Let me clarify something; I am in NO way being scornful, uptight, or making fun of how anyone else chooses to play the game. I am merely trying to have a dialogue with my fellow gamers regarding certain aspects of the game. My opinion = your opinion, not better or worse. Please use this as a disclaimer for ANY of my posts. You will know if I am being condescending, cynical, or sarcastic...trust me. We all have something in common, for better or worse, we are GAMERS! Let us celebrate this Brotherhood (or Sisterhood) of creativity. I tend to write off the cuff and from the heart; it keeps me honest. Now, on with the show! =)
I think the game HAS come a long way since it's inception. We tried to have our old DM run a 3.5 campaign and he completely disagrees with the new system, saying the DM should have the control of the game. I tried to explain to him that Skills and Feats add a LOT to character development (as opposed to the generic classes from AD&D, every class of the same race will be the same) and the roleplaying aspect of the game as far as character uniqueness. Is the system open to abuse? Most definitely! What system isn't? Ask my friend about his half-dragon, fighter/warlock with the spiked chain! lol Anyway, the old DM has his issues which basically come down to his inability to keep track of things. Therefore, more rules in the players hands is a bad thing, and using miniatures prevents him from randomly moving his monsters to wherever he wants to; a syndrome we used to call Wizards on Rollerskates. But I digress.
The point of my story is that I agree with my old DM on a CERTAIN point. Having run 3.5 with some newer players has given me insight into what he was saying. I watch as instead of roleplaying what their characters might do, these new players start going through their list of skills to see what the CAN do. THAT is a serious issue within the scope of roleplaying. The basic concept of RP is that a person should be as creative as possible. Excessive lists of skills place limitations on the imagination and roleplaying ability of the player. Roleplaying should not come from a list of possible skills, nor should it be decided by a roll. Again, it is the social contract between the players and the DM. If the DM puts hours of research and preparation to run a game, and is expected to RP all the NPCs and creatures, the least the players can do is reach deep within themselves (not the ruleset) and create back. The more your decisions entertain the DM and the rest of the players around the table, the more chance of success you should have.
Now, that said, I do not think that someone should be penalized for their inability to be Diplomatic IRL for instance. I am certainly not one to say you MUST stay in character the whole time we play, or that your effort to be Diplomatic (just to stay with the example) was pretty pathetic and therefore not effective in the game. Whether you wax eloquent with something like, "Your most Royal and High Majesty, I stand before you this day to speak of a great peril to your kingdom, NAY!, the WORLD ITSELF! That requires your gracious and immediate assitance in the form of gold from your coffers, and troops from your soldiery to eliminate this dire threat and bring glory to your name forevermore! (while standing on your chair and gesticulating dramatically" OR say "I tell the King that he should help us because the threat is to his kingdom as well (as you reach for your Dew)" doesn't matter, as long as you are making some attempt to treat with the NPC as your character would. My personal problem with the skill system is when a player (instead of doing either of the above) starts going through his skills list and then says "AHA! I use my Diplomacy Skill on the King." Not entertaining, and certainly more like a video game. In fact, video games are a great example of what having a hard system of logical rules do to a game.
Video games CAME from RPGs, yet we all still love to sit at the table with our friends rather than tuning out and playing a video game. The reason for this is the social interaction and roleplaying. Both aspects that are not derived from a set of rules. There are plenty of rules and aspects of the game to facilitate roleplaying outside of combat (and inside of combat!). Stretch yourself, till the fertile ground of your imagination, evoke the imagery of ringing steel and the moment of fear when you hear the hissing intake of dragon breath, the slimy machinations of the shady merchant who lisps promises of wealth should you perform a task for him. These things are all aspects of the game outside of the rules. Making more rules will not enable them, it can only take away from them. When I stand up behind my DM screen and hunch my back, squint through one eye at my players, twist my mouth in a sneering grin and speak in a lisping or cryptic voice to my players, they probably won't need to make a Sense Motive check to determine if the NPC has a hidden agenda.
"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
A social conflict resultion system that actually worth a damn, might be a good start.
|
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.
I'll say this though, high level fighters didn't suck in Gygax's game. He did get a lot right mechanically that 3x screwed up royally...
So...
Does anybody actually have any ideas for new non-combat abilities? ^^
|
So...
Does anybody actually have any ideas for new non-combat abilities? ^^
I had some ideas for feats related to social organizations up on page one, but it was a long post.
One 'issue' with non-combat class abilities is that they sometimes seem to take up space that somebody else might use for combat abilities, and DMs have been trained since 1st edition to just drop adventure hooks, provide clues, etc. to get the mission going. If a party member has a class power that helps to investigate details, or has prophetic dreams that can lead to adventure hooks, that's flavorful as all hell, but it's the kind of stuff that would have happened *even if the party didn't have that ability,* because the DM would have pointed the group towards the adventure anyway, or helped them learn the bare minimum clues to get them pointed in that direction, etc.
