Old School Gaming ?


Gamer Life General Discussion

451 to 500 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
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."
insulting skill: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (4) + 8 = 12

Shadow Lodge

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.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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!)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
KenderKin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Orthos wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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

And the fighter should get up and preform stage or boffer combat to determine if his attack hit the bandit. Right?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

That's silly, who would ever buy that.


Krensky wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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

And the fighter should get up and preform stage or boffer combat to determine if his attack hit the bandit. Right?

Where did you get that idea?

Combat is part of the roll play, what if anything your character says during combat is roleplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
KenderKin wrote:


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

And the fighter should get up and preform stage or boffer combat to determine if his attack hit the bandit. Right?

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.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KenderKin wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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

Combat is part of the roll play, what if anything your character says during combat is roleplay.

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.


Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

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!)

Now I see the problem!!!!

You have every right to be irritated at that!

The DM needs to stop that!

As for speeches. I have a great one for paladins....it is lyrics from Crazy train and carry on my wayward son....

I also have used famous historical speeches for NPCs to give when both are running for political office.

I am truly sorry for your experience and the roleplay I am talking about is colorful, but it is mechanically speaking taking 10 or 20 on a check, I am not saying a PC with a dump stat should be able to do things they simply cannot do.

Again I did not read through to know where you were coming from, I am sorry.....

Grand Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
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.


Digitalelf wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
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.

Listed it in parentheses, which as clearly indicated in the Note below the table meant "this class exists only as non-player characters in the race in question".

The Character Class Limitations table on the previous page also clearly has a "no" for dwarven clerics.

Ahhh, AD&D, How I loved thee. So simple and clear. :)

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
clearly indicated in the Note below the table meant "this class exists only as non-player characters in the race in question".

I stand corrected. :-)

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some baiting posts and their responses. Gaming comes in many different styles, and not everybody is going to game the same way—please respect that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Shadow Lodge

No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

YES.

*shudders*


Terquem wrote:

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Yeah, though I'm not sure we ever actually played that way.

Neat concept, but nearly unworkable. Too often, your declared action wasn't even possible, much less useful if you came late in the order.

Actually, the variant I remember is:

Roll for initiative
Declare your actions in reverse initiative order
Actually do stuff in order


Terquem wrote:

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Yes but I was usually vague and said something like begins spellcasting...

Which 99% of the time was to outline other casters in faire fire....hopefully before they turn invisible....

I recall only 1 or 2 DMs who did it that way.....


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.

Liberty's Edge

Well, it did make going earlier in the round matter a lot more. It was also a bit of a check on spellcasting power.

Grand Lodge

Terquem wrote:

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Yup!

Currently using it in my 2nd edition AD&D campaigns... Along with rolling for initiative each round!


Digitalelf wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Yup!

Currently using it in my 2nd edition AD&D campaigns... Along with rolling for initiative each round!

Diito - except is 1st edition in my case.


We did that long ago.....when I did my gaming old school!

Recently all my gaming has been play by post, so I have been using us and them initiative blocks!!!


PbP Old School gaming is the best...

Wait....


Digitalelf wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Yup!

Currently using it in my 2nd edition AD&D campaigns... Along with rolling for initiative each round!

Have you actually figured out RAW 2E initiative?

I remember looking at it awhile back and it neither made sense nor was what I remembered.
1E was far worse. I really couldn't figure out how that worked.

451 to 500 of 528 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Old School Gaming ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.