I for one would pay for some kind of PRD access that compiled all the feats into a better search engine… current online search is kinda chaotic… true its MOSTLY better than looking through books.
But it also burns me that people who haven't paid for anything get to see the same information I do, minus art work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one would pay for some kind of PRD access that compiled all the feats into a better search engine… current online search is kinda chaotic… true its MOSTLY better than looking through books.
But it also burns me that people who haven't paid for anything get to see the same information I do, minus art work.
Use d20pfsrd.com, like I do, for game prep. While I have many PF books, I don't have them all. When I want specific feats I use the search box on d20pfsrd.com and it works fine.
Consider that though I'd like people to purchase the supplements for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) which is my IP, however at the same time, I still submitted all the race and class guides for Kaidan to d20pfsrd.com for inclusion, and its there for anyone to find easily - I don't feel "burned" for doing so.
I've been working with Access and Excel to make documents for my particular worlds, sorting all the various information for feats and so on. I had something like this years ago but lost them in an unfortunate computer mishap and divorce.
It is interesting to go back through them and put in useful information, page numbers and other material for quick use and then I can go back to the source if I need more information.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed that often many people call something that is situationally useful 'useless' and that in the right sort of game many 'useless' options become useful.
Most options are useless to those whose contribution to the boards is to armchair optimize single characters to solo one-shot demon lords.
-Skeld
1: All that is needed to play is the Core Rules (Named Core Rules for a reason) and the Bestiary 1, Unless they are very new to Gaming in General they do know what a core rule book is. Starting players even I when I was younger started with the Core of each game before going out and getting anything else.What if you a mixture of new and experienced players? Do you restrict everybody to just the CRB, or do you let the experienced players choose from a wider range of books and tell the newbies that they really shouldn't play some of the most attractive (seemingly) classes in the CRB or they'll be sitting around wondering why they never get to do anything cool?
I don't restrict my players since I have most of the books and have had time to read through them I often help them with the character concepts they want to play. The only time I would ever restrict anything is if I have not read through the material.
Even when someone else is GM I'm often there to help the others with rules questions and some character design advice. The goal is to have fun not "win" something my group does very well.
As far as my mix of players I've been playing since D&D 1E, the alternate GM in the group started when 3E came out, I have a player that has played for a year now, and 2 players that have sat in on 10 games or less. So I say I have a decent mix of player experience.
You can make characters perfectly capable of doing cool things with just the core rulebook. Druids and wizards, for example, are a thing.You can also make fighters and rogues, however. So when the new player wants to create a character who can sneak around in the dark like a ninja, or a highly dextrous fighter like Legolas or Captain Jack Sparrow, which options do you steer them toward? If you stick to the CRB you can always tell them that Pathfinder is more of a magic game and doesn't do those kinds of characters very well. No problem, so far.
But what about the experienced players who like using all the various books they've collected over the years to create their characters? Do you tell them they spent their money for nothing? Or do you let them play some really cool characters that the newbie can't have? Or do you just tell the new player to go read 1,000 pages or more of game rules so they'll be able to keep up?
Don't get me wrong: having lots of options is good. But having lots of "options" that some of the players don't consider optional when other players can't realistically make the investment to take those options is not so good. And presenting new players with lots of options that appear to be far better than they really turn out to be is very bad.
You can make those characters in the CRB, but if a new player knows that kind of character they want and they'd be better off using a class from outside the CRB then great, they should use that. In no way is it mandatory for someone to learn about all the classes and their mechanics, if they're eager for just one certain type of playstyle then let them play with that and learn about the rest as the game goes on.
You should tell them that the GM has final say on what can and can't be in the game. If the GM is only willing to do a pure CRB game then that's fine, nothing wrong with that.
I think it's more that it's new GMs that get overwhelmed by all the options. A new player should be guided to build what they want so they can learn the system, and if they want to learn about what the other players are using then they can study that themselves. In the game I'm in a newbie to Pathfinder just told the GM "I want to be a fighting guy with fighting magic" and so we taught him about the Magus and how to be one, and voila he is a Magus now.
For a new GM it can be perplexing to see all these books and misleadingly cause them to think that they must learn everything in them and their capabilities, but thankfully there're messageboards like these to help them out and tell them that they get the final say on what is an isn't in their game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed that often many people call something that is situationally useful 'useless' and that in the right sort of game many 'useless' options become useful.A situationally useful Spell is usually pretty all right, even if you cast it like once in your career. You get a lot of spells, outside of very specific classes, although obviously it's a worse choice for a sorcerer than a wizard.
