Stuff...Hellishly excellent post there Dogbert.
I concur!
|
good stuff
I third this. Head-on, really.
Spoiling out an anecdote.
I tend to write background short stories of my characters life thus far, which typically end with his current goals and objectives. I then write out how he might respond to generic statements (such as the DM saying "You turn the corner and are charged by an owlbear!" and possible surprised reactions), and common fallacies and mistakes he might make.
My low-wisdom but high-charisma Gnome illusionist/thief was very trusting of strangers, and thus found himself blabbing on a couple of occasions (while somewhat drunk) to somebody he shouldn't have. Apparently every 3rd person in our world is a spy, because every time this happened we were attacked by assassins or something similar shortly after.
The other players berated me over it, even knowing that it was a conscious choice I (as a player) made about how my character might screw up, followed up with a failed wisdom check. Apparently, according to them, the best play style is to forgo any roleplaying and just focus on 'winning' the game, because RP leads to mistakes that bite you in the ass.
|
good stuffI third this. Head-on, really.
Spoiling out an anecdote.
** spoiler omitted **
Let the stoning begin...
|
|
Re: 1e v 3x Player v Character focus.
1e: Player : "I try and convince the king that our cause is just and his support will be a boon to all under his rule"
DM: "Well, how do you convince him?"
Player: in character "<long winded and inspirational speech>"
DM: "King Stanislaus is convinced."
3x: Player : "I try and convince the king that our cause is just and his support will be a boon to all under his rule"
DM: "Make a Diplomacy Check"
Player: "Is a 27 good enough?"
DM: "King Stanislaus is convinced."
Yeah, sorry, I don't see it.
|
I see your point Derek and I partially gree with you. I would say however, that 3.whatever is much more friendly to players the earlier editions were. In 1st edition you launched into long winded speechs to convince the king to aid you, but what if none of the players were good at giving long winded speeches. Or what if the DM was having a ad day and decided to take it out on his players. The way I usually handle the situation is that theplayers t least have to give me a rough description of what they tell the king. I mean it's going to be a whole different set of rolls required if their pitch is "aid us or we will murder your wife and take liberties with your daughter," than if they wee to argue for truth, justice, and the Imperial way.
Yay, time for another Gygax thread! *Sets up anti-poodle wards*
I hear this analysis a lot, HD, but I think it overlooks the extent to which all version of the game have been weak on really teaching players how to integrate mechanics and role-playing, and largely left it up to the players negotiating it themselves.
I don't find my 3e games to be that much different from my 1e games in this manner; where I find them to be substantially different is in the reduction of DM fiat or ad hoc, inconsistent resolutions. In my experience, you make the speech, and the DM grades how good it was in terms of a modifier, which is added to the d20 roll.
As far as why many publishers have been dumping their books: It is no longer possible to product anything under the d20 license; One must use the new GSL.
So the d20 OGL is dead then? Or am I misreading that?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What? No, no, no, Orthos. The Open Gaming License is irrevocable and permanent. Paizo published Pathfinder under the OGL. (Look at the back cover of the hardback book.)
As Lisa Stevens has written frequently, Paizo realized that for its products to thrive in the game stores, it needed to have a copy of the rules in print.
As far as why many publishers have been dumping their books: It is no longer possible to product anything under the d20 license; One must use the new GSL.So the d20 OGL is dead then? Or am I misreading that?
What do you mean by dead? It is perpetually in force, so any publishers and gamers who want to take advantage of it may do so. But as far as Wizards and the publishers that either followed them or those that bailed are concerned, it is no longer viable. Thank God that Paizo, a few publishers, and many loyal fans are keeping it alive for folks like us.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Mortika, who's made some great contributions to this thread.
@Derek and David:
In my opinion that's here I think the DM needs to use some common sense and logical reasoning. If his players are indeed no good at speeches OOC, that shouldn't penalize them IC... a basic summary of the idea and a roll should do it, don't let OOC limitations ruin the game in that case.
On the other hand, if Gorf the Barbarian's player writes up an awesome speech [bonus points for performing it with the barbarian accent ;)] I at least would not mind tossing him a circumstance bonus and chalking it up to a moment of inspiration. Likewise if the speech is horribly bungled and laced with veiled threats, I have no problems applying some kind of penalty.
