Next thought:
So lets have two players:
Player "A" is a charismatic individual, smart, witty, and rather likable. He builds a character with very low Int and very low charisma (we are talking the 3-5 range here) who's supposed to be backwards and unimaginative... he doesn't take any ranks in social skills.
Player "B" is awkward, small vocabulary, and usually has about 3 "uh" "ah, or "um"s in each sentence. This player decides he wants to be like he isn't in life and makes a high charisma, high intelligence Sorcerer taking ranks in many social skills.
In the course of play the first player is found someplace he isn't supposed to be and a city guard catches then asks, "What are you doing here." The player gives a quick and good answer and the DM lets him go with no bluff check because the answer was believable. The player also continuously uses good tactics, manuevers in fights for advantage while using weapons that are effective after seeing his original weapon wasn't effective the first time. Is he displaying good role playing and would you catch it at the table? He's playing his intelligence, and charisma, not his characters.
Same Scenario, but with player "B". When the guard catches him he stalls and studders and asks if he can just roll a bluff check. The DM says "No because that's not good 'role playing.'" Poor guy doesn't have a chance himself even when the character should and gets locked up. In a fight the player doesn't realise to manuever for advantage, and forgets what various opponents are weak too because he's new to the game or hasn't played a sorcerer before. Should the DM point out where he should make other choices because it would be what the character would do? Maybe offering prompting for a decent reply and then allowing the bluff check? Shouldn't player "A" have to make a bluff check with the guard even though he had good answers?
Would you nessecarily catch the munchkin at the table? I'll give you a hint it's not player "B".
Player "A" is obtaining unfair advantage through poor role playing. It's probably not even on purpose, he's just going at it naturally, and his character is reaping the benefits for it because he's "a good role player" simply because he describes actions well and gives good quick answers.
Should player "A" be forced or asked to play dumbly simply because his character is that dumb? What if by playing stupidly (as the character might really act) a TPK happens?
|
So, your definition of 'munchkinism' is "I don't like it".
It's not that a 'min/maxed' character is bad, or that it can't be well role played, or that optimizing is bad it's all a matter of what you do and do not like.
In all seriousness, I think that is as good a "definition" for Munchkin as you're going to see.
It all comes down to group chemistry. Several groups in this thread have made it clear that every member is expected to optimize or they're a burden. That's not the case for some other groups. Both styles are valid only as long as they are fun for the participants.
A more precise definition of "munchkin" extending the above definition is: someone who optimizes characters when the other members of the group don't "like it." Yes, this is arbitrary, but if the most important thing is for everyone to have fun, and fun is only attainable through consensus, then whether or not people "like it" is all you have to go on.
Anyone read Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" ?
The cure for all this is to not be selfish, no matter what style your group likes. If you're in a group of Optimizers who expect you not to be a burden, don't be selfish, put the work in. If you're in a group of thespians who play flawed, plot driven characters under a GM who emphasizes story over challenge, then don't be a d*ck and make a uber-character. GMs, know what your players want. Players, let your GM know what you want. Everyone play nice. Problem solved.
Lovely stuff.
|
|
lots of stuff
If player A is that smart and witty he'll get his character out of trouble through his dopiness.
Player B has an arse for a DM. He should be able to say: "[character name] says something witty to confuse the guard." and his DM should say; "Cool, role a bluff check."
SO your scenario is about whether the DM is nice or not.
|
Next thought:
So lets have two players:
Player "A" is a charismatic individual, smart, witty, and rather likable. He builds a character with very low Int and very low charisma (we are talking the 3-5 range here) who's supposed to be backwards and unimaginative... he doesn't take any ranks in social skills.
Player "B" is awkward, small vocabulary, and usually has about 3 "uh" "ah, or "um"s in each sentence. This player decides he wants to be like he isn't in life and makes a high charisma, high intelligence Sorcerer taking ranks in many social skills.............
Should player "A" be forced or asked to play dumbly simply because his character is that dumb? What if by playing stupidly (as the character might really act) a TPK happens?
Short answer, yes he should be forced to play to his stats, even to the detriment of the group. The DM is doing a bad job in this example by not holding him to his stats. He has basically taken away any disadvantage that the low stats gave the PC by allowing the player to ignore his character's attributes. It's like a DM ignoring a hit from a monster because the PC described himself avoiding the blow in a particularly eloquent manner. Roleplay should help but only if you are truly roleplaying to your character's attributes, abilities, background and personality.
|
"Roleplaying" became a dirty work when it went for meaning "playing your character in role at the table" to " I think D&D should be bad dinner theater". I blame WoD, personally.
