Somewhere along the line, the "loot over skill/story" that is so prevalent in video gaming has taken a much greater hold with tabletop gaming than it has in the pastNow, I don't know much about early editions, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that experience was DIRECTLY TIED loot gained in early editions.
Damn hardcore role-player infestations with their "good ol' days" that never exist. I wish they would stick to systems where role-playing IS the game rather than an enhancement to it rather than trying to talk down to people who don't like role-playing that much and waxing delusional about imaginary pasts. We need some RPernix.You seemed to overlook I said "loot over skill/story." Experience, nor character advancement or progression, ever came into question. Skill refers to ability to play your class effectively; story is self explanatory.
That was a funny bit at the end though.
How is it now more loot over skill story when in the fabled glorious role-playing past, loot was necessary for character advancement?
Those that are complaining about the Vow of Poverty I feel are missing the point. Roleplaying games are not about "winning or losing." I imagine most that are complaining about it might not play a game like Call of Cthulhu because there is no "winning" against the Old Ones or they might play it with an illiterate character (so he can't accidently lose Sanity by reading a tome) that carries 50 sticks of dynamite in 1920.
While I agree that a game shouldn't be about winning or losing, in my experience there may not being any clear cut winning conditions but there are a lot of losing conditions.
So while I enjoy roleplaying and people that build their characters with a strong focus on that, I also would like their character to carry their weight in a fight. I've played in a fair number of what many would consider very Roleplay heavy games but at the end of the day the character still spent a lot of time slugging it out.
And what is "RP centric" material? Obviously not codified rules to support role-playing, that is contrary to their belief system. So it must therefore be fluff. If you want "RP centric" material then, Salvatore has produced a lot of it.
@Jesse Brake: I agree with your 1st post...but not everyone who finds the VoP to be weak is just thinking of power and lootz. Taking VoP can suck for storytelling and RPing also.
Personaly I would increase the power level of it slightly in my game as I do view as too bad of a sarcifice for RPing. Let put it this way the one in the book would be perfect for NPC monks...adventuring monks though I don't think would ever take it....it would be like going bear hunting with your bare hands.
But I think the vow is perfect as game design because it is easier to increase the power level of something than decrease it. So it would be aewsome if they came out with perfectly balanced stuff for my campaign every time. But that is impossible for two reasons.
1) No one is perfect.
2) They are not designing the games based on what I feel is balanced.
As a rule I think they try to err on the side of under powered...which to me is what I want in my game designers. Not one who put out overpowered options and expects you to either ban them...or take the time to reduce their power.
It also has something I like...taking a VoP is a sacrifice. It should be. I tired of people 'nobly' in character making sacirfices....and everybody patting them on the back....and rewarding them with mechanical benefits...where is the sacrifice? Sorry that is a pet peeved of mine.
There is no reward in having to roll a new character.
There is no reward in having to roll a new character.
Really?
I like doing it sometimes.
And I've had a few really satisfying character deaths I wouldn't trade. Not even story-time deaths, just games that played out really epically on their own.
There is no reward in having to roll a new character.Really?
I like doing it sometimes.
Not in the strictest sense. Having to roll a new character is not really a reward for making a role-playing sacrifice in game. It's a consequence, unless you really wanted to roll a new character.
And what is "RP centric" material? Obviously not codified rules to support role-playing, that is contrary to their belief system. So it must therefore be fluff. If you want "RP centric" material then, Salvatore has produced a lot of it.Well, maybe we should play chess then?
Or, you know, we could play D&D/d20/Pathfinder where basically everything has a dice-based rules system attached to it?
There is no reward in having to roll a new character.
It is a reward if making characters is the most entertaining part of the game (:
Not in the strictest sense. Having to roll a new character is not really a reward for making a role-playing sacrifice in game. It's a consequence, unless you really wanted to roll a new character.There is no reward in having to roll a new character.Really?
I like doing it sometimes.
True enough.
I think you have a valid point, but some of those crufty options do come in handy now and then.
If I had it in mind play a monk with a vow of poverty anyway, surely I am better off for the existence of this rule, which will give me more Ki points. It's better than nothing.
An upthread poster mentioned that it is also a good basis for a houserule if the GM feels it should be more powerful. The hard part — enumerating the restrictions — has been done, it's just a matter of adding in more.
