when you are limited in the way you can interact with it... this interacton (besides the sword or the spell) should be done using skills... but then you limit the game mostly to 2 classes, with a lesser part given to 4 others... while 5 (almost half the clases) lack this possibility (yes fighters CAN and WILL function as fighters... but they are not realsitic characters most of the time)
PS: and yes... i am a newbie who began playing when the 2nd Edition of Advance Dungeons & Dragons hit the shelves... just around 15 or 18 years
Roleplaying games are SUPPOSED to be "handwaved", or rather something that is created between the players and the DM, not a ruleset. Creating a system for every possible aspect of roleplaying outside of combat would be an exercise in futility. You use some decent examples from the James Bond Game, but let's face it, those are core aspects (chase, seduction, etc) that define that genre, whereas in a fantasy world it's about survival, magic and battle. The rules exist to moderate the experience between DM and player during times when there IS combat.
There are PLENTY of skills that are used outside of combat. If all your players can...
Now, it seems here you're agreeing, but not really meeting, as it were. Sure, roleplaying shouldn't be constrained by rules, but what's suggested here is: all these class abilities are focusing on combat-only features.
Now, I'm a level x in whatever, and it'd be nice to have some flavor or flair that was completely noncombat...
Outside of skills.
There is room for a middle-ground. Now, the rogue was mentioned, and off the top of my head: Some uber-disguise tricks, the ability to spot through disguises, or make disguises, that even baffle magical detection means?
Rules for clerics swaying the masses? Convincing that farmer to drop that pitchfork in the name of x god, or conversely, pick it up. Stirring up the mob with religious fervor.
Things like that. If we're all just different flavors of fighter (some of us blast or go pew-pew, others bring in daggers o' doom to the fray, but we're all combat monkeys), I might as well be playing a MMO and trying to up my killcount.
Wait, that's 4e.
*coughs*
They're not arguing as much for "Let's make rules to define how all of role-play works evar." Any roleplayer will tell you that idea's a bunch of bunk anyway. The classes are combat-focused enough. But, let's do something about the assumption that:
The primary point of a class feature is how it enhances its combat-monkey-ness.
And gain one that's:
Non combat-monkey-features are ok, too.
And:
There can be "rules" for roleplaying that support roleplaying, not dictate it.
You do know that originally there were NO skills at all, right? *grin*
Yeah. It's amazing how far this game - and RPGs in general - have come.
Not that I want to slam Gary's work. Far from it. Of course, by our current standards, the old D&D wasn't that good a game. But we didn't have those standards back then, and wouldn't have them now if Gary didn't start it all. He had to go from scratch. In fact, he didn't even have scratch. For the first of its kind, the first D&D was great.
Doesn't mean we have to go back there.
I'd like to see this trend of increasingly more importance on skills continue.
Me, too - to a certain extent. Combat will always be a very important part of D&D, and will always get special treatment. At least that's what I think.
I doubt that D&D will ever have swordery as a skill - BAB, or something a lot like it, will always be there.
Doesn't mean the rules for skills and their uses cannot improve, and I don't think they have reached their peak yet.
I feel that, if all skills should be hand-waved, and have no guidelines, then combat should be the same way:
Agreed. Either the game is rules light in general, or it is detailed in everything.
A game with very detailed combat rules but no rules for out-of-combat situations is a wargame for me, not a Roleplaying game.
|
|
Whilst D&D was first, in the year AD&D came out, Runequest was also out with a proper skills system (in fact, with a system that is still good; better than D&D 3.5's by a country mile, for my money). Being first was Gygax's big contribution (and it was a big one). Industry standards for rpgs then evolved rather faster than Gygax's did.
After all, when you have to make a strength check, the GM doesn't point you to a boulder on the lawn and tells you that your character succeeds in his str check if you can lift the thing.
*Dons his 'If you stand up, you're LARPing' T-shirt* =P
Sure, roleplaying shouldn't be constrained by rules, but what's suggested here is: all these class abilities are focusing on combat-only features.Now, I'm a level x in whatever, and it'd be nice to have some flavor or flair that was completely noncombat...
Outside of skills.
There is room for a middle-ground. Now, the rogue was mentioned, and off the top of my head: Some uber-disguise tricks, the ability to spot through disguises, or make disguises, that even baffle magical detection means?
Rules for clerics swaying the masses? Convincing that farmer to drop that pitchfork in the name of x god, or conversely, pick it up. Stirring up the mob with religious fervor.
Things like that. If we're all just different flavors of fighter (some of us blast or go pew-pew, others bring in daggers o' doom to the fray, but we're all combat monkeys), I might as well be playing a MMO and trying to up my killcount.
Wait, that's 4e.
*coughs*
They're not arguing as much for "Let's make rules to define how all of role-play works evar." Any roleplayer will tell you that idea's a bunch of bunk anyway. The classes are combat-focused enough. But, let's do something about the assumption that:
The primary point of a class feature is how it enhances its...
THAT'S what I tried to say all the time.
(Well, I'm german and might have difficulties in expressing myself concretely)We all have different opinions on what a good RPG session is made of.
For me, I like combat, but I think it's onesided and actually quite uncreative and... yes, boring to design the classes with most special abilities designed for combat.
Sure, combat as great and fun and no character should just sit besides, but that is also true for every other part of the game.
How often is the fighter's player sitting beside bored while the others are playing the social or secret game?
It's all a matter of what you think the class should be made for.
Right now, it feels like that (some classes as example):
Fighter: The big tank. Born for melee. A klutz everywhere else.
Rogue: The sneaky light armored fighter. Has some skills too.
Cleric: Front-swine of his faith. Can heal and send down the divine wrath upon his enemies.
Ranger: The wilderness fighter. Made to kill certain types of monsters.
Oh yeah. Has some skills too.
Druid: the beast man. Can shape into monsters or call the elemental forces to kill the cool way.
We are too influenced by computer games I think. The games calling themselves RPGs are actually just third-person-action-adventure with the option to level up.
But that's not roleplaying... well, not all of it.
We have the computer games for this. So let's make the good ol' PnP something bigger.
AGAIN: I don't want to drop the fighting, I don't want the game to be less (combat) and want the game to become MORE (than combat)!