Intentionally handicapping a character for "role playing" purposes is no different than optimizing, AFAICT. Both involve players way too into the "look at ME" syndrome, and neither promote the "team" concept of most RPGs.
The only solution I can think of is this: Keep the "role players" away from the "power gamers", they don't mix well, and keep both away from my table, since they both annoy be to no end.
|
|
"Roleplaying" became a dirty work when it went for meaning "playing your character in role at the table" to " I think D&D should be bad dinner theater". I blame WoD, personally.
Intentionally handicapping a character for "role playing" purposes is no different than optimizing, AFAICT. Both involve players way too into the "look at ME" syndrome, and neither promote the "team" concept of most RPGs.
The only solution I can think of is this: Keep the "role players" away from the "power gamers", they don't mix well, and keep both away from my table, since they both annoy be to no end.
I agree, a happy medium is my happy place.
Agreed, my main point was to illustrate how a good 'role player' could be being a munchkin at the same time on accident, and possibly not even be caught at it (or realizing himself that it is happening).
It's something to look out for though, I've seen it a couple of times with various groups and can lead to 'type casting' for players.
|
"Roleplaying" became a dirty work when it went for meaning "playing your character in role at the table" to " I think D&D should be bad dinner theater". I blame WoD, personally.
Intentionally handicapping a character for "role playing" purposes is no different than optimizing, AFAICT. Both involve players way too into the "look at ME" syndrome, and neither promote the "team" concept of most RPGs.
The only solution I can think of is this: Keep the "role players" away from the "power gamers", they don't mix well, and keep both away from my table, since they both annoy be to no end.
That's pretty much my opinion too. WoD created too many "bad actors/resses" who need to have a narrative 3 hours long to explain that their 15th lvl Commoner/4th lvl Aristocrat/1st lvl Bard is picking up a glass or eating a pig. Ugh.
Next thought:
So lets have two players...
Actually, fairness is irrelevant. The only time we have a problem is if people aren't having fun — because they're jealous or disappointed or what have you.
I appreciate your example, but I don't think it holds for all situations. For instance, at my table, we prefer a role-playing response but would never deny a bluff check with the rationale that "it's bad role-playing." That's what having a bluff skill is for. I tend not to respect GMs who corner players with a "you can't" argument instead of working with the player to find a suitable resolution.
Even given your hypothetical scenario, I still point to selfishness as the root of most gaming problems, and group chemistry is always the solution. A group that accepts Bluff checks as-is without roleplaying is fine, as long as they all enjoy that. A group that accepts a bluff from a player who can roleplay quick on his feat is not an unfair advantage for a certain type of player if all enjoy that style of play.
Dealing with mixed preferences, then, is a challenge indeed. One might say that the art of DMing is managing the expectations of your players. In your example, when you ask me to "find the munchkin", my response very quickly was "the GM."
Neither style is inherently superior, and rarely is either style practiced in its "pure" form. Most of us have a good mix of "role" and "roll" playing, because that is where the game is fun for most people. To imply that most people play one style or the other is something of a straw-man argument.
That's pretty much my opinion too. WoD created too many "bad actors/resses" who need to have a narrative 3 hours long to explain that their 15th lvl Commoner/4th lvl Aristocrat/1st lvl Bard is picking up a glass or eating a pig. Ugh."Roleplaying" became a dirty work when it went for meaning "playing your character in role at the table" to " I think D&D should be bad dinner theater". I blame WoD, personally.
Intentionally handicapping a character for "role playing" purposes is no different than optimizing, AFAICT. Both involve players way too into the "look at ME" syndrome, and neither promote the "team" concept of most RPGs.
The only solution I can think of is this: Keep the "role players" away from the "power gamers", they don't mix well, and keep both away from my table, since they both annoy be to no end.
I really can't abide these statements. I have a pretty crunchy play style myself, but there's no sense in disparaging a style of play that others enjoy. It sounds more like you both have some personal problems with people at your gaming table. Otherwise, you're just jabbing at a stereotype of people who play a certain game. Better to recognize what you enjoy and speak of that, with out attacking others.
Next thought:
So lets have two players:
Player "A" is a charismatic individual, smart, witty, and rather likable. He builds a character with very low Int and very low charisma (we are talking the 3-5 range here) who's supposed to be backwards and unimaginative... he doesn't take any ranks in social skills.