OR just telling them to roll intimidate then informing them the king is a paladin. Mwahahahahahah. (I keed, I keed...)
What? No, no, no, Orthos. The Open Gaming License is irrevocable and permanent. Paizo published Pathfinder under the OGL. (Look at the back cover of the hardback book.)
Ah, that clears it up then. In my defense, I'm only on my second soda for the day, I'm not quite awake yet.
I need to get around to buying the official book. I'm still functioning off the beta PDFs until I have money...
|
|
Yay, time for another Gygax thread! *Sets up anti-poodle wards*
I hear this analysis a lot, HD, but I think it overlooks the extent to which all version of the game have been weak on really teaching players how to integrate mechanics and role-playing, and largely left it up to the players negotiating it themselves.
I don't find my 3e games to be that much different from my 1e games in this manner; where I find them to be substantially different is in the reduction of DM fiat or ad hoc, inconsistent resolutions. In my experience, you make the speech, and the DM grades how good it was in terms of a modifier, which is added to the d20 roll.
I don't find my 3x games at all different from my 1e games, as there is one constant: me.
As to the teaching aspect, 1e was very "punk rock" in that respect. There were no mechanics to integrate into the roleplaying, it was all D.I.Y. Starting with 2e they added more mechanics to resolve issues (which is cool, I guess), which lessened the need to roleplay things out (people still do, of course, but it isn't as "integral" to the experience to actually BE your character, your sheet and dice can do that for you now). I personally think 1e encouraged more "immersion" roleplaying than later editions, but that just may be because we didn't have a$~#~%+s absorbed in their text messaging and web browsing at the gaming table back then (different issue, I know, but I see it all the time; you don't have to pay attention if your character sheet is your character, not yourself).
Sorry, I just get tired when people who I assume didn't play 1e when it was the current edition make assumptions about the way it was played, and use those faulty assumptions as evidence of how the new editions are better. Sure, as far as consistency and ability to mechanically define an archetype are concerned, later editions do it better, but as far as "roleplaying" goes, it depends on the DM and players, not the edition.
@David, we never expected everyone to be "Master Thespian", we just expected them to make an effort. :)
Great thread! But where's Pax Veritas?? ;-PHA!
Aw, crap, I was coming back over here with something clever in this vein. Too many threads. But more importantly, welcome, Pax.
EDIT: How did I not see Digitalelf's post in the first place, as it was much earlier? Oddfodkins. *Kicks server*
Sorry, I just get tired when people who I assume didn't play 1e when it was the current edition make assumptions about the way it was played, and use those faulty assumptions as evidence of how the new editions are better. Sure, as far as consistency and ability to mechanically define an archetype are concerned, later editions do it better, but as far as "roleplaying" goes, it depends on the DM and players, not the edition.
Heh-heh. No need to be sorry. When those greenhorns pop up, all wet behind their ears, they deserve whatever Pappy Derek dishes out to 'm!
|
|
What? No, no, no, Orthos. The Open Gaming License is irrevocable and permanent. Paizo published Pathfinder under the OGL. (Look at the back cover of the hardback book.)Ah, that clears it up then. In my defense, I'm only on my second soda for the day, I'm not quite awake yet.
I need to get around to buying the official book. I'm still functioning off the beta PDFs until I have money...
Yeah, the OGL and the old "D20" license were different things. Anything published under the OGL (but not the D20 license) can be published in perpetuity. The d20 license, however, expired shortly before or after 4e was released, and books published under that had to be sold or pulped (I believe) by a certain date, leading to stuff like the Green Ronin sales they had here a couple of times (and that was an awesome thing if you wanted Green Ronin awesomeness for pennies on the dollar. Seriously? APG and AGMG for $5 each? Freeport for $2? Zing!)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding old school (player instructions and DM evaluation) versus 3rd Edition (player rolls dice and DM sets difficulty number), I've found over the past years that giving a stirring speech or indicating a clever way to search, or contrariwise outlining a disastrous NPC interaction or a dangerous investigation, isn't best represented by a +2 or +4 die modifier.
Player: [stirring speech, just the right tone]
Dungeon Master: King Stefano is impressed with your rhetoric and moved by your passion. Roll a Diplomacy check.