A feat that's only useful once or twice unless the GM is feeling generous is a bigger concern, because most characters will have maybe seven feats in their entire career. You don't take a feat for something that might come up every once in a while when the planets align but really shines when you're in a campaign where the planets are always aligned. Usually, you take a feat for something you want to do ALL THE TIME regardless of whether the GM is pitching to it or not.
You're gonna get a lot more milage out of Power Attack than Prone Shooter or Canny Tumble, just saying. You don't have a lot of feat slots to waste on "maybe."
Well, with weird feats like that I always keep in mind that those feats can also be given to monsters. You're fighting some Hobgobbos then suddenly they start tumbling around all the heroes, last thing they'd expect and the baddies only need to use that gimmick once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make characters perfectly capable of doing cool things with just the core rulebook. Druids and wizards, for example, are a thing.You can also make fighters and rogues, however. So when the new player wants to create a character who can sneak around in the dark like a ninja, or a highly dextrous fighter like Legolas or Captain Jack Sparrow, which options do you steer them toward? If you stick to the CRB you can always tell them that Pathfinder is more of a magic game and doesn't do those kinds of characters very well. No problem, so far.
But what about the experienced players who like using all the various books they've collected over the years to create their characters? Do you tell them they spent their money for nothing? Or do you let them play some really cool characters that the newbie can't have? Or do you just tell the new player to go read 1,000 pages or more of game rules so they'll be able to keep up?
Don't get me wrong: having lots of options is good. But having lots of "options" that some of the players don't consider optional when other players can't realistically make the investment to take those options is not so good. And presenting new players with lots of options that appear to be far better than they really turn out to be is very bad.
You can make those characters in the CRB, but if a new player knows that kind of character they want and they'd be better off using a class from outside the CRB then great, they should use that. In no way is it mandatory for someone to learn about all the classes and their mechanics, if they're eager for just one certain type of playstyle then let them play with that and learn about the rest as the game goes on.
You should tell them that the GM has final say on what can and can't be in the game. If the GM is only willing to do a pure CRB game then that's fine, nothing wrong with that.
I think it's more that it's new GMs that get overwhelmed by all the options. A new player should be...
I have been playing roleplaying games for 25 years and I'm not overwhelmed by all the options, I'm overwhelmed by all of the unbalanced options.
Good GMs want to give their players creative freedom but not at the cost of such an unbalanced campaign that rewrites and customized encounters are needed.
But the problem is the design theory behind the options. Erik Mona made a comment about the Haste spell that was insightful into the problems that are popping up on this thread.
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Pathfinder, like D&D, always was a wargame. No amount of rose-tinted glasses worn during re-reading Tomb of Horrors can change the fact that D&D grew out of a desire from Gygax and Arneson to have a small-scale tactical wargame they could use to play out their fave sword & sorcery heroes vs monsters adventures. And so they did.
When you try any RPG system that grew out of opposition to D&D - and has rules, narrative and acting interact together far more than D&D does - it become blindingly obvious that no matter if it's 0e, 1e, BECMI, 2e, 3e/3.5e/PF, 4e or 5e they're all wargaming rulesets with the entire role-playing part bolted on and only loosely connected. Having played quite a few dozens of non-D&D RPGs I always get a laugh when "old school" people ramble on about how 3e and onwards it's all rules and no role-playing. Guys, you're all wargamers arguing whether wood elves were better off in 2ed or 4ed of the game.
Now of course you can have fantastic role-playing in D&D and you can publish amazing campaign settings and adventures for it. But always, you'll be playing a tactical wargame, and the ruleset will concerns itself with combat and pretty much nothing else. The mechanical chassis doesn't interact with neither the players' acting nor with GM's narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play 50% of the time without using a hex map or minis. most of the players enjoy it MORE when I don't use the hex map ( I have a really good idea of where everyone actually is in my head) and have a better time having me describe the landscape, and movement, rather than move their minis around like playing chess/checkers.
I think in the process some AoOs might be missed that are otherwise caught with minis, but…like I said 50% of the time we don't use hex map… keeps things moving faster too.
I usually will use map n minis for longer/complex/more elaborate combats that won't be over in a few rounds.