Player "B" is awkward, small vocabulary, and usually has about 3 "uh" "ah, or "um"s in each sentence. This player decides he wants to be like he isn't in life and makes a high charisma, high intelligence Sorcerer taking ranks in many social skills.
In the course of play the first player is found someplace he isn't supposed to be and a city guard catches then asks, "What are you doing here." The player gives a quick and good answer and the DM lets him go with no bluff check because the answer was believable. The player also continuously uses good tactics, manuevers in fights for advantage while using weapons that are effective after seeing his original weapon wasn't effective the first time. Is he displaying good role playing and would you catch it at the table? He's playing his intelligence, and charisma, not his characters.
Same Scenario, but with player "B". When the guard catches him he stalls and studders and asks if he can just roll a bluff check. The DM says "No because that's not good 'role playing.'" Poor guy doesn't have a chance himself even when the character should and gets locked up. In a fight the player doesn't realise to manuever for advantage, and forgets what various opponents are weak too because he's new to the game or hasn't played a sorcerer before. Should the DM point out where he should make other choices because it would be what the character would do? Maybe offering prompting for a decent reply and then allowing the bluff check? Shouldn't player "A" have to make a bluff check with the guard even though he had good answers?
Would you nessecarily catch the munchkin at the table? I'll give you a hint it's not player "B".
Player "A" is obtaining unfair...
Counterexample:
DM: That plan is to weird and devious for your character to have come up with. Only you would have come up with something like that.
ME: My character has a 19 Intelligence. If you're saying my personal intelligence is higher than 19 and I should dumb it down, okay, but...
DM: ...
Part of roleplaying is playing your character in the world. A stupid person can give a good answer the same way a smart person can have a dumb one, and not every guard in the universe should be out to hassle ever ugly stupid person they encounter.
The way I see it, a player who comes up with a good line for their ugly stupid character to give the guards has given themselves an easy Diplomacy check, likely one so easy that even an ugly idiot could make it so I don't see any point in making them roll. Contrawise, the player who comes up with an indifferent or bad line has given their character a correspondingly more difficult check.
For example, look at something like this:
CITY GUARD: Why are you out after curfew?
Answer DC 10: The common room doesn't have chamberpots, and the innwife would be upset if I peed on the inside wall.
Answer DC 15: I was looking for an inn, but everywhere was too expensive, too unsavory, or both. And then it got dark.
Answer DC 20: There was a brawl at the tavern and my poor little familiar ran off into the night! Would you help me find pussy before some horrible monster eats her?
Answer DC 25: I'm off to the crossroads to conjure demons, of course! But damned if I can find any virgins in this town. Do you think the dark lords would be satisfied with a goat or black cockerel?
Depending on what sort of answer you give, that's the DC you need to make with your Bluff or Diplomacy check to have the guards buy your story. And please note that the simplest answer is also one that even an illiterate barbarian with brain damage could come up with.
If the player with the small vocabulary and the poor social skills decides to play the sorcerer with the high charisma and lots of social skills, as DM I'll generally let them reconsider their word choice if they, as player, say something too graceless for their character to say. If they decide to bull along and go with that being exactly what was said, then I'll let them roll and see if the character's wit and charm can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But I'll be damned if I'll let any player say "I rolled a 26 on my Diplomacy" without even a bare attempt at roleplaying.
So you punish the player for his lack even though the character is clearly capable of better.
And you reward the player whose character isn't capable of such sophistry even though the player is and the player actively chose to have bad stats in that area.
If player "A" knew that you would let him off easy because he as a person is quick witted, he is every bit as guilty of being a munchkin as the person that plays a fighter then tanks his will save knowing that "the DM won't use will save powers on me because it 'wouldn't be fair'".
Whereas player "B" being punished (yes punished) for his lack of skill even though his character is capable of better is just like telling the fat out of shape person that his character can't jump a 5 ft chasm while carrying 300 Lbs of equipment because the player himself isn't capable of it though the character has a Str of 40 and 15 ranks in Jump.
So you punish the player for his lack even though the character is clearly capable of better.
And you reward the player whose character isn't capable of such sophistry even though the player is and the player actively chose to have bad stats in that area.
If player "A" knew that you would let him off easy because he as a person is quick witted, he is every bit as guilty of being a munchkin as the person that plays a fighter then tanks his will save knowing that "the DM won't use will save powers on me because it 'wouldn't be fair'".
Whereas player "B" being punished (yes punished) for his lack of skill even though his character is capable of better is just like telling the fat out of shape person that his character can't jump a 5 ft chasm while carrying 300 Lbs of equipment because the player himself isn't capable of it though the character has a Str of 40 and 15 ranks in Jump.
