Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mrbunnyban 03-27-07, 10:18 PM	Firstly, I'd like to applaud a lot of the changes that has gone into 3rd edition+ D&D. Many of the changes have made D&D easier to understand, and by that easier to access for new players. Don't rub it, new blood is very important to PnP roleplaying. But the skill system. Oh, the overly complicated skill system. Why wasn't this addressed in edition 3.5? We've got a JUMP skill. A freaking skill that tests how well you jump instead of taking a straight out STR check. We've got 3 talk skills- bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, all of which are dependant on charisma. Sense motive has been separated from all of those. Then we have search, spot and listen. One for finding traps and hidden doors (okay, fine I guess), two for the sake of detecting stealthed characters. And two corresponding skills dedicated to stealth (move silently and hide). Come on, which stealth character gets move silently without getting hide anyway? I know many of these skills were separated to keep them distinct because skill in one doesn't necessary mean skill in another. But honestly, this is a game. That's why we have shorthand stat for strength which covers various things as well as the intelligence stat which covers all sorts of things (memory? Computing power? Math? Creativity? Logic processing?). Why couldn't the same have been done for skills? We could have combined various skills that don't quite match but made the list of skills much easier. (swim and climb and survival, gather information and forgery and disguise and decipher script, balance and tumble, escape artist and use rope). Because really, how many of these individual skills are going to be put to the test troughout the adventures anyway? Players don't usually take skills the aren't sure are going to be used throughout the game. Balance, anyone? Jump? Forgery? Decipher script? Give me a break!
kgauck 03-27-07, 11:11 PM	Which skills should be articulate and which should be bundled is really a question of what is going to happen in a campaign. An espionage campaign is going to have a real need for Decipher Script and Forgery. The skill system may not be extreamly simple, but it is very versatile. Many styles of campaigns can be run with the skill system as it is. In any style of campaign many of the skills will be of little or no use.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-27-07, 11:15 PM	I've seen several such things. Merging Hide and Move Silently into Stealth is just one example. I try my best to set up encounters where skills can get used. Forgery is a good example, as many banks IMC use high-quality notes for denominations larger than platinum pieces. Jump has good combat uses if you incorporate patches of rough terrain into combat (thus, a PC can charge over rough terrain if he can jump over it in one leap), and PCs with enough ranks in Jump (and other boosts like speed and enhancement bonuses) can leap right over cannon fodder. Of course, it's going to be pointless to put ranks in Swim in a desert campaign like Athas, right? When it comes down to it, they just wanted to make each PC unique. Skills do a very good job of that.
DarkRhystar 03-27-07, 11:24 PM	We've got a JUMP skill. A freaking skill that tests how well you jump instead of taking a straight out STR check. Because it makes sense for an Olympic weightlifting champion to be also be the best at high jumping thanks to his weightlifting training. Could you handle jumping with a Strength check only? Sure. Does that mean that's the way to go? Not necessarily. We've got 3 talk skills- bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, all of which are dependant on charisma. Sense motive has been separated from all of those. I understand they're different skills and thematically why they're different, but I think the real reason for keeping them separate would be that putting them together would make one massively powerful skill. Then we have search, spot and listen. One for finding traps and hidden doors (okay, fine I guess), two for the sake of detecting stealthed characters. And two corresponding skills dedicated to stealth (move silently and hide). Come on, which stealth character gets move silently without getting hide anyway? The guy who casts Invisibility gets Hide without Move Silently. Great bonus to hide (can't be seen), but that doesn't mean he doesn't make more noise when he moves. Annoying that sneaky characters need to invest double into those skills but lets be honest, sneaky characters generally have a good amount of skill points anyway. We could have combined various skills that don't quite match but made the list of skills much easier. You're right. However you would end up with some skills being very powerful and other skills being not-so-very powerful. Then in order to fix that problem, you'd have to smush even more skills into the weaker one. Pretty soon you'll have a skill list of maybe 10 skills. Then in order to re-balance things, you'll have to cut the skill points classes get roughly in half. Then skill points will be more valuable so you'll have to upgrade skill tricks to be worth the cost in skill points.