If this game wasn't already so friendly to spellcasters, I've always liked the idea of wizards doing stuff 'by other means.' Anytime that the party has to make a Jump check, the wizard rolls normally, but if he succeeds he seems to just float over the obstacle. If he fails his Jump check (which is in no way enhanced!), his magic was exhausted or 'forces were aligning against him' or 'you disrupted my concentration, you idiot!' or some other excuse. Basically, just adding a magical special effect to any skill use. Everyone flips open the books to start researching, the wizard sits sipping mulled cider while the book floats in front of him, pages flipping, words seeming to jump off of the page and drift and dance in front of him, before sliding back down to the page in time for the page to turn again.
|
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 totally share this feeling. While I'm simply loving PFRPG, I'd like some of the "extra" powers of the classes (specialist powers, domain powers, rogue talents and the like) to be more focused out of combat.
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.
Let's say... More Fallout and Arcanum, less Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate? ;-)
Mind you, I enjoyed all of those games. But the first two more than the latter. :-D
|
|
A social conflict resultion system that actually worth a damn, might be a good start.
So an encounter would go something like this:
Player 1: I do a Full Power Sneer. Oh yeah, Critical Snub! He is Dissed for 43.
DM: Ouch! That makes him Bummed.
Player 2: Then I will try to Trip Him Up. I got the Opening.
DM: What about the Opposed Quip check? He gets a 22.
Player 2: Damn, I only got a 17.
DM: Then he makes a Rebuttal, a 19.
Player 2: Now I got a 15.
DM: Then that leaves you Prone to Scorn. He is up. He will Repair Critical Reputation on himself.
Player 3: Enough of this nonsense. Full Dozens, using Double Entendre. Yes! All of them scored with two Critical Snubs. He takes 125 point of Dissing total.
DM: Wow. OK, he is Totally Humiliated at Court.
Player 2: (muttering) The Double Entendre rules are so broken.
I miss how that would result in any real difference from just another combat encounter.
The problem with such rules inevitably comes down to the issue of a player not being able to express the uber-charm or deceit or what not of his PC.
If the system does not require the encounter to be talked out, it will always reduce to "roll-playing".
If it does require the encounter to be talked out, it either excludes people who are less adept or restricts those people to playing 6 Charisma socially inept dweebs no matter what. It also creates a severe discrepancy with other skills, as no one else is expected to demonstrate their ability to pick a lock, walk a balance beam, rattle off memorized stats from the Monster Manual, or use any similar skill "for real".
Samuel Weiss, I laughed so hard I think it knocked the Flu right outta me! That was freakin well-thought out and executed. Kudos!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Player 1: I do a Full Power Sneer. Oh yeah, Critical Snub! He is Dissed for 43.
DM: Ouch! That makes him Bummed.
Player 2: Then I will try to Trip Him Up. I got the Opening.
DM: What about the Opposed Quip check? He gets a 22.
Player 2: Damn, I only got a 17.
DM: Then he makes a Rebuttal, a 19.
Player 2: Now I got a 15.
DM: Then that leaves you Prone to Scorn. He is up. He will Repair Critical Reputation on himself.
Player 3: Enough of this nonsense. Full Dozens, using Double Entendre. Yes! All of them scored with two Critical Snubs. He takes 125 point of Dissing total.
DM: Wow. OK, he is Totally Humiliated at Court.
Player 2: (muttering) The Double Entendre rules are so broken.
Potentially classic.
I totally share this feeling. While I'm simply loving PFRPG, I'd like some of the "extra" powers of the classes (specialist powers, domain powers, rogue talents and the like) to be more focused out of combat.
I'm currently preparing houserules for our new campaign next month, and have quite some amount of it going into explaining the players, that I wont allow roges to sneak attack undead or sneak attack when flanking, because a rogue is not supposed to kill a monster as quickly as a fighter (unless ambushing from the shadows). If they want to run around slicing monsters, they should pick a Dex-based fighter (I'm trying to make them be cool).
Of course, this only works because I plan to design the encounters that there are ways to [u]overcome[/u] them by using the abilities the PCs have. If they all want to play martial characters, that would mean mostly beating stuff to death and droping heavy things on creatures, but the adventures won't be harder for the players if they all chose to play bards. But this works only when the campaign is written for the specific party and the gm actually want adventured to be finished by other ways than killing.
A social conflict resultion system that actually worth a damn, might be a good start.
I've been slowly working on one for quite some time, actually. It's a little bit out there for Pathfinder to implement, though. The initial inspiration, I will admit, came from a combination of Spycraft and Exalted.
And contrary to what Samweiss put forth, it actually works.
-Matt
A social conflict resultion system that actually worth a damn, might be a good start.I've been slowly working on one for quite some time, actually. It's a little bit out there for Pathfinder to implement, though. The initial inspiration, I will admit, came from a combination of Spycraft and Exalted.
And contrary to what Samweiss put forth, it actually works.
-Matt
Exalted has some very interesting Idea with regards to it.
|
|
I've been slowly working on one for quite some time, actually. It's a little bit out there for Pathfinder to implement, though. The initial inspiration, I will admit, came from a combination of Spycraft and Exalted.