Player: "1".
Dungeon Master: But not all that convinced. He rejects your plea, but offers you a place in the court as an orator.
Better, I think, is to reward a great piece of player cleverness or insight with a "better of two die rolls" or even "best of three die rolls". And pathetic, insulting speeches earn "worse of two die rolls."
This also solves the other extreme of the problem with simple +2 or +4 die modifiers. Let's say you're the DM and the party's rogue needs to pick a DC 35 lock. With all her modifications, she can't exceed a +13 modifier on her Disable Device, which is what you intended when you placed that lock there in the first place. Well, the lock is outside her skill set right now. So, her player goes into an elaborate description of what she tries to do. If you reward that with a +2 modifier, then she can suddenly pick a lock that's beyond her capabilities.
Think twice before you decide to allow that in your campaign.
"minionions"I know I've seen that somewhere before...
Maybe you saw a mini-onion in your martini.
I see what you're saying, CM, and the relation between circumstance bonus and role-playing certainly deserves some thought. (However, it may also force the DM to come up with a really good explanation for the failure and for how that failure will drive the story forward. Unexpected failures can be just as good for the story as successes.) I wonder if the extremes are sometimes just cases where DM fiat needs to reenter the game. If you intend a lock to be an absolute block to a player for a certain period of time based on story reasons, make it so.
...
"Challenge the player, not the character"
...
Nice observation on old school/new school.
Perhaps why the players in my party sometimes argue with me as a dm ---can't i just roll 'X'? (the counter to which I have added OK DC 56... ?)
|
|
@David, we never expected everyone to be "Master Thespian", we just expected them to make an effort. :)
I actually had DMs who did. Although my favorite was the DM who's rule was that new characters started at 1st level regardless of what level the party was. I ended up with a 1st level ranger in a party of 14th level characters. That sucked and was fun at the same time.
|
What it is: To the world of willing GMs, I offer the compared percentile roll (CP Roll). This is a compared percentile roll, compared rather than opposed, used to determine the result of any one of millions of PC requests, without the need to consult any books. This new GMing technique functions well because it is simple and effective, and can create a quick, flowing, decisive atmosphere at your game table.
Philosophy: Sometimes the percent chance to do something, achieve an effect, or have something exist inplay, in the game world, is as random as a dice roll.
Applications: There are many applications for this mechanic. Examples could include answers to the following questions asked by your players or their PCs:
· Are there any halflings in the tavern?
· During Bromar’s conversation, are the people in the next room are mentioning any specific names right now?
· Are three bottles of elven wine still available for purchase?
· Does the town reeve have a copy of the Urdanzer Doctrine on his
mantelpiece?
· Are there any broken splinters of wood on the floor of this dungeon
chamber for Yoggr to use as an improvised weapon?
· Would the writ of entry Kelestri is looking for happen to be amongst the pile of documents on the table?
· Is there a waterclock somewhere on the premises of Castle Bloodmede?
Basic Mechanic: The CP Roll is a comparison between the GM’s roll and the player’s roll. The GM first secretly rolls d%, then asks the player to roll d%. If the player's roll is under the amount shown on the GM's dice, the chance, effect, or existence of an item is possible. If the player's d% roll is over the amount listed on the GM's dice, the question receives an unfavorable response.
For example:
John, who is playing a tiefling rogue, is in an underwater dungeon
chamber fighting a water dragon beneath a ziggurat overrun by Sheshek’s
tribe of lizardfolk. John’s character has already picked up the artifact
scepter from the bottom of this watery chamber when he sees a water
dragon arrive.
John asks: “Are there any large rocks down here for me to pushoff
from to boost the momentum of my swim check more quickly back up to the
surface?"
The GM responds: “Please make a percentile roll.”
Instead of just saying yes or no, the GM asked for a % roll from John. The GM quickly throws d% behind the screen. If the player’s d% result is lower than the amount shown on the GM's dice, the GM can award a +2 to the PC's swim check (or comparable bonus in another game system),
determining that there are indeed large rocks to pushoff from toward the
surface.