Let me give you an example from a campaign oh so long ago....
My DM at the time had set up a pyramid with four sphinxes: Each posed the same challenge--answer the sphinx's riddle, stump the sphinx with a riddle of the character's own (and then tell the sphinx the answer so it would have a larger store of hard riddles for future adventurers), or just do battle with the sphinx. My 19 Int tricksy illusionist opted to do "stump the sphinx" each time, aided by the fact that I have something of a hobby with riddles and am good at them, whereas the DM, who did like them, wasn't as good.
By the time I got to stumping the third of four sphinxes, another player said that the sphinxes should be better at it, and we should just do an Int roll-off and not bother with the roleplaying of the riddles. My answer was that if we were going to do that, fine, but if it was a dice-off with the actual riddles being meaningless, I was going to ask the next sphinx "Why did the chicken cross the road?" and if it lost, so be it, and my character would get bragging rights to having faced the dumbest sphinx on the planet.
We settled for a happy medium where there was a dice-off with the sphinx, and if the sphinx won, I would have to give the DM a number of clues. This worked, pretty much.
If a player who is neither educated nor eloquent decides to play a character who supposedly is, then what do you suggest? Have them simply roll the dice and ignore anything that comes out of their mouths as meaningless flavor text, even when they try to serenade the elven queen with "My Milkshake" or "Baby Got Back"?
|
|
So, your definition of 'munchkinism' is "I don't like it".
No, not really. My definition of a munchkin is a player that potentially disrupts a game session due to his selfish and immature behavior without regard for his fellow players and DM.
It's not that a 'min/maxed' character is bad, or that it can't be well role played, or that optimizing is bad it's all a matter of what you do and do not like.
There are many things that I don't like that are not examples of munchkinism. None of us are perfect. Not sweating the small stuff is part of what you have to do to cooperate in a group.
|
|
Would you nessecarily catch the munchkin at the table? I'll give you a hint it's not player "B".
Yeah, and maybe player A isn't either. He's certainly not playing well, but is he crapping on the game? Are the other players getting sick of it?
Now considering this hypothetical DM... I'd think terms a bit more harsh than munchkin could be used to describe him.
Player "A" is obtaining unfair advantage through poor role playing. It's probably not even on purpose, he's just going at it naturally, and his character is reaping the benefits for it because he's "a good role player" simply because he describes actions well and gives good quick answers.
Should player "A" be forced or asked to play dumbly simply because his character is that dumb? What if by playing stupidly (as the character might really act) a TPK happens?
Forced? This player chose to play a character with low stats. Since that's not what he really wanted to play then he should pick something else.
Let me give you an example from a campaign oh so long ago....
Riddles are always bad "roleplaying" challenges because they challenge the player and not the characters. It is a metagame challenge.
Let me give you an example from a campaign oh so long ago....Riddles are always bad "roleplaying" challenges because they challenge the player and not the characters. It is a metagame challenge.
So sphinxes are just supposed to go "Gragh!" and attack people? That's more than a little dumpy.
If a player who is neither educated nor eloquent decides to play a character who supposedly is, then what do you suggest? Have them simply roll the dice and ignore anything that comes out of their mouths as meaningless flavor text, even when they try to serenade the elven queen with "My Milkshake" or "Baby Got Back"?
Short answer, yes. Give them some kind of props for trying. If the player doesn't know any other songs, the DM can suggest that the player simply describe what kind of song the character sings, and not have to actually do it.
Yes, this limits some of the fun of roleplaying. But D&D IS an intellectual imagination-based game. Those who aren't as gifted in that realm are going to have a more difficult time and just as we hand-wave combat with dice rolls, we need to sometimes do the same with social encounters.
Let me give you an example from a campaign oh so long ago....Riddles are always bad "roleplaying" challenges because they challenge the player and not the characters. It is a metagame challenge.
Yeah, and combats are bad challenges because they challenge the player's tactical ability. Let's not get silly about this. RPGs have always been about challenging the player at least as much as challenging the PCs.
Riddles and other puzzles have a long history, sometimes glorious and sometimes not, in gaming. The trick is to incorporate them in a way that allows for the differences between characters.
If I came up with or found a challenging riddle, I'd be open to offering hints for high intelligence characters if the players aren't figuring it out. I would also be up for doing the same with a variety of skill rolls, bardic knowledge, and so on.