And contrary to what Samweiss put forth, it actually works.
-Matt
Hey! My system works.
Well, it would if anyone actually turned it into a functioning system.At least it would work as well as other such systems I have tried.
|
|
a friend commented something about recieving reputation tokens that could be used to help them get bonuces with organizations
i myself use reputation level for characters and groups or individuals... that help them interact (bonuses to the roll, or let them interact at all) ofcoruse infamy works the same way, with enemies sneering at them or in the worst case sending minions to murder them.
the plan is when they do something that would enhance such reputation i add it, but never bigger than their own level except if it was something too good (somehow theysave the whole city from a terrible disaster)
just beginning so i will se how they grow it...
also adding backgrounds, merits and flaws as white wolf games might be interesting
i know there are already feats
but most want to have their "battle" feats untouched and still give them a few roleplaying extra options
I'm still forced to admit that I don't understand why roleplaying has to disappear if there are rules. If a player wants his PC to climb down a cliff, I make him tell me what tools he's using, and how he's going about it... otherwise there's no attempt. But, once the roleplaying is done, I let him roll against his Climb skill for success; I don't just decide arbitrarily if he makes it. Why can't Diplomacy work similarly?
Possibility One
Player: "Your majesty, we beseech you [blah, blah, blah] ..."
DM: "He goes for it!"
My reaction: Why is this entire world dictated by DM whim? I'd be annoyed as a player, when there is no means of success or failure except whether Derek wants me to. Why have dice at all?
Possibility Two
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the King!"
DM: "DC 25 succeeds."
My reaction: Why not just play a computer game?
Possibility Three - My personal preference
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the kiing!"
DM: "OK, what do you ask him?"
Player: ""Your majesty, we beseech you [blah, blah, blah] ..."
DM: "Cool! OK, go ahead and roll your check."
Player: "16."
DM: "He mulls over your excellent points, but seems undecided... although you get the feeling if you sweeten the deal a bit he might just go along with you..."
Why is everyone so afraid of that third possibility? Is it just that people are unaware that it exists? Or have never tried it?
I'm forced to admit that I don't understand why roleplaying has to disappear if there are rules.
Possibility One
Player: "Your majesty, we beseech you, blah, blah, blah ..."
DM: "He goes for it!"
My reaction: Why is this entire world dictated by DM whim? I'd be annoyed as a player, when there is no means of success or failure except whether Derek wants me to. Why have dice at all?Possibility Two
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the King!"
DM: "DC 25 succeeds."
My reaction: Why have these idiots dispensed with the roleplaying?Possibility Three - My personal preference
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the kiing!"
DM: "OK, what do you ask him?"
Player: ""Your majesty, we beseech you, blah, blah, blah ..."
DM: "Cool! OK, go ahead and roll your check."
Player: "16."
DM: "He mulls over your excellent points, but seems undecided... although you get the feeling if you sweeten the deal a bit he might just go along with you..."Why is everyone so afraid of that third possibility? Is it just that people are unaware that it exists? Or have never tried it?
I'm completely with you on this, Kirth. The idea that rules and mechanics naturally rule out role-playing, instead of naturally supporting them, strikes me as odd, no matter how much I hear it.
|
|
I'm still forced to admit that I don't understand why roleplaying has to disappear if there are rules. If a player wants his PC to climb down a cliff, I make him tell me what tools he's using, and how he's going about it... otherwise there's no attempt. But, once the roleplaying is done, I let him roll against his Climb skill for success; I don't just decide arbitrarily if he makes it. Why can't Diplomacy work similarly?
Possibility One
Player: "Your majesty, we beseech you [blah, blah, blah] ..."
DM: "He goes for it!"
My reaction: Why is this entire world dictated by DM whim? I'd be annoyed as a player, when there is no means of success or failure except whether Derek wants me to. Why have dice at all?Possibility Two
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the King!"
DM: "DC 25 succeeds."
My reaction: Why not just play a computer game?Possibility Three - My personal preference
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the kiing!"
DM: "OK, what do you ask him?"
Player: ""Your majesty, we beseech you [blah, blah, blah] ..."
DM: "Cool! OK, go ahead and roll your check."
Player: "16."
DM: "He mulls over your excellent points, but seems undecided... although you get the feeling if you sweeten the deal a bit he might just go along with you..."Why is everyone so afraid of that third possibility? Is it just that people are unaware that it exists? Or have never tried it?
i agree
thias is what we usually do :D|
|
Most of us prefer at least a modicum of role-playing, rather than 'I roll Diplomacy,' so the DM-of-the-day generally says, 'Okay, impress me.' and one of the players comes up with a 'sales pitch' and then we roll Diplomacy with a circumstance penalty or bonus depending on how good the pitch was. (It doesn't have to be role-played, just an idea of what the pitch is, and how we intend to phrase it.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Isn't that what everyone does?
A few, relatively simple mechanics to determine success in certain social situations is all that is needed.