Another example: In the heat of battle, the diminutive halfling PC named Yoggr is all out of stones as ammunition for his sling. The GM wishes to leave the chance of small slingsized stones lying on the dungeon floor to complete chance. He uses the CP Roll, and the player rolls above the GMs percent roll. Even after an extensive search by Yoggr, the GM determines that there is no usable ammunition available in the area.
The CP Roll achieves two things. First, it adds a swift dice interaction with the player, increasing suspense and keeping the player involved in the creation of the game. Unlike other systems, the players roll will actually determine the existence of an object in the world whether or not there are large rocks in the underwater dungeon chamber. Second, it provides the GM with a clean and fair way to determine a factor in the game that is not just based on her own whim.
Of course, there is nothing bad about the GM making that decision without this mechanic. However, in some cases the GM may prefer to leave the decision or result to random chance. In cases where the odds are truly random, the CP Roll helps to avoid any sign of favoritism to a particular player. In situations where character death may be imminent, the CP Roll avoids showing any act of GM fiat to help or hurt that PC’s chance of survival.
Try out the CP roll. I've used this mechanic to make quick, impartial GM
decisions with success for over 25 years. I now pass this mechanic on to you from one gamer to another.
... and so creative sharing is my example of Channeling My Inner Gygax.
Re: 1e v 3x Player v Character focus.
1e: Player : "I try and convince the king that our cause is just and his support will be a boon to all under his rule"
DM: "Well, how do you convince him?"
Player: in character "<long winded and inspirational speech>"
DM: "King Stanislaus is convinced."
3x: Player : "I try and convince the king that our cause is just and his support will be a boon to all under his rule"
DM: "Make a Diplomacy Check"
Player: "Is a 27 good enough?"
DM: "King Stanislaus is convinced."
Yeah, sorry, I don't see it.
Things aren't really so black and white.
While I agree that there was no system for rolling socially in 1e, that's not to say that you have to roll socially in 3e. I like to consider all the various editions as toolboxes, rather than inviolate contracts.
3e happens to include a tool for social rolls, but it doesn't exclude the "higher form" of social roleplay, except at the GM's decree. I tend to combine the two, myself. If you make a convincing argument in RP, that's fine. If you can give me the salient points of your argument, I'll give you a bonus on a social roll. If you are coming up empty (everyone does sometimes) and playing a silver-tongued character, I'll let you do a roll cold, then interpret the results based on the roll. Some people may consider this "unfairly rewarding thespians", but it just doesn't feel that way at the table. That last method (post hoc, cold roll) is actually really fun, because you can work with a shy player to interpret that 1 or that 20 or anywhere in between, and it is less awkward than improvising on your own.
So my answer to your above scenario is: "Both please."
So my answer to your above scenario is: "Both please."
+1
Like the example of a randomize CP roll system Pax did above, I used non-standardized dice rolls to determine many things in 1e/2e AD&D that weren't covered by mechanics. I loved when 3E put in the skill mechanic, because it gave DMs something concrete to use instead of coming up with random numbers on the fly. Nowadays, most actions can be covered under one skill or another.
That being said, I have never enjoyed running a game of pure dice. I do still expect players to try and make an effort to talk to the NPCs. I never just say: "roll such and such". It is ROLE-playing after all.
I would never call AD&D a bad game just because you had no skill mechanic in place. Although you had to be quick and fair with the 'on the fly' rolls, a good DM was perfectly able to do this. Having a built-in mechanic just makes the arguments between players and DM less.
|
|
Re: 1e v 3x Player v Character focus.
1e: Player : "I try and convince the king that our cause is just and his support will be a boon to all under his rule"
DM: "Well, how do you convince him?"
Player: in character "<long winded and inspirational speech>"
DM: "King Stanislaus is convinced."
3x: Player : "I try and convince the king that our cause is just and his support will be a boon to all under his rule"
DM: "Make a Diplomacy Check"
Player: "Is a 27 good enough?"
DM: "King Stanislaus is convinced."
Yeah, sorry, I don't see it.
Things aren't really so black and white.
While I agree that there was no system for rolling socially in 1e, that's not to say that you have to roll socially in 3e. I like to consider all the various editions as toolboxes, rather than inviolate contracts.