I've noticed that often many people call something that is situationally useful 'useless' and that in the right sort of game many 'useless' options become useful.
This is true, but Joe's point was that the CRB can't support all options which is what it seemed like you were saying. Your reply does nothing to address what he actually said.
You can make characters perfectly capable of doing cool things with just the core rulebook. Druids and wizards, for example, are a thing.You can also make fighters and rogues, however. So when the new player wants to create a character who can sneak around in the dark like a ninja, or a highly dextrous fighter like Legolas or Captain Jack Sparrow, which options do you steer them toward? If you stick to the CRB you can always tell them that Pathfinder is more of a magic game and doesn't do those kinds of characters very well. No problem, so far.
The GM should then probably, if rogue and fighter are not going to cut it, point the player to a book that has the class they want. (although I would argue that for most games, a new player probably would be fine with those options, as long as everyone's playstyle allowed them).
I still don't see this as problematic, since all the hardcovers are on the PRD, and you can still make a capable PC using one or two books tops. You really don't need to sort through every player option book to build a functional character.
Personally with the quality of the ACG was released as; I think it is past due to calm and reduce the amount of releases.
Personally with the quality of the ACG was released as; I think it is past due to calm and reduce the amount of releases.
Once is an anomaly, twice is a pattern. I think it's too early to judge if the rate of class-books is actually degrading.
They deserve a chance to learn from the mistakes in the last book.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is sad or even frustrating when some people call me and others names. We are labeld "power gamers or optimizers" just because we find finds feat bloat and other kind of bloat problematic.
It’s also frustrating that me and others are pointed pout as stupid or whiners just because we think that bloat is something real in PF and that we are automatically wrong just because this is brought up once in a while.
I’m not saying I’m right and others are wrong. I’m simply saying I and many with me are have a problem with PF and were PF is heading. It doesn’t really help me or others when people essentially say that we can p*ss of if we don’t like the game.
Assuming that people complaining about balance issues or weak feats or bloat are power gamers/optimizers are not only rude but it is actually untrue. We are a gaming group that played for about 10 years and we consists of mainly casual players and most are not optimizers. In fact I would go as far and say that the only one in our group that have a good grasp of the rules and builds something even remotely close to optimized characters is me, and I usually play bard or other support characters. The problem with weak/false options is far greater if you have an organic attitude of building your character, something my friends have. When you build “fun” characters and pick feats or stats that match the vision of what you think could be a cool option that is when the problem often starts.
When you create an elven ranger archer and can’t pick precise shot until level 2 you realise that there is something seriously wrong with 3.x and PF. Me, I usually try to plan ahead and try to build balanced characters, but my friends have a more intuitive and organic approach and I often experience they get punished for it.
Bloat, weak feats, etc. isn’t usually a problem if you are an optimizer it’s in fact those that are not that suffers. At least at our table.
Zark, you´re probably right with some things you say there.
On the other hand, that elven archer thing is difficult.
Pathfinder is linked to Golarion (maybe other D&D worlds before) while the elven archer picture comes from a totally different world probably, a person named Legolas on middle-earth. Same as for Jack Sparrow, there is no being such a character at level 1.
Also, Golarion (and maybe the Pathfinder system) is written humano-centric and dominant, why humans claim the most powerful role (except some half human un/holy outsiders maybe).
Doing something system-alien is not an easy task and surely not something casual or beginner friendly. Does that mean something is wrong with the game? Surely up to opinion. I don´t think so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Zark. Bloat hurts inexperienced players and people focusing on role play far more than it hurts any powergaming munchkin.
I do enjoy creating powerful characters, but not game-breaking ones. Ad I often do adjust my level of optimization to the game I'm in. I know the game well enough to avoid its traps, so the bloat is really annoying, but little more than that... OTOH, some of my friends are new to Pathfinder and get really frustrated once they realized a cool feat is also one they'll rarely if ever use or one that provides a benefit too small to matter.
Right now, I'm playing in a game that uses Rynjin' freeform class building rules, which means players can mix and match class features as they wish.
I could actually have easily built a Full BAB archer Wizard withh all good saves... Instead, my choice is for a TWFing unarmed Barbarian. One that I do want to make powerful, but I'm not worried about high-octane world-shattering shenanigans.