So sphinxes are just supposed to go "Gragh!" and attack people? That's more than a little dumpy.
Yeah, and combats are bad challenges because they challenge the player's tactical ability. Let's not get silly about this. RPGs have always been about challenging the player at least as much as challenging the PCs.
Riddles and other puzzles have a long history, sometimes glorious and sometimes not, in gaming. The trick is to incorporate them in a way that allows for the differences between characters.
If I came up with or found a challenging riddle, I'd be open to offering hints for high intelligence characters if the players aren't figuring it out. I would also be up for doing the same with a variety of skill rolls, bardic knowledge, and so on.
You both seem to think that when I say that riddles are not good roleplaying challenges but are metagame challenges, that I am saying they are not good challenges. I am not saying that, riddles can be very fun, but they are not character challenges, they are player challenges. Which is fine, I mean people are playing roleplaying games, having challenges that focus on the game aspect versus the roleplaying aspect are fine.
Re the example given of player vs character stats.
I feel this is only part of the cake.
A character's alignment, personality, background and campaign experiences give plenty of fuel for character role-playing, without even looking at the stats.
IMO the real fun of role-play stems from the characters involvement in the story, dramatic situations, feelings about allies and enemies etc.
Anyone can enjoy this, regardless of 'player stats' : )
Let us take a constructive look at Mr. Spalding's scenario. A simplified version:
Player A is glib and can come up with good excuses as a player, though his PC has no such skill.
Player B is more introverted, but is playing a character who possesses skills to talk his way out of situations.
Mr. Spalding's assertion is that if the GM rewards player A's loquaciousness, he is penalizing player B's investment in his character's social skills. Conversely, if he rewards Player B's character build, he is ignoring what would be considered "good role playing" to some.
Now, it is my opinion that the GM's mistake is not in rewarding either player, but in choosing one or the other method to reward when that may not be the group's preference. The game is not adversarial between PCs, so rewarding one player should have no bearing on the enjoyment of another.
You cannot simply reward all players equally. Some element of their decision making process — be it at character creation or during role play — must carry an element of risk, else there is no purpose to the game.
I'm interested in everyone's responses on how to handle this situation, but everyone ought to take note that there are merely preferences, and the two different posters could have two different correct answers, depending on who comes to their game table!
If I came up with or found a challenging riddle, I'd be open to offering hints for high intelligence characters if the players aren't figuring it out. I would also be up for doing the same with a variety of skill rolls, bardic knowledge, and so on.
Exactly.
Set a DC and give an Int check, and allow bonuses for Bardic knowledge and other applicable knowledge skills.
Sphinxes should probably have some racial bonus.
I'm interested in everyone's responses on how to handle this situation, but everyone ought to take note that there are merely preferences, and the two different posters could have two different correct answers, depending on who comes to their game table!
If I was the DM, I'd let player A do his thing if that is what he wanted to do, and then ask him to make a roll (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, whatever is appropriate). If he got a poor scored, I would say something like, "Well you thought you were making a good meaningful discussion, but you actually just made the guard angry/suspicious." In other words, what the player was saying was what he thought the character was doing, but it being filtered through the actually abilities of the character changed the actually outcome.
For player B, do the same thing, the player can describe what he is trying to say, and then make a roll. The roll comes out good, then the character channeled those ideas and made them more impressive.
Of course the nature of the comments by the player may allow for some DM assigned modifiers to either make the check higher or lower, but in the end it should really be the character's abilities that determine the effectiveness of the presentation. I'm sure we've all seen or met people that have great ideas but come across as total arses and thus the effectiveness of the ideas are lost.
Now for myself, I actually make the roll first and then try to roleplay according to that roll. Example: Bard approaches the King and Queen. Player rolls his diplomacy gets a 1. "Good day my Lord and Lady, thank you for seeing me. And Lady may I say that dress makes you look a lot less fat then usual. Please give my regards to your dressmaker."
In the case of player 'a' I would still require the normal rolls, and point out while he has a good answer, his character just can't pull it off if the roll is poor. If the roll supports it, hey good job. However if he started trying to use intelligent advantages in combat that I don't think his character would be able to think of I would ask him about it, "Hey Joe, I realize that's a good choice... but would your character "Bob" really think about that or know that about this monster?" In the case of remembering or knowing a monster's specific weakness I would require an knowledge check (DC based on monster rarity).