3e happens to include a tool for social rolls, but it doesn't exclude the "higher form" of social roleplay, except at the GM's decree. I tend to combine the two, myself. If you make a convincing argument in RP, that's fine. If you can give me the salient points of your argument, I'll give you a bonus on a social roll. If you are coming up empty (everyone does sometimes) and playing a silver-tongued character, I'll let you do a roll cold, then interpret the results based on the roll. Some people may consider this "unfairly rewarding thespians", but it just doesn't feel that way at the table. That last method (post hoc, cold roll) is actually really fun, because you can work with a shy player to interpret that 1 or that 20 or anywhere in between, and it is less awkward than improvising on your own.
So my answer to your above scenario is: "Both please."
We never penalized people for being shy, or not talking with a funny accent or any of these things.
Here's the difference: in 1e, you had to make an effort. There was no roll built in to cover social situations. In 3x, RAW, you just need a d20 and a target number. No effort required (but many still do make the effort, thank goodness, or I'd just play video games for my gaming fix).
I said 3x doesn't exclude roleplaying (see later post). But I do think the pool of available good players is much smaller these days. Part of it is there are just fewer pnpg players in 2009 compared to 1983, part of it is that less and less people these days seem willing to turn off the laptop and the cell long enough to actually immerse themselves into the experience.
It took me two freaking years to find a good group to play with (shout out to the Monday gamers!), so maybe I'm just a little frustrated with most of what I've seen in the "modern" gamer.
It took me two freaking years to find a good group to play with (shout out to the Monday gamers!), so maybe I'm just a little frustrated with most of what I've seen in the "modern" gamer.
At the risk of playing "I'm more crotchedy," I'd have to say that I was also pretty frustrated with a lot of what I saw of the "pre-modern" gamer as well...finding the right group of folks really seems to be the grail, the panacea, the you-name-it, for my money's worth.
|
|
It took me two freaking years to find a good group to play with (shout out to the Monday gamers!), so maybe I'm just a little frustrated with most of what I've seen in the "modern" gamer.At the risk of playing "I'm more crotchedy," I'd have to say that I was also pretty frustrated with a lot of what I saw of the "pre-modern" gamer as well...finding the right group of folks really seems to be the grail, the panacea, the you-name-it, for my money's worth.
Yeah, we had our share of munchkins and killer DMs back then. Like the kid showing up with seven, seven! Swords of Kas on his character sheet...
<Guffaw>
Those players and DMs deserved each other.
My college DM loved to tell the story of how, when he was just a lad, his character killed Tiamat. The difference being, of course, that some people's game grows up as they do, and others...
You heard about that!?
I used Black Razor to do it!
;P
|
|
It took me two freaking years to find a good group to play with (shout out to the Monday gamers!), so maybe I'm just a little frustrated with most of what I've seen in the "modern" gamer.At the risk of playing "I'm more crotchedy," I'd have to say that I was also pretty frustrated with a lot of what I saw of the "pre-modern" gamer as well...finding the right group of folks really seems to be the grail, the panacea, the you-name-it, for my money's worth.
+1. My last DM handed out three magic items to each character, at character creation. There is nothing like playing a campaign inwhich on of the character starts at first level with a Necklace of Fireballs V.
Yeah, we had our share of munchkins and killer DMs back then. Like the kid showing up with seven, seven! Swords of Kas on his character sheet...
I remember a letter published in Dragon magazine where a player said his PC stole Mjolnir from Thor by pushing the thunder god off of a very tall wall with a 1st level spell. Good times!
(I couldn't help but remember this when reading the "falling should do more damage" thread. :-)
|
|
Yeah, we had our share of munchkins and killer DMs back then. Like the kid showing up with seven, seven! Swords of Kas on his character sheet...I remember a letter published in Dragon magazine where a player said his PC stole Mjolnir from Thor by pushing the thunder god off of a very tall wall with a 1st level spell. Good times!
(I couldn't help but remember this when reading the "falling should do more damage" thread. :-)
God, do you remember the "Forum Wars" about falling damage in Dragon back then?
Like they say, "Those n00bs who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it".