Some of my other characters are:
A dueling Rogue (homebrew Rogue, probably still less powerful than any equally optimized caster)
A "samurai" Inquisitor of Shizure
An archer Alchemist
An archer Cleric
A Drow (homebrew) Monk
A Sorcerer
A Tiefling Hexcrafter Magus
A bardiche-wielding Oracle (which is actually rather powerful for his level, but mostly because we are using rolled attributes and I rolled really well).
A scythe-wielding Druid
None of them are extremely powerful... The Archer Cleric is probably the most optimized of them all, and even then, archery is not a great combat style for Clerics.
I can build these characters and make they work because I know the system well enough... But if a new player tries one of them, he could very easily take an awful feat.
Bloat makes character creation more difficult and time-consuming than necessary. It punishes players for trying to break the mold and intimidates new players (yeah, you don't have to use everything... But players will naturally want to explore their options. Having hundreds of crappy options doesn't help. Besides, if a new players joins a game in progress, he'd feel left out if he were the only one restricted to a book or two, and veteran players won't want to lose options they are already using). Every additional option makes the game increasingly difficult to balance, so these options should always be worth the hassle. And of course, we always run the risk of publishing material that in truth removes an option from the table, like Strike Back, which does something that many GMs allowed anyway...
e.g.: Imagine if Paizo publishes a feat named "Tree Climber". It allows you to climb tress. This didn't add anything to the game, if effectively made impossible for characters to climb trees without said feat. Where once they could just try and climb that tree, now they have to spend a very scare resource (feats) to do something they could already do... And even then, climbing trees is usually not that important, so the benefit is minimal.
And of course, increasing page count naturally raises the price of the product. If a book only has 120 pages worth of decent choices (not necessarily high-powered ones, just decent), then that book should only have 120 pages (plus the space needed for credits, art, etc). Having 120 of decent options in a 200 pages book basically means I'm paying money for 80 pages I'll never use. Those 8- extra pages will weight on the price and complexity of the product, both of which can (and do) discourage new players from acquiring it.
Of course, no one uses everything in the game (as I mentioned previously, there are options that I don't use, but do not consider to be Bloat: e.g.: Samurai). But when an option is so weak that it's either never used by anybody (You know what I mean, folks. Don't take it too literally!) or effectively punishes players for taking it (I'm looking at you, Water Skinned!), all it does is harm the game. Overpowered options are just as bad for very similar reasons.
From an old thread about a similar discussion...
I played a lot of 3.5. Just cause its feat bloat was worse than Pathfinder's, it doesn't mean the problem is not present in PF, or that I have to be happy about it.
I love PF and I loved 3.5. But I this is an issue that both of them have. I love creating character, both PCs and NPCs, and I love fooling around in HeroLab. I don't enjoy however, scrolling over dozens of useless feats to find the ones that are actually worth considering.
It's not about complexity. I like complexity.
False choices do not make the game any more complex. They just use space that could otherwise be used for actual meaningful options. A feat so bad no one ever takes is the same as not having it.
Having a bunch of nearly useless feat just so it "rewards system mastery" is bad design. If every single feat were at least decent, and reasonably balanced, there would be much more complexity in the game. And much greater variety of characters and builds.Why do we feel the need to separate good players from bad? It's like playing a Street Fighter game where, let's say, Sagat is too strong and Ryu is too weak, and saying "You know, it's a good thing Sagat is so overpowered and Ryu is useless! It separates good players from bad."
Wouldn't it be more fun if the player could just take whatever character he/she found cool and played with it? Good players would still be much more efficient. Just like experienced RPG players would still shine more than "noobs" anyway, as they supposedly have better tactical knowledge and know which feats synergize well with each other.
I don't think the game's complexity would be reduced if it didn't have the feats I mentioned. TWF is a clear example. It takes 6 feats just to catch up to your friend using a greatsword. Why not reduce that feat tree to 2 scaling feats? How does that reduce your options? If you have more feats available, it actually increase them!
If you read my 1st post, you can see I don't say to completely remove any of those options. But to simplify them (like fusing related combat maneuver feats into a single scaling one or making Combat Expertise and Power Attack combat options, rather than feats). Again, how does that reduce our options?
Look at Kirthfinder. It's a wonderful PF homebrew that greatly reduced feat bloat, while still maintaining the game complexity.
What I call bloat is not the addition of new mechanics, but the addition of mechanics that are poorly designed and/or pointless (like trap options and overpowered stuff).