More complicated stuff, and people run away screaming.
Here, watch. I'll illustrate:
I was thinking that we need a more realistic mechanic for languages. Instead of having languages as binary (known/unknown), we need to have a mechanic that allows a skill check for each language. Failing your skill check by 5 or more, means you completely misunderstand or are misunderstood. Failing it by 10 or more means you give offense.
Also, the number of skill points you put into the language should not equal your ranks in the language as some are harder to learn then others. Non-humanoid languages should cost twice as much and languages that originate on other planes should cost three times more.
C'mon. Scream now. Go ahead.
Most of us prefer at least a modicum of role-playing, rather than 'I roll Diplomacy,' so the DM-of-the-day generally says, 'Okay, impress me.' and one of the players comes up with a 'sales pitch' and then we roll Diplomacy with a circumstance penalty or bonus depending on how good the pitch was. (It doesn't have to be role-played, just an idea of what the pitch is, and how we intend to phrase it.)
I master diplomacy situations the same way. You don't have to make a good show, but you need to bring good arguments.
Isn't that what everyone does?
A few, relatively simple mechanics to determine success in certain social situations is all that is needed.
More complicated stuff, and people run away screaming.
Here, watch. I'll illustrate:
I was thinking that we need a more realistic mechanic for languages. Instead of having languages as binary (known/unknown), we need to have a mechanic that allows a skill check for each language. Failing your skill check by 5 or more, means you completely misunderstand or are misunderstood. Failing it by 10 or more means you give offense.
Also, the number of skill points you put into the language should not equal your ranks in the language as some are harder to learn then others. Non-humanoid languages should cost twice as much and languages that originate on other planes should cost three times more.
C'mon. Scream now. Go ahead.
Mairkurion's DM is currently working of this, since languages are one of M's important skills. He's even creating a language tree of relationships between languages with degrees to determine how difficult it is to go from a language known to a related language. haha--you guys might get along!
|
|
Mairkurion's DM is currently working of this, since languages are one of M's important skills. He's even creating a language tree of relationships between languages with degrees to determine how difficult it is to go from a language known to a related language. haha--you guys might get along!
ask him to post it here
sounds fun :D
Mairkurion's DM is currently working of this, since languages are one of M's important skills. He's even creating a language tree of relationships between languages with degrees to determine how difficult it is to go from a language known to a related language. haha--you guys might get along!ask him to post it here
sounds fun :D
Most of it wouldn't mean anything to you--the languages are specific to one of our worlds (the Tolkienesque one) and the languages are unique to it. For example, instead of Elven, multiple languages of Elves, some almost extinct.
|
Most of us prefer at least a modicum of role-playing, rather than 'I roll Diplomacy,' so the DM-of-the-day generally says, 'Okay, impress me.' and one of the players comes up with a 'sales pitch' and then we roll Diplomacy with a circumstance penalty or bonus depending on how good the pitch was. (It doesn't have to be role-played, just an idea of what the pitch is, and how we intend to phrase it.)
I like something similar; the players sketch out what they want to do, what argument, etc, then I decide how good an approach that is (ie, alter DC or add bonus/penalty) then they make a skill roll.
[stuff deleted]
Why is everyone so afraid of that third possibility? Is it just that people are unaware that it exists? Or have never tried it?
I think people use "Possibility 3" all the time. But because of the way 3.5 edition D&D works, a skill check that's slightly challenging for an expert is (almost) impossible for an amateur. So you sometimes end up with players who feel their characters can't contribute much relatively speaking outside of combat.
E.g.
Player 1: "Your majesty, we beseech thee..etc., etc." I rolled a 37.
Player 2: Uh...I sharpen my sword and keep my mouth shut. If a 37 doesn't convince him, there's nothing I can say that'll make a difference.
Not surprisingly, I don't see any problem at all with ranks in languages, and a possibility of being misunderstood. Indeed, that mechanic could potentially open up all kinds of role-playing opportunity, when trying to get across an imporant, life-or-death piece of information to someone who doesn't really understand what you're telling him...
I think people use "Possibility 3" all the time. But because of the way 3.5 edition D&D works, a skill check that's slightly challenging for an expert is (almost) impossible for an amateur. So you sometimes end up with players who feel their characters can't contribute much relatively speaking outside of combat.
E.g.
Player 1: "Your majesty, we beseech thee..etc., etc." I rolled a 37.
Player 2: Uh...I sharpen my sword and keep my mouth shut. If a 37 doesn't convince him, there's nothing I can say that'll make a difference.
That's a huge problem with the way the rules are set up, but not a problem with having rules in the first place. My example was directed at the people who feel that any set of rules somehow automatically limits or negates any possibility of role-playing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
He's even creating a language tree of relationships between languages with degrees to determine how difficult it is to go from a language known to a related language. haha--you guys might get along!
A language tree? That makes perfect sense! My original thought would only work if characters stayed with the PHB races but fell apart soon after. ... Damn. Now, I'm taking it seriously.