;)
|
|
In 1e your class was a job that was hard work to become and hard work to get better at (and costly). You needed trainers and money and time. Now "ding" leveled up! Background was something you designed yourself in 1e from your imagination (hang on no mechanical onuses - CRIME!!!). Later we had to believe that learning skills mid-adventure was common and they all took the same amount of time. "Hey look I can climb now even though I haven't tried it even once and we are in the middle of a dungeon - sweet."Yeah, remember that totally awesome chapter of the Odyssey where they all took a month off and practiced their profession?
No?
I remember all those months they were doing nothing. The Odyssey didn't happen in a week.
As far as why many publishers have been dumping their books: It is no longer possible to product anything under the d20 license; One must use the new GSL.So the d20 OGL is dead then? Or am I misreading that?
I think you missed the thread you were aiming at.
God, do you remember the "Forum Wars" about falling damage in Dragon back then?Like they say, "Those n00bs who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it".
;)
I remember this though only vaguely. Mainly what I remember was that some one eventually came back with a compelling argument on why, scientifically speaking, the original system was in fact the most accurate way of handling falling damage. Sadly I no longer remember what their apparently oh so compelling argument was - only that it had me convinced.
Yeah, remember that totally awesome chapter of the Odyssey where they all took a month off and practiced their profession?
Heck, yeah! Profession(Sailor) right?
I see your point, but that was not the best example.
They all had Profession(sailor). And they spent weeks and weeks sailing in that epic.
|
|
I remember all those months they were doing nothing. The Odyssey didn't happen in a week.Now you're catching on.
As long as your PCs aren't shouting "Ding!" when they level up, it's a purely mechanical construct. You're handwaving their downtime anyway (since downtime, by definition, is boring, or it isn't downtime), so whatever it is the character is learning next is whatever they were practicing and the player doesn't need to get into super-strict simulation.
You can graft super-strict simulation onto 3e; heck, the 3.0 DMG mentioned it. (I haven't actually read the 3.5 DMG in quite a while.) But it's disruptive to so many sorts of stories that it's best left aside for the sorts of players who want to manage how much writing you can get out of a single piece of chalk.
The only time that this issue is forced is, say, when the level 2 party is blocked off by a tall, sheer wall, so they go fight orcs and hit level 3 and the rogue picks up some Climb ranks, and it's fair to require some sort of explanation. But, again, depending on the mood of the game, it can be as simple as, "Eureka!"
There was quite a bit of "handwaving" going on back then, you just paid your training costs and the time was figured in. The overall effect, though, was you didn't wind up with 28 year old arch-mages. And the progression was much slower, so you didn't have 15th level characters in six months of real time.
It took me two freaking years to find a good group to play with (shout out to the Monday gamers!), so maybe I'm just a little frustrated with most of what I've seen in the "modern" gamer.
Its odd but I find the polar opposite. Historically it was not uncommon for a group to just collapse - lose two players and it was all over. Now I find the problem is keeping the number of players under control. Its like if some one hears from a friend of a friend that there is a D&D game going down they ask to join in. Every time I'm in a campaign with say 4 players I find that after a month or two we have to start turning players away because the group has already swelled to eight people and one can't just keep adding people that want to play. I actually prefer 5 or 6 people in a campaign but keeping it below eight has proven extremely difficult.
|
|
In 1e your class was a job that was hard work to become and hard work to get better at (and costly). You needed trainers and money and time. Now "ding" leveled up!Yeah, remember that totally awesome chapter of the Odyssey where they all took a month off and practiced their profession?
No?
Even thought HD stole a little of my thunder. It's not that you roleplayed these in 1e - we didn't. It's just under 1e the time was accounted for.
What is a point of character age in later editions? I can't find one. In 1e you sit down and calculate the age of an archmage assuming he started at 18 years old. In later editions you will find the archmage is well still 18 years old. How can the fantasy world be taken "seriously" if a 1st level no body nips out from doing his house chores for his mother, then comes back several weeks later a 20th level fighter? I'm not syaing on the job training isn't possible just given what classes in D&D present (elite training) it's improbable.
This is no way make later editions bad or not good or not as good - rather different in their focus. Your completely right if you read the Odyssey and see it as a chain of events one after the other then later versions of D&D will appeal. If however you read the Odyssey and get a feeling for the time and hardships then perhaps given 1/2e D&D a trash.
Suggestions and musings only,
S.