You can also make fighters and rogues, however. So when the new player wants to create a character who can sneak around in the dark like a ninja, or a highly dextrous fighter like Legolas or Captain Jack Sparrow, which options do you steer them toward? If you stick to the CRB you can always tell them that Pathfinder is more of a magic game and doesn't do those kinds of characters very well. No problem, so far.
I'd call Legolas probably a Ranger. And Jack Sparrow most likely a bard. Sneak around in the dark like a ninja? That's a monk who specialized in stealth. (And wears a face cloth).
And guess what, those characters would work fine as those classes. Monk being the most likely weakest, but then again, who thinks ninja's are super strong either?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to apologize if there was a post that got missed here (I've gone back and since scrubbed a few that were coming off pretty fighty and the replies to them). Sometimes these things happen, and it's purely unintentional from our side. If you notice that we've skipped a post that seems off, or have concerns about a decision, the Website Feedback forum or our community email (community@paizo.com) are the best venues for making us aware of it. So let's move this discussion back towards Pathfinder, and try to be cool to one another please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Pathfinder, like D&D, always was a wargame. No amount of rose-tinted glasses worn during re-reading Tomb of Horrors can change the fact that D&D grew out of a desire from Gygax and Arneson to have a small-scale tactical wargame they could use to play out their fave sword & sorcery heroes vs monsters adventures. And so they did.
When you try any RPG system that grew out of opposition to D&D - and has rules, narrative and acting interact together far more than D&D does - it become blindingly obvious that no matter if it's 0e, 1e, BECMI, 2e, 3e/3.5e/PF, 4e or 5e they're all wargaming rulesets with the entire role-playing part bolted on and only loosely connected. Having played quite a few dozens of non-D&D RPGs I always get a laugh when "old school" people ramble on about how 3e and onwards it's all rules and no role-playing. Guys, you're all wargamers arguing whether wood elves were better off in 2ed or 4ed of the game.
Now of course you can have fantastic role-playing in D&D and you can publish amazing campaign settings and adventures for it. But always, you'll be playing a tactical wargame, and the ruleset will concerns itself with combat and pretty much nothing else. The mechanical chassis doesn't interact with neither the players' acting nor with GM's narrative.
This is certainly true. The fact is that no edition of dnd actually lent itself particularly well to roleplay or narrative storytelling. The only thing that was different 'back in the day' was the rules were so poorly written that they were often ignored or houseruled by dms. That isnt to say the rules somehow stopped you from roleplaying, they simply never did anything to aid it. There is no narrative control built into the game. Its a tactical combat game, the simple fact that social skills are a NUMBER, or the fact that countless spells exist that simply solve narrative challenges should make this WILDLY obvious.
Counter to this, games like fate, not only have rules that directly interact with roleplaying, they also involve actual narrative in the rules. The only interaction with roleplaying in dnd was roleplay xp, which was literally something dms made up. The fact that many people added rules to interact with roleplaying, or ignored the some of the most wargamey of rules in older editions doesnt change the fact that it was a slightly polished wargame in which you only controled a single character.
|
|
But Pathfinder, like D&D, always was a wargame. No amount of rose-tinted glasses worn during re-reading Tomb of Horrors can change the fact that D&D grew out of a desire from Gygax and Arneson to have a small-scale tactical wargame they could use to play out their fave sword & sorcery heroes vs monsters adventures. And so they did.
When you try any RPG system that grew out of opposition to D&D - and has rules, narrative and acting interact together far more than D&D does - it become blindingly obvious that no matter if it's 0e, 1e, BECMI, 2e, 3e/3.5e/PF, 4e or 5e they're all wargaming rulesets with the entire role-playing part bolted on and only loosely connected. Having played quite a few dozens of non-D&D RPGs I always get a laugh when "old school" people ramble on about how 3e and onwards it's all rules and no role-playing. Guys, you're all wargamers arguing whether wood elves were better off in 2ed or 4ed of the game.
Now of course you can have fantastic role-playing in D&D and you can publish amazing campaign settings and adventures for it. But always, you'll be playing a tactical wargame, and the ruleset will concerns itself with combat and pretty much nothing else. The mechanical chassis doesn't interact with neither the players' acting nor with GM's narrative.
This is certainly true. The fact is that no edition of dnd actually lent itself particularly well to roleplay or narrative storytelling. The only thing that was different 'back in the day' was the rules were so poorly written that they were often ignored or houseruled by dms. That isnt to say the rules somehow stopped you from roleplaying, they simply never did anything to aid it. There is no narrative control built into the game. Its a tactical combat game, the simple fact that social skills are a NUMBER, or the fact that countless spells exist that simply solve narrative challenges should make this WILDLY obvious.