I would much rather the designers aim low in power. The best options will naturally rise to the top. If it's not great, people will ignore it, but the arms race will be slowed just a bit by every option that is sort of good, or could be good, or even just isn't bad.
Let the smart players avoid it. Let the players who don't care to be smart take it if they want.
We should, but that doesn't mean we should play it like a bunch of guys going around chopping stuff up with no roleplay....because this game is a roleplaying game...not a tactical miniatures game...
*flips to the Combat chapter of the CRB*
*Arches eyebrow*
Could it be... both?
Concerning this post by Sean K Reynolds..
First off, this is not an attempt to troll or flame.
Sean's post is everything my gaming group and I have loved about tabletop. I've been more of a lurker than a poster on these boards because, while it is useful from a developer's standpoint to have individuals who attempt to "break" mechanics and find the power creep in new published material, I'm just not that interested in it.
Well, I'm glad you liked that post. Thanks. :)
*Creepy Man-Hugs T0Z*
We should, but that doesn't mean we should play it like a bunch of guys going around chopping stuff up with no roleplay....because this game is a roleplaying game...not a tactical miniatures game...
The point is we CAN do that. The game is built so that you CAN do that. You don't even need to roleplay non-combat scenarios, social skills and rules governing interactions EXIST. Roleplaying enhances D&D, it is NOT part of the system as it is with Storytelling or Savage Worlds.
Neither Chess nor tactical miniatures games are the other side of the coin from role-playing systems. There are OTHER "role-playing" games, like D&D, that are the other side of that coin.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. Do you kick dogs who have baskets on their faces because you can?
Ha! Enjoy Friday afternoon baiting Cartigan. I'm out. And before I go, I must add — you do yourself no favors by losing a style-of-play fight to him of all people.
Play as you like!
The thing is, options which are mechanically crippling don't really enable role playing (well, beyond the "My corpse decomposes...again!"). New mechanics should enable the pursuit of a role playing courses that were previously nonviable for mechanical reasons. From what I understand, VoP fails to do this.
The thing is, options which are mechanically crippling don't really enable role playing (well, beyond the "My corpse decomposes...again!"). New mechanics should enable the pursuit of a role playing courses that were previously nonviable for mechanical reasons. From what I understand, VoP fails to do this.
+9001
One's ability to role-play is unrelated to anyone's ability to be competent in the metagame.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short). Although you can award experience points as soon as a challenge is overcome, this can quickly disrupt the flow of game play. It's easier to simply award experience points at the end of a game session—that way, if a character earns enough XP to gain a level, he won't disrupt the game while he levels up his character. He can instead take the time between game sessions to do that.
Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. At the end of each session, award XP to each PC that participated. Each monster, trap, and obstacle awards a set amount of XP, as determined by its CR, regardless of the level of the party in relation to the challenge, although you should never bother awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more lower than the APL. Pure roleplaying encounters generally have a CR equal to the average level of the party (although particularly easy or difficult roleplaying encounters might be one higher or lower). There are two methods for awarding XP. While one is more exact, it requires a calculator for ease of use. The other is slightly more abstract.
Note the use of "challenges" and "obstacle",also note "roleplaying encounters." It is codified as part of the game. Cartigan's basic point holds up but Roleplaying is a codified part of the game.
The term "roleplaying" itself is extremely ambiguous, so we could fight about this indefinitely.
Please stop making me agree with Cartigan. It burns.
|
Fact: Role-playing is not a codified part of D&D/d20/Pathfinder. The fact you really, REALLY want to role-play does not change that fact. The fact you really, REALLY want to make OTHER people role-play does not change that fact. You can sit around looking down your nose at people all you want, the game is still a statistical numbers game both in-combat and out. If you were such a good role-player, you would go role-play a chess game instead of trying to defame other people for playing a game a different way.
Depends on what one's view of what role-playing is really...
Sure one CAN role-play at chess, but it would be very limiting as each piece has a clearly defined role and cannot deviate from that role with the rules of the game as written...
But D&D/d20/Pathfinder are role-playing games. It's even in their name (RPG). It's just to what extent one likes to role-play...
Some may go no further than imagining that the peice of paper they hold represents a character in some fantasy land, while others may see their characters as living, breathing people with a life all their own...