Okay, so you guys didn't run screaming. Personally, as an applied linguist, I always have found language learning in D&D to be ridiculous. But very few people want something like this even though it increases verismilimawhatchamacallit.
Why do I always have to be the bad guy???
Maybe next week I can start blaming Jerry... ;)
|
|
That's a huge problem with the way the rules are set up, but not a problem with having rules in the first place. My example was directed at the people who feel that any set of rules somehow automatically limits or negates any possibility of role-playing.
The thing is, from the most cynical POV, your possibility 3 is really just possibility 2. No matter what the player says, the DM has already determined the DC required, and if the dice do not produce that possibility the players have failed.
Or, from another harshly cynical POV, it is really just possibility 1, with you already having decided just what argument will or will not work and to what degree, you are just allowing the players to roll a die to make them feel good about having a "chance" to succeed.Functionally, as hogarth notes and I would expand on, that is what most DMs do. They make a reasonable decision about what help might be given, what it will take to get that help, and add a bit of randomness to determine how quickly and willingly it is given.
Mechanically, that requires an extremely rules-light system and an ability-heavy DM. Otherwise, you get exactly the syndrome hogarth described. That is what MegaTraveller had. The skill system was mechanically solid. Unfortunately, it extended to interpersonal skills as well as technical skills. That meant if you did not have someone in the party with each of a half-dozen or so separate skills (for dealing with low-class people, high-class people, corporate people/legal issues, aliens, general schmoozing, and probably something else I am forgetting), that particular type of interaction was effectively impossible for you to engage in.
A skill to enhance Charisma (I support rolling Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff into a single skill), some general guidelines on about how difficult certain things should be (5+, 10+, 15+, 20+), and some more in-depth guidelines for how to wing it and fudge it (Magician's Choice = DM's Friend), then walk away from it before you wreck it.
Just Say No to Double Entendre rules. ;)
That's a huge problem with the way the rules are set up, but not a problem with having rules in the first place. My example was directed at the people who feel that any set of rules somehow automatically limits or negates any possibility of role-playing.
I agree that having a set of rules doesn't negate any possibility of role-playing, but it certainly limits it (e.g. if there are specific rules for the Perform skill, then it's unlikely that my barbarian with no ranks will be able to defuse a tense confrontation between two groups of warriors by turning it into an impromptu singing contest, no matter how funny or interesting that might be).
This is all just playing devil's advocate, though; I'd much rather have a skill system than no skill system!
There IS a Skill System, and it covers most aspects outside of combat that occur. My point of view has been that a fully fleshed out Skills/Rules system covering EVERY aspect of the social part of the game is not needed, and that the DM is there for this very reason; to be the deciding factor in any given situation that may not be covered by rules.
My other point was that the rules seem heavily combat oriented due to the fact that that is a part of the game that HAS to have rules in order to be fair for all participants, and give each "type" of character a level of importance and relevance within the structure of the game.
One of the examples given for a "good" system was Exalted. That system is based on the Storytelling System which came from Vampire, Werewolf and other LARP games. If LARPing is your cup of tea, then by all means, use that system, but this is D&D. A game that combines roleplaying with miniature wargame rules (the best of both worlds as me and my friends like to say). The social interaction part should not HAVE to be dicatated by a strict set of rules, they just aren't necessary (as anyone who played AD&D in any of it's forms before 2nd Edition came up with the NWP aspect can tell you). That is where the opinion that too many rules spoil the roleplaying comes from. It would reduce the game to precisely what Mr. Weiss suggested, and disclude those players who had lower skill points for their chosen class, or didn't choose the proper skills to handle a given situation.
Does anybody actually have any ideas for new non-combat abilities? ^^
Look at the rogue's new stuff and go from there.
I might have some ideas about the social skills (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff), but not exactly with the current system.
I'll say this though, high level fighters didn't suck in Gygax's game.
They don't suck in Pathfinder. Great homage to the old guy.
I'm still forced to admit that I don't understand why roleplaying has to disappear if there are rules.
My thoughts exactly Kirth. I like the way White Wolf said that same thing in Wraith: The Oblivion:
The more loosely-structured your game is, the more open your decisions are to debate
Standarized rules are needed as a general consensus. Some GMs can be pretty objective and fair, I know, but that's not the case for all GMs, some need better structured criteria.
|
He's even creating a language tree of relationships between languages with degrees to determine how difficult it is to go from a language known to a related language. haha--you guys might get along!A language tree? That makes perfect sense! My original thought would only work if characters stayed with the PHB races but fell apart soon after. ... Damn. Now, I'm taking it seriously.
Okay, so you guys didn't run screaming. Personally, as an applied linguist, I always have found language learning in D&D to be ridiculous. But very few people want something like this even though it increases verismilimawhatchamacallit.
The Kingdom of Kalamar Player's Guide has ideas on using Language as a d20 skill with something like a skill of 1-5 being a learner, a skill of 6-7 being able to pretty well understand the language and a native speaker being a skill level of 10. Real experts in the language have a +11 skill or higher and if you assume you mostly take 10 on language rolls and the DC is around 20 it all makes sense.
