| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which, as it has a million times before, begs the question of why have the skills be an in-game thing at all if all the results are based on the PLAYER'S personal ability rather than the CHARACTER'S.
Or, in shorter terms, why do Charisma-based/social tests have to be successfully performed by the PLAYER, but Strength/Dexterity-based tests and challenges can be answered without complaint by a simple roll? Why does the Bard's player have to come up with a song, but the Fighter's player can just sit there and roll his attacks?
I require my barbarians to show me their max bench roll before assigning that 18. Can't put up double your weight? Better play a wizard. Of course, they're put through standardized testing. I require a minimum 1700 combined SAT OOC to be able to cast eighth level spells IC.
Don't get me started on my rogues. The players get so uppity when you force them to solve a Rubiks cube as you watch in order to have a proper disable device check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the very least I would like my players to at least give me an idea of what they're doing with the social/performance skill, if not necessarily pull out all the stops personally.
I'll accept "My bard performs an inspiring war chant." I do not require the player to actually sing March of Cambreadth.
If a trapspringer's player comes up with some clever or unique way of assisting in disabling a trap, I might give them a +2 circumstance bonus or something, but it's still coming down to the roll as to whether they can disable it.
Not all of my players are social speakers, I certainly don't expect them to come up with a persuasive diplomatic argument on the spot. But I'll definitely accept "I point out X flaw in his argument" along with the diplomacy check, I don't need nor expect the players to dissect the words piece by piece in realtime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which leads to the philosophical question "Are you playing a game at that point?"Yes a roleplaying game! I can't imagine the dullness of a game that was all rolls and checks, then your just playing a miniatures war game....or hero quest.
The problem is you're going to the exact opposite extreme, and making it so that the skills invested simply don't matter, it comes down to what the PLAYER is good at, not the CHARACTER.
Which isn't PLAYING THE ROLE at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've also had that very social player in my group who dumps charisma but gets all the attention at table because they're a drama queen, and the GM responds to what they say in character, even though their character has the charisma of a slug and couldn't POSSIBLY orate and project the same verbiage of their players.
F***. That. Mess.
So in turn if a player is a mumblemouthed t@%~ who wants to pretend to be a Braveheart-esque leader, why should he suffer penalty to the 47 diplomacy he has when the mouth breather who actually thought an extended warranty was a good plan doesn't automatically fumble his spells even though there's no way he has the 27 int his character sheet says?
Leave character with character and player with player. (And thus down with mazes and puzzles that players solve!)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which leads to the philosophical question "Are you playing a game at that point?"Yes a roleplaying game! I can't imagine the dullness of a game that was all rolls and checks, then your just playing a miniatures war game....or hero quest.
Conversely, I can't imagine the stress of a game that only involved your acting ability and how well you can convince your storyteller that what you want to happen should happen. I started on PBeM storytelling, and I recall the political and social dynamics of such a group. It wasn't a game.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is you're going to the exact opposite extreme, and making it so that the skills invested simply don't matter, it comes down to what the PLAYER is good at, not the CHARACTER.
Which isn't PLAYING THE ROLE at all.
It's almost like you need roleplaying and a game system together to create a roleplaying game.
That's silly, who would ever buy that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the fighter should get up and preform stage or boffer combat to determine if his attack hit the bandit. Right?
If your character is going to insult the local sheriff in order to play his or her role the character needs to voice an insult not just this:"I insult the sheriff."
[dice=insulting skill] 1d20+8
If you're LARPing, yes. If you're playing a non-physical game based on intelligence and skill, no.
Every single decision made in play is a decision made by the player, not by the character. The GM does not force me to roll a dice and add my modifier to decide my in-combat actions - I do that with my own brain, and I don't suddenly get better at it when I play a character who's a genius. That means the game is pretty harsh on people who are bad tacticians. But the alternative - a system where humans don't make decisions - would be boring. Similarly, a system where conversation is reduced to dice rolls is boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat is part of the roll play, what if anything your character says during combat is roleplay.Which leads to the philosophical question "Are you playing a game at that point?"Yes a roleplaying game! I can't imagine the dullness of a game that was all rolls and checks, then your just playing a miniatures war game....or hero quest.
If your character is going to insult the local sheriff in order to play his or her role the character needs to voice an insult not just this:
"I insult the sheriff."
[dice=insulting skill] 1d20+8
The way you do it.
I used to play with a guy who wouldn't have come if he'd had to make a speech beyond "I make a diplomacy check". He considered himself roleplaying and enjoyed taking on the role of a fantasy character on a quest - he just doesn't do improvisation very well and doesn't like it, so he uses the rules to sort that out, same as he uses the rules to resolve combat.
|
|
1st edition AD&D was full of rules like "dwarves can only be clerics if they're NPCs" that served no real purpose and were wisely removed from later editions.
The AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook clearly listed cleric as a playable class for dwarven Player Character's (Character Race Table II: Class Level Limitations, page 14); they were limited to a maximum of 8th level, and could not be druids however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
YES.
*shudders*
We played intentions - initiative - actions. This was actually necessary in AD&D, because you got modifiers to your initiative depending on your intended action (weapon speeds, size modifiers, various and sundry penalties). It was a serious bother, but hey, you did get used to it.