But the game is, by its very nature more than just a "statistical numbers game". Why else would it be called an RPG?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'm going forward with my response assuming "positive contribution" refers to things like damage output, utility magic items, etc (because if the PC with VoP is not receiving treasure, the rest of the party should be getting bigger shares and have more stuff themselves)? If not, then I apologize. This "positive contribution" starts to slide back into the "winning" mentality. A PC with no wealth can still contribute positively via skills and combat. Will he be AS good as someone who's used wealth to augment their various abilities? Strictly speaking, no
Okay. So we agree that taking Vow of Poverty is not a feat, but a hobble. We both agree that magic items augment skills, saves, combat capability, and ability checks and that a PC taking Vow of Poverty will be worse at those checks than other people at the table.
Being less able to make those checks, players will be less able to accomplish all goals that he shares with the party, from using social skills to change their world to combat to stop the BBEG's plan for the apocalypse. How players accomplish tasks and alter the story is by role playing something out and then rolling some dice. If they role play well, they get a bonus on those rolls. In early editions, it might be an ability check (social) or THACO. Today, it's a skill check or an attack roll.
So, no, it's not about "winning". It's about being able to affect the story. As soon as dice come into it, the Vow of Poverty makes it more likely to sideline the player from the only thing that counts: affecting the story based on your decisions. DnD has always been about collaborative storytelling... with dice. Without the dice, it's not DnD.
I've played in an Age of Worms campaign where I badly designed my fighter, who was flavorful as all hell. But I had to retire him because I was being selfish. Other PCs were dying because I wasn't filling my role, which derailed the plot and made my PC's flavor taste like ashes. And I've DMed games where one character was significantly behind the others and that PC's flavor made me put in a lot of extra work, effectively balancing two sets of encounters for every combat. All the extra loot going from one player to the other three just makes this worse.
So, yes, Vow of Poverty as badly written undermines role playing and is a self-oriented form of flavor masquerading as selflessness.
I don't see how this prevents ALL roleplaying goals. Wealth is not necessary for all aspects of RPing. If your goal is transcendence via asceticism, then it's perfect. That isn't the only RP goal VoP could be applied to either.
This is a good point. But you will surely agree that transcendence is a strictly personal endeavor, self-oriented in the extreme.
I removed some personal swipes and the replies to them. Please behave (and flag any I missed.)
I think they make a cream for that.
Carti-Gone?
Yeah, I already used a whole tube for this thread.
I honestly thing the VoP thing is overblown.
If anyone is actually capable of surviving without the big six, it is monks. Because they will have halfway decent AC and Saves even without items.
Does it make them better or super-awesome? No. But in a campaign that just happens to be light on treasure (and people do run those), I think it would work out okay.
On the flipside, if you're the kind of person for whom games really require mandatory equipment, then yeah, this will be a crappy choice. So?
|
I honestly thing the VoP thing is overblown.
If anyone is actually capable of surviving without the big six, it is monks. Because they will have halfway decent AC and Saves even without items.
Does it make them better or super-awesome? No. But in a campaign that just happens to be light on treasure (and people do run those), I think it would work out okay.
On the flipside, if you're the kind of person for whom games really require mandatory equipment, then yeah, this will be a crappy choice. So?
+1
I think VoP is overpowered in a zero-wealth campaign. . . .
Cue someone going on about how no GM should ever starve players for treasure because of X Y and Z design assumptions.
Which, in turn, will quickly degenerate into a Caster v. Martial issue.
Shall I just type out the rest of the thread for ya'll?
|
No skills, no feats, no prestige classes (except maybe bard).
Wow, I never considered it that way before - bards WERE the first prestige class. I always hated bards in 1E, the groups I played in back then rotated characters too fast for anyone to ever qualify for it. One of the things that made me happiest about 2E was bards becoming a full class.
The thing is, options which are mechanically crippling don't really enable role playing.......
Listed. :)
Note the use of "challenges" and "obstacle",also note "roleplaying encounters." It is codified as part of the game. Cartigan's basic point holds up but Roleplaying is a codified part of the game.
Actually, I think that excerpt proves the opposite point: people want there to exist some kind of reward for pure roleplaying, but D&D does not support any kind of codified subsystem for roleplaying rules. Therefore, the developers decided on the simplest, most straightforward solution possible: if you have a roleplaying encounter, it's worth XP equal to a CR of the party's average level.
This isn't codifying anything except that you can handwave XP for roleplaying encounters.
I've removed some other posts and their replies. Let's not derail this conversation any further by sniping at each other. A poster's preferred game style may not work for another - please take this into account and post civilly to each other.