Perseus_Stoned 03-27-07, 11:53 PM	We've got a JUMP skill. A freaking skill that tests how well you jump instead of taking a straight out STR check. It really is a straight-out strength check for almost all the games I've been in, unless there's some sort of crazy jump that needs to be made, typically a straight-out str. check works great. We've got 3 talk skills- bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, all of which are dependent on charisma. Sense motive has been separated from all of those. I'd agree with you on this, I find the "conversation" skills quite bizarre in a role-playing game. It definitely takes away from the realism if you've got some sort of smooth talker who fails because he rolled a low number and vice versa. Plus the charisma factor of ALL of them is begging to be exploited. Then we have search, spot and listen. One for finding traps and hidden doors (okay, fine I guess), two for the sake of detecting stealthed characters. And two corresponding skills dedicated to stealth (move silently and hide). Come on, which stealth character gets move silently without getting hide anyway? I'd see nothing wrong with combining "move silently" and "hide" into one skill, assuming it won't be munchkinned. However, mechanically, they work perfectly. ... as well as the intelligence stat which covers all sorts of things (memory? Computing power? Math? Creativity? Logic processing?). I am unaware of any skills that cover these, I've always considered this to be intelligence stats (forgoing someone's homebrewed "Knowledge" check). As far as I know the same has been done with skills in these accounts. We could have combined various skills that don't quite match but made the list of skills much easier. (swim and climb and survival, gather information and forgery and disguise and decipher script, balance and tumble, escape artist and use rope). Because really, how many of these individual skills are going to be put to the test troughout the adventures anyway? Swim, climb, and survival all have entirely separate uses and are often put to test in my adventures (plus I feel they are definitely some of the strongest examples of why you need separate skills, since they are all so different from each other). Players don't usually take skills the aren't sure are going to be used throughout the game. Balance, anyone? Jump? Forgery? Decipher script? Give me a break! I'd agree with this, but if a character is gearing for all mechanics anyways you can't really expect them to pick "fair" choices regardless of their options. All-in-all sure the skills system needs some work (in our opinions), but I believe it is certainly viable and accurate as it stands now. My main qualms with it are the conversational skills, certain "useless" stats, and factors like a weasel with 20 in jump easily outdistancing a powerhouse football star with no ranks (while someone experienced being good is one thing, if a guy has significant more muscle mass than you, chances are he'll at least propel himself as far as you). All of these are points you brought up, but I would see more of a point in making conversation skills and things like "jump" (I have no problem with survival or swim as they are, I feel those are accurate) being made into something like "no more ranks can be put in these skills than your total HD" and abilities like "forgery" and the like as "certain-class only" abilities that are granted competence modifiers.
Perseus_Stoned 03-27-07, 11:57 PM	Of course, it's going to be pointless to put ranks in Swim in a desert campaign like Athas, right? My question would be what is someone who managed to put ranks in "swim" doing in a desert land? They had to come from somewhere where water was in an abundance (assuming roleplayers in this example, which I find reasonable since its a roleplaying game), so either they get ranks for flavor reasons or they expect to go to the desert and don't bother learning to swim. Alternatively... quick-sand? *evil grin* You're right. However you would end up with some skills being very powerful and other skills being not-so-very powerful. Then in order to fix that problem, you'd have to smush even more skills into the weaker one. Pretty soon you'll have a skill list of maybe 10 skills. Then in order to re-balance things, you'll have to cut the skill points classes get roughly in half. Then skill points will be more valuable so you'll have to upgrade skill tricks to be worth the cost in skill points. QFT, DarkRhystar directly supports my point (originally his I suppose, though :) )about skills as they are being balanced- its a delicate system and you shouldn't tip the pendulum unless you're prepated to balance it out.
ravenshrike 03-28-07, 12:06 AM	I'd like to see you try to swim in quicksand. would be funny until you died. You can, if you are very, very slow, move through the quicksand, but attempting to swim is likely to get you very, very stuck.