This also allows characters at creation to split up their language skills so that instead of having four languages at +10, you might have one at that skill level and then 6 at +5.
Kalamar also has a language tree for their racial languages but I forget what book it is in.
DracoDruid- Perhaps you'd be happier with the Exalted system? It's sort of strange, but it seems like a "dot system" for skills is much clearer and fairer for roleplaying than a numerical system like DnD uses.
Now it's interesting, people say Exalted is to be commended for its fighting- personally, I think DnD has the most straightforward fighting rules, but Exalted definitely surpasses DnD for roleplaying possibilities. I have much more fun playing that game than DnD since Dnd is not fair or fun for roleplayers who would rather focus on skills rather than combat (Thus, when I 'play' DnD, I am always the GM rather than a player, because then I get to create).
GMing however... is a huge PAIN for Exalted that I would not wish on any but my worst enemy. :o.
---
Hm... That being said, other than for possible copyright reasons why can't DnD skills move to the dot system?
DracoDruid- Perhaps you'd be happier with the Exalted system? It's sort of strange, but it seems like a "dot system" for skills is much clearer and fairer for roleplaying than a numerical system like DnD uses.
I think DnD has the most straightforward fighting rules, but Exalted definitely surpasses DnD for roleplaying possibilities. I have much more fun playing that game than DnD since Dnd is not fair or fun for roleplayers who would rather focus on skills rather than combat
Hm... That being said, other than for possible copyright reasons why can't DnD skills move to the dot system?
It is my belief that NO game surpasses another (ruleswise) for roleplaying possibilities. If you prefer a game with more social skill rules than anything else, then obviously D&D is not for you and maybe Exalted is.
Claiming that D&D is neither fair nor fun for roleplayers is absolutely ludicrous. Your character should come from your imaginations heart, as should the DMs NPCs and his determination of how people and things react to your decisions as characters.I can only conclude those who require more rules for roleplaying have either had very bad experiences with DMs taking them for a ride, or just are incapable of exploring their own imaginations without rules as guideposts to lead them by the nose through their characters "experiences". That is NOT roleplaying.
Roleplay, by definition, is pretending/acting. It is not a set of skills on a list that can be defined, anymore than any of you could sit down and make a list of what YOUR skills are that would define you as a personality. Go ahead, give it a try! Remember, your job (or school) is your CLASS, not your skill. I'll start:
SKILLS LIST FOR GODSDOG10 - Read/Write (English), Math, Computers, Fencing, Swimming, Climbing, Digging, Craft (Poetry), Craft (Origami), Craft (Models), Craft (miniature painting), Gaming, Carousing, Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Astronomy), Knowledge (Politics), Knowledge (Women), Knowledge (Psychology), Drive, Ride (bikes), Ride (skateboard), Ride (horses), Ride (snowboard), Spurious Logic...
Man, I must be pretty high level! And that doesn't cover all my skills not to mention Ranks for each. But what can you tell about ME as an entity from that list? If you met me, would you have any idea how I would react to whatever was said? Am I a decent person? Do I anger easily? Do I let people walk all over me? Am I clever? Smart? Dumb? Charismatic? Carefree? Who knows...Skills obviously don't define me.
Exalted's social interaction rules are more open-ended and have more possibilities than DnD's rules- especially as put into practice.
>>Claiming that D&D is neither fair nor fun for roleplayers is absolutely ludicrous. Your character should come from your imaginations heart, as should the DMs NPCs and his determination of how people and things react to your decisions as characters.
Sorry, doesn't work. I've only once been able to play a DnD player the way I want to roleplayingwise. I've successfully played Call of Cthulu characters, Exalted, Mage, Corax, Hero System characters exactly how I want. DnD- not so much. I get penalized for not "optimizing my build" and spend entire fights sitting back and doing nothing. Or, rushing headlong in and getting killed in 2 hits (because the challenges have to be geared to the optimizing characters).
DnD DMs don't seem to reward creativity, when I DM I do my best to promote roleplaying (and award XP for roleplaying around confrontations, and just general good roleplaying- and this is MEASURABLE XP rather than the minuscule suggested amounts in the DM Guide), but players seem to gain more happiness from just rolling dice (which I think is a bit boring). Tactical scenarios are fun, but getting into the character is better- and DnD just doesn't provide much incentive for players to examine their characters.
Long ago, I gave up playing LG Paladins because my party always just wanted to take the 'easy road' and beat up and kill everyone they came across (oddly, they were all CG and NG characters... go figure). Then I had to adjust and play LG Rangers (without a code)... which didn't work well either. I wasn't as whiny, but it's impossible to keep ignoring the slaughtering of semi-innocents and the attempted burglary of places, and the DM kept having terrible things happen to my character. Also, this was 3.0, and I was attempting to play a Ranger who could commune with animals and find out things, and do interesting spells related to nature rather than fight. I took nary a scratch, but the DM insisted on having my converse with animals all be completely and utterly useless, had me fall off my horse at key times because the horse didn't get along with me because I failed one animal empathy check, and generally everything failed.