In player "b" case in social situations I would try and find out what the player wants his character to get from the situation, maybe mention a way to ask for it (so he can have an idea of what might have been said in such a situation, offers him a chance to grow as a person/player too) and have him roll his skill. In a combat situation if I saw him making what could be a bad decision, I would again as for a knowledge check then if the check is good, remind him of something I think the player may not know (or may have forgotten) that the character would know, then let the player go from there.
There's another school of thought, practiced mostly by old school grognards (such as I consider myself) that dictates a complete lack of things like "Bluff Rolls" and "Search Checks" in the game. The excitement of that style of play is that it is about the player's intelligence and wit, rather than about the numbers on the sheet. This is the type of gaming where you avoid traps by carefully describing how your character proceeds rather than making a roll.
This method has it's ups and downs, but it is particularly weak if you have an inflexible GM. Things get so not-fun so fast under these circumstances that I really think this is the reason we have a character-centric, roll-based system with a rule to accommodate most anything these days. Meaning no disrespect, but it makes it easier for a bunch of 12 year olds to play without bickering (I think?) and that's a good thing.
Recently there's been a push in my group back to this player-centric (rather than character centric) approach, but not all the players are equally invested in it. That's one of the reasons this topic interests me so much — some of the folks here are arguing hard for the exact opposite direction that my game is taking. I'm really eager to hear reasoned explanations.
But by the same token, I'm looking for a way to incorporate both player and character insight into gameplay. I feel the game loses a certain shine when everything is reduced to die rolls... but the game is a little too arbitrary when everything is reliant on player insight.
So what's wrong with giving Player A a bonus for a good idea? I tend to give social bonuses to rolls when the player surprises me with a plausible idea, and force higher target numbers if their excuses are terrible. I think is this what the SRD rules imply.
as far as a circumstance bonus (probably +2) I don't mind too much... I just don't want player "a" to get away with stuff that his character has no right to, when player "b" who's character should be able to do such stuff isn't getting anywhere with it (which seems to me would not be fun for him especially when he invested his time -- both building the character and playing it -- and character stuff into it).
I'm really eager to hear reasoned explanations.
Being a drama queen, I want some attempt at actual role playing made. However, I enjoy playing characters with capabilities I lack.
I would also caution that moving away from requiring rolls for things like diplomacy, bluff, disable device or really anything other than physical skills is punishing those characters who have invested skill points in those areas. This style of play, for example, really makes the rogue next to useless (I guess he can dump all those skills into physical things like tumble, jump, climb, etc.).
Funny thought: take this to the extreme... no skill roles at all... "I want to see if you really can jump across that 10' pit!!!" Would make the game session far more entertaining for the DM.
I guess to me, I would see not using those skills as punishing a skill based character like a bard or rogue as much as deciding that your big bad guy is too cool for the disintegrate to effect so you just decide he made his save instead of worrying about pesky things like potentially failing his saving throw. Or deciding that a fighters swing missed because you realize it might down the guy and you don't want the fight to be over. It is still taking away a characters abilities that, in some cases at least, they are designed around using.
Not saying it is a wrong way to play, I would just want that very clear to me as a player before such a thing were put into affect in a group I was in.
Sean Mahoney
|
This style of play, for example, really makes the rogue next to useless
Something tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I know there are many players out there that have not (too young, were not in to the hobby back then, etc.)...
I think that skill based systems may have jaded us (me included) towards what makes or breaks a good game system...
I just remember having REAL fun playing 1st edition! Not having to worry about how many ranks I had in this or that skill...
Just a thought I have been having...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
This style of play, for example, really makes the rogue next to uselessSomething tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I know there are many players out there that have not (too young, were not in to the hobby back then, etc.)...
I think that skill based systems may have jaded us (me included) towards what makes or breaks a good game system...
I mean, I remember having REAL fun playing 1st edition! Not having to worry about how many ranks I had in this or that skill...
Just a thought I have been having...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Amen, brother. :)
I remember that about 1st edition:
I also remember being frustrated when the DM told me I couldn't do something because the rules didn't say I could (such as play a neat idea because I didn't have the stats for it/ race wasn't allowed for that class/ climb walls is a Thief's ability and Warriors can't do it)... or not being able to get a spell to connect because everyone made their save throws on a 2+, or the lack of anything to do in combat other than swing every round...or BAM! You're dead, do not save, do not pass go, do not do anything it's all over.
Every edition had it's good points and it's bad points.