redraven 03-28-07, 12:12 AM	I agree with the above, in that the system has so many "dead" skills in order to be flexible enough to accommodate essentially endless styles of campaigns. Low combat, high roleplay? Hack and slash? Future? Prehistoric? High magic? Low magic? It also allows players another rich avenue of character customization, especially in mid-level range when skill points still matter (e.g. when DC 10 and DC 15 are not automatic). Finally, it is essentially there for the Rogue considering they get almost nothing else, at least compared to most the other classes. That said, a friend and I did try to revise the system by combining various skills. From what I remember: Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) Magecraft (Spellcraft + Use Magic Device) Subterfuge (Forgery + Disguise + Bluff) Sabotage (Disable Device + Open Lock) Legerdemain (Sleight of Hand + Use Rope) Athletic (Climb + Jump + Swim) Awareness (Spot + Listen + Search) Knowledge [Arcana, etc] (Knowledge [Arcana, etc] + Decipher Script with Arcane things, etc) Knowledge [Nature] (Knowledge [Nature] + Survival) Handle Animal (Handle Animal + Ride) Agility (Balance + Tumble + Escape Artist) Statescraft (Diplomacy + Sense Motive + Gather Information) We removed Appraise completely, and made it a function of the Craft/Knowledge/Profession skills. Taken as a whole, we shortened the 35 listed skills down to a much easier to manage 15 skills (counting the myriad of Knowledge, etc, skills as one skill even though we are leaving them differentiated). My friend and I never got around to implementing the system though, as it proved too much effort to calculate and revise how many skills each class was going to get. Obviously each class got less skill points than they do currently, but how many less? Is there still an Intelligence bonus to skill points earned? Upon contemplating this, we got into a discussion over how perhaps the other ability scores should give bonus skill points instead of Intelligence (i.e. how does being "smarter" let you Jump farther?), and we sort of abandoned the revisions.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 12:21 AM	I'd like to see you try to swim in quicksand. would be funny until you died. You can, if you are very, very slow, move through the quicksand, but attempting to swim is likely to get you very, very stuck. Note the evil grin? I guess I could've HTML'd humour in there... Upon contemplating this, we got into a discussion over how perhaps the other ability scores should give bonus skill points instead of Intelligence (i.e. how does being "smarter" let you Jump farther?), and we sort of abandoned the revisions. I believe the reflection intelligence has on all your skills (physical or mental) is supposed to show how quick of a learned they are. Sure you do something a lot you'll get good at it, but if you're a good athlete with a quick mind you'll probably master swimming or the like faster than a good athlete who is a bit slow. Its not perfect, but I think it reflects "realism" (as much as one could want in a fantasy game) well enough.
Nom 03-28-07, 01:54 AM	Heck, why not just have one modifier called "level" that applies to everything? We can ditch BAB, BSB, and skill ranks in one fell swoop. It really depends on the group. In the games I run, skills matter. If you don't have Jump, then you will need to climb or go around, when you could have gone straight up or straight over. If you don't have Balance, then there will similarly be situations where your options are reduced. Diplomacy, Intimidate and Bluff all apply to quite different applications of "Social Interaction". PCs might not personally need Forgery or Decipher Script, but having access to an NPC who does is a good move. And so on. Yeah, there are a lot of skills. But most of them have a place. And the core system is simple, even if there are a lot of options.
Vegepygmy 03-28-07, 04:04 AM	Oh, the overly complicated skill system.I'm just not feeling you, dog. 3e's skill system is a good thing.
mrbunnyban 03-28-07, 07:26 AM	I'm just not feeling you, dog. 3e's skill system is a good thing. Feeling me? Keep your hands to *yourself*, please. Tsk. Some people have no manners. To the people who bothered to explain their opinions in an inoffensive manner, thanks for the comments. There are some good points up there and I'm partially convinced.
BW0222 03-28-07, 08:24 AM	mrbunnyban, But the skill system. Oh, the overly complicated skill system. Why wasn't this addressed in edition 3.5? Honestly, what is complicated about this? The DM asks you to make a skill check, you roll a d20, add your modifier, and tell the DM the result. It is about the easiest mechanic out there. We've got a JUMP skill. A freaking skill that tests how well you jump instead of taking a straight out STR check. So? Why does this make it complicated? You don't think folks become better jumpers through training and experience? We've got 3 talk skills- bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, all of which are dependant on charisma. Sense motive has been separated from all of those. And they are pretty clear. Use bluff to lie, intimidate to threaten or coerce someone, diplomacy to change someone's attitude, and sense motive to notice if someone is not being honest with out. I've never had a problem understanding the difference. Then we have search, spot and listen. One for finding traps and hidden doors (okay, fine I guess), two for the sake of detecting stealthed characters. And two corresponding skills dedicated to stealth (move silently and hide). Come on, which stealth character gets move silently without getting hide anyway? An owl? Pretty easy to spot, a little harder to hear. However, the issue is that they are two different skills. A person can be blind or deaf. You could be invisibile or silenced. With only one 'sneak' skill... an invisible person would have the same change of sneaking up on a deaf person as an silenced person sneaking up on a hawk. Listen checks are harder with distance, hide also requires cover or concealment, there are creatures who are better at listening than spotting, there are senses which allow one to see in the dark, etc., etc. They are definitely two skills. And again, I don't see anything confusing about them. If I'm listening at a door, I get a listen check. If I'm looking out across a field, I get a spot check (vs. their hide check). But honestly, this is a game. That's why we