Counter to this, games like fate, not only have rules that directly interact with roleplaying, they also involve actual narrative in the rules. The only interaction with roleplaying in dnd was roleplay xp, which was literally something dms made up. The fact that many people added rules to interact with roleplaying, or ignored the some of the most wargamey of rules in older editions doesnt change the fact that it was a slightly polished wargame in which you only controled a single character.
Right. Earlier editions of the game were wargames where roleplay was encouraged, but there were no rules for it. I think the difference in later editions (starting with 3e) is that an effort has been made to mathematically quantify more and more roleplaying aspects with game mechanics, such as social skills.
-Skeld
...But Pathfinder, like D&D, always was a wargame. No amount of rose-tinted glasses worn during re-reading Tomb of Horrors can change the fact that D&D grew out of a desire from Gygax and Arneson to have a small-scale tactical wargame they could use to play out their fave sword & sorcery heroes vs monsters adventures. And so they did.
When you try any RPG system that grew out of opposition to D&D - and has rules, narrative and acting interact together far more than D&D does - it become blindingly obvious that no matter if it's 0e, 1e, BECMI, 2e, 3e/3.5e/PF, 4e or 5e they're all wargaming rulesets with the entire role-playing part bolted on and only loosely connected. Having played quite a few dozens of non-D&D RPGs I always get a laugh when "old school" people ramble on about how 3e and onwards it's all rules and no role-playing. Guys, you're all wargamers arguing whether wood elves were better off in 2ed or 4ed of the game.
Now of course you can have fantastic role-playing in D&D and you can publish amazing campaign settings and adventures for it. But always, you'll be playing a tactical wargame, and the ruleset will concerns itself with combat and pretty much nothing else. The mechanical chassis doesn't interact with neither the players' acting nor with GM's narrative.
This is certainly true. The fact is that no edition of dnd actually lent itself particularly well to roleplay or narrative storytelling. The only thing that was different 'back in the day' was the rules were so poorly written that they were often ignored or houseruled by dms. That isnt to say the rules somehow stopped you from roleplaying, they simply never did anything to aid it. There is no narrative control built into the game. Its a tactical combat game, the simple fact that social skills are a NUMBER, or the fact that countless spells exist that simply solve narrative challenges should make this WILDLY obvious.
Counter to this, games like fate, not only have rules
Not to mention a lot of the adventure paths give xp rewards for many non-combat situations.
A good role playing session does not need to center around combat.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. Earlier editions of the game were wargames where roleplay was encouraged, but there were no rules for it. I think the difference in later editions (starting with 3e) is that an effort has been made to mathematically quantify more and more roleplaying aspects with game mechanics, such as social skills.
-Skeld
You can include mechanics in social skills without eliminating or hampering roleplay. Again, take fate, by incorporating aspects (a game rules construct) into the roleplay of your social interactions, you can spend fate points to boost the chances of success of your check.
The early edition of the game didnt fail to quantify these things (though I remember dms in adnd using ability checks for social skills), they failed to realize they were important. Have you read the adventures actually written by Gygax? Do you think this guy had deep roleplay heavy game sessions at his table? His original vision was a very limited scope of story. Go to dangerous place, kill monster, get stuff, collect reward, get more badass, repeat. Later editions have incorporated more kinds of stories into the game rules (things like social intrigue).
Making a social interaction into a 1d20+x equation isn't a shift in paradigm. It IS the dnd paradigm. This is how the game works. What I can think of to say has as little bearing on what my character can do as my ability to shoot a bow has on my archery's attack. All later editions did is make up for what early creators like gygax didnt think of or didnt feel was important.
I have no reason to have rules for roleplaying. For me the heavier the ruleset about social interactions the lower the roleplaying and it is more like a "combat" in the middle of a talking.Right. Earlier editions of the game were wargames where roleplay was encouraged, but there were no rules for it. I think the difference in later editions (starting with 3e) is that an effort has been made to mathematically quantify more and more roleplaying aspects with game mechanics, such as social skills.
-Skeld
This isnt explicately true so long as the rules are actually designed to encourage roleplay, instead of ignoring them. In a dnd style game, certainly, but in rpgs in general? Nope.