2nd edition was better in many regards for some of those problems (include the player's option books and things could get as worse than worse of 3.x though generally they were full of great ideas/stuff).
|
|
I also remember being frustrated when the DM told me I couldn't do something because the rules didn't say I could (such as play a neat idea because I didn't have the stats for it/ race wasn't allowed for that class/ climb walls is a Thief's ability and Warriors can't do it)... or not being able to get a spell to connect because everyone made their save throws on a 2+, or the lack of anything to do in combat other than swing every round...or BAM! You're dead, do not save, do not pass go, do not do anything it's all over.
Three things:
1. Your Dm apparently never read the 1e DM's guide...
2. Evocation was WAY better than anything else in 1e. Direct damage was a good thing when no one had a ton of HP and there were no damage caps...
3. Well, 3.5 nerfed them pretty good, and Pathfinder will make them pointless, so, in retrospect, maybe fighters shouldn't get too much love, as wizards will probably drop to tier two in PfRPG ;)
3a. BTW, the "no save" spells were tempered by the fact all anyone had to do was hit you to disrupt spell casting. No concentration checks...
This style of play, for example, really makes the rogue next to uselessSomething tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I know there are many players out there that have not (too young, were not in to the hobby back then, etc.)...
I think that skill based systems may have jaded us (me included) towards what makes or breaks a good game system...
I just remember having REAL fun playing 1st edition! Not having to worry about how many ranks I had in this or that skill...
Just a thought I have been having...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Just remember, 1st edition hasn't gone anywhere (well okay the PDFs have). You can still play it! And I am tempted often enough.
|
|
Just remember, 1st edition hasn't gone anywhere (well okay the PDFs have). You can still play it! And I am tempted often enough.This style of play, for example, really makes the rogue next to uselessSomething tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I know there are many players out there that have not (too young, were not in to the hobby back then, etc.)...
I think that skill based systems may have jaded us (me included) towards what makes or breaks a good game system...
I just remember having REAL fun playing 1st edition! Not having to worry about how many ranks I had in this or that skill...
Just a thought I have been having...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
*looks up from the 1e DMG*
Yep, planning a campaign myself right now...
Something tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I have played 1e and I could not get away from it fast enough once I discovered skill based systems. I like having some kind of mechanic to allow my characters to be good at something other than killing things and taking their stuff.
Something tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I know there are many players out there that have not (too young, were not in to the hobby back then, etc.)...
I did indeed play first edition. But first edition did not attempt to make the rogue class the skill class, so the lack of those skills did not affect it. In 3.5 that is exactly what the rogue is. If those are gone then they are really just left with sneak attack and it is not useful on a LOT of the creatures in the game. Combine that with sub par HP, BAB and armor and weapon choices and yeah... not a good class in 3.5 with out all the skills.
Now, don't get me wrong, you could still enjoy the concept of a roguish character just fine from an RP perspective, but I would also contend that choosing a class does not define how you RP the character. You could still RP that roguish character just fine as a fighter... heck BETTER as a fighter if there weren't skill points.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Surely the rules system or character class plays no part in who roleplays and who doesn't.
Isn't it about the way the DM sets the game and the way the person enjoys playing.
Roleplaying will always be a dirty word to some. I am a roleplayer, I can optimise a bit but there are people better at it than me. But for me its all about fun, if the players are enjoying themselves then that's probably because they are getting what they want. Which is sometimes different for different players.
Playing a low Int/Cha I find hard. Unless he is an idiot savant or pug ugly every time I expect him to not come up with good ideas regularly and not convince the rest what to do. You shouldn't be allowed to dump into those stats and then get away with ignoring their effects.
Surely that isn't roleplay. As a DM I make it clear if someone takes an Int or Cha under 10 I expect them to show traits that reflect that.
Maybe they would try to use a high Wis with common sense and a practical mental approach to get round challenges but in the end that doesn't help with puzzles, remembering facts, and telling the king he is wrong.
My mate firmly believes that it is combat that leads to the best roleplaying. That and a long campaign where with each fight, the party grow to trust and support each other.
Just a few random thoughts...
Cheers
I miss the days of "make the character live, make the story great and the GM will see to your reward".
Not many people seem to trust that style of play, as you have to trust the GM and there are some bad DM/GMs out there that have made a lot of untrusting players.
An acquaintance of mine was explaining Call of Cthulu to me one time. He stated one thing you should never do in a CoC game is read from the book.
Does that not kind of defeat the whole purpose? If the players make sure to take so many precautions that they never loose their sanity, is it still a CoC game?
If so much stress is put on surviving and not making ‘stupid’ tactical decisions, is it any wonder many players are compelled to min/max, metagame and put no effort into background?