have shorthand stat for strength which covers various things as well as the intelligence stat which covers all sorts of things (memory? Computing power? Math? Creativity? Logic processing?). Why couldn't the same have been done for skills? If you are looking for game reason why there are skills. * It makes different classes more specialized. It makes sense that wizards know more about spells, arcane, etc. and that druids know more about outdoors. * It means that higher level characters know more, are more skilled, etc. than lower level characters. * It balances out certain classes. * It allows greater choices in building a character, better 'replay' value with core classes, etc. * Many skills and abilities are tied to levels. It should be harder to identify a demon than an orc. It should be harder to make a masterwork sword than a dagger. It should be harder to train a lion than a horse. And yet... higher level characters are expected to do this. We could have combined various skills that don't quite match but made the list of skills much easier. (swim and climb and survival, gather information and forgery and disguise and decipher script, balance and tumble, escape artist and use rope). There are mountain climbers who can't swim. There are olympic swimmers who have never climbed a mountain. What does being able to work a crowd at a mall (gather information) have to do with being able to do forge secret documents? How many actors (disquise) are good at figuring out code breaking (decipher script?). etc., etc. Honestly, these skills are separate. I've never had a problem telling which needs to be used in a different situation. Because really, how many of these individual skills are going to be put to the test troughout the adventures anyway? Again, this doesn't make them any more complicated to use. It certainly depends upon the campaign. An urban setting will certainly stress different skills than a wilderness setting, an ocean voyage, or a dungeon crawl. Most campaigns will have a mixture of each and hopefully, you'll have a variety of characters with different skills. Different characters get a chance to shine as they go into different locals. A diplomatic bard might be better in a city, a ranger outdoors, a dwarven wizard underground, etc. In a good campaign... the DM will have a variety of settings where PCs can each use their abilities and/or have to come up with creative ways around missing certain skills. How do we get boats down this river without anyone with profession (boater)? Yes, some skills are more useful that others - to adventurers since they are often life or death skills in dungeons. Players don't usually take skills the aren't sure are going to be used throughout the game. Balance, anyone? Jump? Forgery? Decipher script? Give me a break! So? Again, the fact that certain skills are no taken does not mean that the system is any more complicated. Lots of weapons, spells, feats, etc. are rarely taken... that doesn't mean that having them makes them any more complicated. In fact, it makes them less complicated to learn since you only need to worry about those which you have. Guess what? More folks take computer science are university than ancient Greek studies. More people can drive a car, than fly a plane. The fact that something is used less frequently does mean that it does not exist. Skills represent all types of folks might know or able able to do. Somewhere in the world someone knows about ancient Greece. Someone in the D&D world is a professional tight rope walker, a docment forger, a silver smith, a sailor, etc. That doesn't mean that just because adventurers choose not to take these skills that the skills do not exist. I fail to see how the current skill system is complicated.
Zumarai 03-28-07, 08:33 AM	I too think the Skill system is clunky, not the way they are used, but the way they are allocated/chosen. My group has decided that cross-class Skills only cost 1 point per Rank, but you are still limited to as many Ranks as half of your class Skills. We have also done some Skill folding (ala d20 Star Wars Saga): -Acrobatics (Climb + Jump) -Athletics (Balance + Tumble) -Deception (Bluff + Disguise) -Perception (Listen + Spot) -Social (Diplomacy + Gather Information) -Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) -Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device) -?-Craft (Psicraft + Spellcraft) And it's working out beautifully.
Aracor 03-28-07, 11:02 AM	Originally posted by Perseus_Stoned I'd agree with you on this, I find the "conversation" skills quite bizarre in a role-playing game. It definitely takes away from the realism if you've got some sort of smooth talker who fails because he rolled a low number and vice versa. Plus the charisma factor of ALL of them is begging to be exploited.I disagree strongly. This is a role-playing game. If you take the role of a barbarian with a charisma of 6, just because the player is a thespian doesn't mean the barbarian should suddenly be phenomenal at speaking. And just because a person isn't eloquent doesn't mean that a character can't be. That's the difference between a role-playing game and being an actual actor. Originally posted by mrbunnyman Players don't usually take skills the aren't sure are going to be used throughout the game. Balance, anyone? Jump? Forgery? Decipher script? Give me a break!If they don't take those skills, that's their choice. Frankly, I think it's the DM's responsibility to make sure that skills are useful. If they're going to be fighting on ice or mud, they'll regret not taking balance. If they're trying to break a code, decipher script will make a difference. A clever person can ALWAYS find a use for forgery if they take it, unless it's purely a dungeon crawl campaign. Decipher script I especially find funny. People assume comprehend languages will suffice, and then when they read the information, it says "The birds will fly at night." Or it's a shopping list. Or some other seemingly useless information. Because it's a coded message, which comprehend languages does NOTHING for. And in a world where translation magics are even relatively common, people will take the time to protect their written information in other ways. And sometimes non-magical ones are the best. The way I see it, virtually every skill has a use. I've never seen a skill choice that I regret, and usually I make characters with high intelligence because I never seem to have enough skill points.