Then I tried a Sorcerer with a raven who talked and who I had fun with, but the instant I sent him to scout out a place that the DM CLEARLY said had birds floating around it- the raven was killed by a predatory griffin trained to detect magical ravens :( And I lost a level.
So I settled on greedy LN characters and half-mad or bizarre CN rogue or warlock characters, which were okay, but not what I wanted. (They were fun, yes, but I'd rather have my 1st or 2nd or 3rd or 4th choices) Then I moved to DM and now can play everything and anything. :)
Basically though, DnD does not encourage roleplaying, it encourages combat/fighting and characters designed around roleplaying, but who suffer in groups which realize this will ultimately have unplayable characters. (To say it simpler. An all RPing party works fine. But if you have even ONE Powergamer in a RP group, he gets to shine and the others get to do nothing- because encounters have to be difficult for him. And difficult encounters for him make it too difficult for the others to play... In the one group where I still don't DM, I discussed this issue with the DM and was allowed extra gold to purchase stuff and a few extra action points. It didn't fully solve the problem, but it helped... But an ideal revised DnD shouldn't have this problem at all.)
Since my skills, if allowed to operate properly, would have walked around encounters, or defused bad situations (I usually took high diplomacy characters) I was never allowed to shine. That's the problem with DnD. The options are too constrained.
In Exalted, characters can do such awesome things, that even if they walk around a problem, there's always a bigger consequence around the corner. In Exalted, we can get derailed all the time, in DnD... derail and the game falls apart.
---
Additionally, trust me, I know about roleplaying. I've played at conventions for several years and have been at a total of 4 tables which gave only one award to the best roleplayer at the table (of up to 8 people) and I've won 3 out of 4 tables. Additionally, I've won best RPer (4 people won the award each year) in 2 of 2 LARPS I've participated in (each of which had upwards of 50 players.)
I think people use "Possibility 3" all the time. But because of the way 3.5 edition D&D works, a skill check that's slightly challenging for an expert is (almost) impossible for an amateur. So you sometimes end up with players who feel their characters can't contribute much relatively speaking outside of combat.E.g.
Player 1: "Your majesty, we beseech thee..etc., etc." I rolled a 37.
Player 2: Uh...I sharpen my sword and keep my mouth shut. If a 37 doesn't convince him, there's nothing I can say that'll make a difference.
This is what I'm talking about as the problem with DnD. There are just sectors of hte game where it makes no sense for any players to contribute to meaningfully.
Exalted, and Call of Cthulu and Hero try to solve this, and I think they succeed with many different paths to the same outcome, based on skill synergies from different classes. You can play however you like, and stil have unique solutions and unique characters.
In DnD it's just the "team idol of the day" racing in with her +30 diplomacy check come to save everyone who in the meantime sit around and are practically useless and will not invest anything in that skill since they already have their diplomat. DnD puts characters in tight, neat little boxes.
This is what I'm talking about as the problem with DnD. There are just sectors of hte game where it makes no sense for any players to contribute to meaningfully.
In DnD it's just the "team idol of the day" racing in with her +30 diplomacy check come to save everyone who in the meantime sit around and are practically useless and will not invest anything in that skill since they already have their diplomat. DnD puts characters in tight, neat little boxes.
Hmm... sounds a lot like an expression of this problem when reduced down to the basics.
-Matt, feeling profound.
Matt, Nice post there. I don't agree with the solution you gave in your first post, but the problems you cited in the first and second post are good.
I'll read more.
I think a "dot" system like white wolf uses could do a lot to solve things; the trick is how to integrate it, and if it isn't a copyrighted proprietary system.
The only other system I know for doing RPG-skillwise is the Hero/Cthulu system of percentiles: 100%... somehow though that doesn't seem to be 'right' for DnD characters having a percentile of success, with sometimes 120% needed for particularly harrowing tasks.
In Cthulu, you roll under the number you have. That is, if you have a 50 in Hide, you need to roll below a 50 to succeed. If it is especially difficult you roll at +10 to your modifier- thus you need below a 40. It's great for RP purposes.
What I'm really going for with that thread is expressing that so many of 3.5's issues boil down to that one fundamental problem, which plagues the d20 system itself. And that if Pathfinder ever wishes to fix 3.5, it'll have to get innovative, and look at the system as a whole, instead of just power-creeping some classes and merging some skills.
Including the issue of a +2 Diplomacy character being unable to contribute in social situations while a character with +30 Diplomacy is in the party.
Same problem, different symptom.
-Matt
Hm.
Another "patch" idea would be to increase the amount of skills.
That is; don't have a diplomacy skill, but have:
Interaction (Nobles)
Interaction (Merchants)
Interaction (Commonfolk)
Interaction (Scumma-de-Terra)
Or instead of skills, you could have a set amount of "Backgrounds"
and allow characters (ALL CHARACTERS) to have some backgrounds they can purchase (as per the White wolf series) this allows building of practical character histories that allow Fighters to contribute something to a social situation.