How many threads are there, not only here, but on other, un-named websites, to the effect of “Option A makes my player’s character too powerful and it is disrupting the game. How do I nerf Option A?” or “My players over rest and never allow themselves to be put at a disadvantage.”
Something tells me you never played 1st edition (pre use of proficiencies)...
I know there are many players out there that have not (too young, were not in to the hobby back then, etc.)...
I did indeed play first edition. But first edition did not attempt to make the rogue class the skill class, so the lack of those skills did not affect it. In 3.5 that is exactly what the rogue is. If those are gone then they are really just left with sneak attack and it is not useful on a LOT of the creatures in the game. Combine that with sub par HP, BAB and armor and weapon choices and yeah... not a good class in 3.5 with out all the skills.
Now, don't get me wrong, you could still enjoy the concept of a roguish character just fine from an RP perspective, but I would also contend that choosing a class does not define how you RP the character. You could still RP that roguish character just fine as a fighter... heck BETTER as a fighter if there weren't skill points.
Sean Mahoney
In 1st ed, the special thievery skills were things on thieves got (they weren't called rogues then) and as mentioned, no one had any skills, apart from special class abilities.
Skills are somewhat crucial now, but there's a problem at higher levels of bards being able to sweet talk anyone and everyone else not being able to sweet talk anyone, unless you start applying circumstance modifiers of the "class X likes dealing with other members of class X and takes a dim view of classes Y and Z." In other words, if you want to gain entrance to the wizard's university, it helps to be a wizard. Otherwise, if you made it based on nothing but Diplomacy checks, the place would be crawling with bards and sorcerers while a line of disgruntled wizards stands outside.
Similarly, getting into a bardic college should be impossible for just about everyone except bards.
|
|
I miss the days of "make the character live, make the story great and the GM will see to your reward".
Not many people seem to trust that style of play, as you have to trust the GM and there are some bad DM/GMs out there that have made a lot of untrusting players.
You know, for this younger generation of player, the "killer DM" almost has to be considered an urban myth. I've been playing since '79, and I can count the number of truly malicious DMs I've encountered on half a hand, and they were ex-DMs shortly into their careers. I've seen a lot of BAD Dming, but that was mostly incompetence, not evilness.
I think a lot of players are not "trusting" a style they've only heard about, to the detriment of the game, imo.
You know, for this younger generation of player, the "killer DM" almost has to be considered an urban myth.
I am sure no one posting on that board considers themselves evil. I am sure you could argue that most of the situations posted that caused a character’s demise were not evil.
Reveling in the death of a character does give off a certain perception though.
An acquaintance of mine was explaining Call of Cthulu to me one time. He stated one thing you should never do in a CoC game is read from the book.
Does that not kind of defeat the whole purpose? If the players make sure to take so many precautions that they never loose their sanity, is it still a CoC game?
If so much stress is put on surviving and not making ‘stupid’ tactical decisions, is it any wonder many players are compelled to min/max, metagame and put no effort into background?
Not reading books is also the one sure way to be completely unable to figure out how to stop the cultists once things are in motion.
Focus on survival is all well and good, but if adventurers in any game wanted to ensure their survival (for a time), they'd retire.
|
|
You know, for this younger generation of player, the "killer DM" almost has to be considered an urban myth.I am sure no one posting on that board considers themselves evil. I am sure you could argue that most of the situations posted that caused a character’s demise were not evil.
Reveling in the death of a character does give off a certain perception though.
Dude, a killer DM is one who makes EVERY scenario into a version of "Tomb of Horrors", basically, a no-win situation.
Character death, particularly if it was due to an error on the part of a player, and recounting those tales, is a time-honored tradition in D&D. If you want to completely avoid character death, play "Paychecks and Paperwork", but eliminate the "worker goes postal after being laid off" rules...
I've had 3 DM's I would say where 'killers':
1st DM -- Doesn't matter what happened or the level, encounters where always random from the tables, and that was what you encountered no matter your level. Monsters always knew the parties weaknesses, and made special efforts to break stuff for the characters.
2nd DM -- Players never did anything right. If you said, "I'm going to drive across town to pick up character 'x' and you didn't specify you where obeying all laws you died fighting the police for speeding, running red lights and hitting little old women (none of which you were asked about, you where just supposed to know it happened). DMPCs where abundant and had to fix everything all the time.
3rd DM -- Didn't know the rules and if what you where going to do didn't stick to his 'script' then it didn't work. If it could take out the bad guy in a way he didn't want to happen the bad guy was immune. Rules where followed on his whim only.