Millennium 03-28-07, 11:23 AM	You're right: the skill system is too complicated. Way too many different actions are expressed, when skills should instead be based on what it is you want to do. Fortunately, I've got a solution. I call this system Motofac, from the Latin for "just do it." It comes from the same roots as the name for the Factotum prestige class in Dungeonscape. First Fold Search Sense Motive Stealth: Hide and Move Silently Perception: Listen snd Spot Deceive: Bluff, Disguise, and Forgery Convince: Diplomacy, Handle Animal, and Intimidate Operate: Disable Device, Open Lock, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope Discipline: Concentration and Spellcraft Perform: Escape Artist, Perform, and Sleight of Hand Knowledge: Appraise, Decipher Scripts, Gather Information, Speak Language, and all Knowledge skills Craft: all Craft skills Profession: Heal, Survival, and all Profession skills Move: Balance, Climb, Jump, Ride, Run, Swim, and Tumble With this, we have taken the 36 skills and, by grouping similar actions, folded them into 13, which is more realistic and more balanced. More important, however, we've achieved a more intuitive and faster grouping, as we've cut the numbher of skills by 64% without losing expressiveness. But can we do better? I think we can, through the magic of Motofac. Second Fold As we look at the list of skills from the first post, we come to realize that several of our skill groups are really just similar actions, much like the skills in the first group. Let us root out these, and see how much we can shrink the list... Move: Move and Stealth (we now encompass all types of movement) Profession: Craft, Perform, Profession, and Operate (they're all professions) Knowledge: Knowledge and Discipline Perception: Perception, Search, and Sense Motive (we now encompass all types of perception) Socialize: Deceive and Convince (social interaction) We're down from twelve skills to only five, again by realistically folding similar skills into groups. But I'll be frank: we can do better than this. Third Fold Even after two foldings, we still have some groups which are frankly too similar to warrant their own skills. Let's see what we can improve on: Move Knowledge: Perception and Knowledge (since perception is really just another way of gaining knowledge) Profession: Profession and Socialize (social interaction is an important part of just about every profession) Now we're down to three skills: almost a 50% reduction from the second fold, better than a 75% reduction from the first, and over 90% improved from the original list of 36. At this point, we can start simplifying the system in another way. If we get rid of the unwieldy and pretentious multisyllabic names, then Knowledge becomes Know, and Profession becomes Do (since the essence of any profession is doing things). Another advantage to this is that all of the names are now verbs: Do, Know, and Move. Fourth Fold Hold on; we're not done yet. When we used simpler names for our three skills, we uncovered one last set of similar skills: movement is an action. Let's fold these two together, so now we have only two skills: Do and Know: a 33% improvement over the third fold. Fifth Fold We've reduced the skill set by a huge amount over the course of this exercise. But if we look back over things, there's one interesting quirk: the Know skill consists mostly of actions. With only a slight loss of realism, we can fold it into the Do skill. This gives us a massive 50% decrease in bloat over the fourth fold: the resulting efficiency, simplicity, and speed more than counterbalance the loss of realism. Through five folds, we have cut that ludicrously-huge list of skills down by an astonishing 97.2%. Think about that, for a moment: Wizards bloated our skill system by 35 more skills than were actually necessary: 3500% bloat. The result was unwieldy, unbalanced, and not even realistic. This outrageous incompetence must not be tolerated. I demand that Motofac be incorporated into 4th Edition, to improve role-playing for us all. Conclusion I hope that by this point, you realize that this entire post was satire. TFor some, the first clue may have been the fact that the Latin phrase "moto fac" literally translates as 'Just Do.' But the truth is, the absurdity came as soon as I folded two completely different actions into a single skill, as I did for the popular 'Stealth' and 'Perception': their purposes may be similar, but their methods are quite different. The remainder of the post was just a matter of folding things through with this same aesthetic: that skills used for similar purposes should use the same roll. Just say no to folding skills, folks. You lose realism and expressiveness for little to no gain.