For example- you're in the docks and you need to get a thug to let you into a warehouse.
Previously you would have a foppish bard charm his way in... ... but WTF WHY WOULD A BARD BE ABLE TO TALK IN CIRCLES AROUND A DOCKWORKER WHO THINKS BARDS ARE A BUNCH OF JACKASSES?
So instead, you have the fighter who has Interaction (Scumma-de-Terra) come over, do a SOCIAL (charisma?) roll to determine his general level of congeniality, and then promise to buy the guy a beer. Then the guy lets you in.
I think that's a whole lot more conducive to good roleplaying! :)
Hm.
Another "patch" idea would be to increase the amount of skills.
Ya gotta fix the basic foundation first, though. Unless you find a way for the Diplomacy -1 Fighter and the Diplomacy +75 Bard to be on the same playing field, skill rolls will continue to be a game for specialists to play, and the non-specialists will continue to be left out.
You're thinking too White Wolf, where every PC has the same access to every element of their character. What you're suggesting assumes that everyone has equal access to "buying" +1 BAB, a skill point, a save bonus, etc at all times.
'Cept D&D is a level-based, class-based system, so that doesn't work beyond multiclassing. And then, since specialists rule in D&D, as I put forth in my post, expanding one's horizons through multiclassing is often a bad idea, as a generalist PC most often can't compete with the specialists.
In other words, foundations first.
-Matt
|
|
Sorry, doesn't work. I've only once been able to play a DnD player the way I want to roleplayingwise. I've successfully played Call of Cthulu characters, Exalted, Mage, Corax, Hero System characters exactly how I want. DnD- not so much. I get penalized for not "optimizing my build" and spend entire fights sitting back and doing nothing. Or, rushing headlong in and getting killed in 2 hits (because the challenges have to be geared to the optimizing characters).
Conversely, I ran into the "Hack and Slash Incident" with someone who thought it was all about the system with a Champions character.
Our group had a tendency to shift GMs, and sometimes systems. At this particular time we agreed I would alternate a D&D game with the main Champions GM to give him a bit of a break since we were doing pretty heavy campaign activity at the time. So this one player says he will pass on doing the D&D because it is "all hack and slash.
The next session is our Champions game, and as fate would have it, the entire 8 hour session was spent on non-combat character development. I think we did less than a dozen skill checks the whole session. It was all yakking.
The session after that I ran my D&D game, that other player just hung out playing video games. As we got ready to break, we discussed plans for the next Champions sessions. He chimed in with "I hope we get some action this time, all it was last week was talking."
The rest of us did that group shared look thing straight out of a movie breaking the 4th wall. It was just too absurd.
He also later pulled an intriguing stunt in a Champions game I was running. His character was a Batman-clone. He was in his secret ID, checking out a homeless shelter looking for a lost "bat"-arang. A homeless guy had found it, and when the PC tried to take it, the homeless guy hit him. The villain organization using the place for nefarious purposes realized something was up, and the guards went after him. He figured the best tactic would be to use a homeless guy as a shield. I thought a moment about his character, then asked to check his character sheet. Sure enough, as I remembered, Psych Limit: Protects the weak. He was told to choose another action.
I could go on with similar stories from that group for several pages.
So sorry right back at you, but what you are talking about has everything to do with individuals, and little to nothing to do with game system.
Well, I apologize but I don't think your suggestion 'fixes' the foundation. There's too much math.
The best systems are the most elegantly simple.
-----
Therefore, I would also agree that adding more skills wouldn't solve the problem.
Adding a few more skill points to each character and adding Backgrounds that operate with a slightly different mechanic (and which are more readily available to certain classes), might help the issue a bit as it will allow characters to be helpful in social situations if they are fighter characters; or allow characters to have certain melee insights.
For example:
A rogue could take "Barroom Brawler" Which has **** levels. If the rogue took 1, then it would give him bonuses when he's "Dirty fighting" with improvised weapons, pulling off a stunt, etc.
2 would be He can dirty fight in a regular brawl, 3 would be he does extra damage when dirty fighting and flanking. 4 would be he's the most awesome brawler ever and knows how to crack people's heads and gets a bonus to sneak attack damage all the time.
Or... A wizard could take "Star Runner" And be able to run faster in certain situations.
Or a wizard could take "Tough Guy" and take less damage from sneak attacks. etc.
---
...The more I type, the more it seems these Backgrounds are similar in a fashion to feats.
Obviously, they need some more work and their benefits should be more ephemeral than strictly stated, as is the White Wolf tradition.
>>So sorry right back at you, but what you are talking about has everything to do with individuals, and little to nothing to do with game system.
I agree it has something to do with individuals, but certain systems "tend" to encourage combat over roleplaying. DnD is one of those systems. It's not easy to roleplay because everyone is "best" at one skill and no one else gets a chance to shine because one +20 negates all of their actions. They're simply not needed.