Steely_Dan 03-28-07, 11:33 AM	I hope that by this point, you realize that this entire post was satire. At this point I think we just realize you have entirely too much time on your hands…
WinterPsionic 03-28-07, 12:11 PM	Since my 7yr old cousin can figure it out I don't see how it can be a big deal on the complication scale, personally versus some of the former versions I rather like this one. It allows for a greater level of personalization of the characters without getting to extreme, and in environments like what I'm used to where we incorporate skills from other settings as well as the core skills I rather enjoy it. There's nothing better then a Werewolf Zhentarim Thug that can jump to the moon, scare the color out of a Tarrasque and get just about anything at 3/4 the price from the blackmarket with a roll of 9 or higher.
Vegepygmy 03-28-07, 12:16 PM	Decipher script I especially find funny. People assume comprehend languages will suffice, and then when they read the information, it says "The birds will fly at night." Or it's a shopping list. Or some other seemingly useless information. Because it's a coded message, which comprehend languages does NOTHING for.Well, in their defense, by the core rules, neither does Decipher Script.
Dheran 03-28-07, 12:27 PM	We've got a JUMP skill. A freaking skill that tests how well you jump instead of taking a straight out STR check. The most powerful jumpers can jump straight up to a height about even with their waist. But a trained high jumper can put their entire body over a bar that's suspended above their head. You don't think skill is involved there? Hey, if you want to make straight STR checks for Jump distances, you can do that: just put zero ranks in the skill!
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 12:34 PM	I disagree strongly. This is a role-playing game. If you take the role of a barbarian with a charisma of 6, just because the player is a thespian doesn't mean the barbarian should suddenly be phenomenal at speaking. And just because a person isn't eloquent doesn't mean that a character can't be. That's the difference between a role-playing game and being an actual actor. I'm confused here because your second point seems to be contradicting your first... this is a role-playing game, not a play. So why would a role-player act like an eloquent speaker if they're playing a barbarian? Thats not role-playing, just like I feel that rolling dice to determine what you say isn't role-playing either. The eloquent speaker character should have something eloquent to say, just as the barbarian shouldn't be able to get lucky on a d20 roll, say the word "Urgh" and convince the store-keeper to give the barbarian his best weapon on discount. I have things to say!! ... ... ... On one hand I completely applaud you for your ability to make a point, but... so much time.
spectralphoenix 03-28-07, 12:58 PM	Compared to 2e's nonweapon proficiencies, the skill system isn't complicated at all. I agree with what most of the other people have said - most of the skills are distinct, and it's more or less balanced the way it is. Of course, social skills are an arguement that's existed long before this thread.
Aracor 03-28-07, 01:01 PM	Originally posted by Vegepygmy Well, in their defense, by the core rules, neither does Decipher ScriptDoesn't it? You can decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form. I'd certainly call a code an 'incomplete or archaic form. Wouldn't you? Originally posted by Perseus_Stoned I'm confused here because your second point seems to be contradicting your first... this is a role-playing game, not a play. So why would a role-player act like an eloquent speaker if they're playing a barbarian? Thats not role-playing, just like I feel that rolling dice to determine what you say isn't role-playing either. The eloquent speaker character should have something eloquent to say, just as the barbarian shouldn't be able to get lucky on a d20 roll, say the word "Urgh" and convince the store-keeper to give the barbarian his best weapon on discount. You're confusing my wording of PLAYER vs CHARACTER. A PLAYER is the person, a CHARACTER is the role they're taking. And the dice don't determine what you say. They simply determine how well you say it. As I said, if a PLAYER is a thespian, and is witty and charming, he shouldn't able to use his wits to portray the barbarian who doesn't use social niceties as someone who's going to impress the king's courtiers in a ball, even if that's the player's normal mode of speech. Many people confuse role-playing and acting. I certainly expect some enthusiasm and interaction, but if someone who has a speech impediment wants to take the role of a diplomat good enough to tell people to go to hell in such a way that they'll enjoy the trip; I'm going to let them.
TheRealOrion 03-28-07, 01:02 PM	Forget what makes sense for a second. Forget what resembles reality. Having tried my hand at designing an RPG, I can tell you that a good designer thinks in terms of what's useful in a game. A whole skill for just Jumping might seem odd next to Profession (cobbler), but Jumping is far more useful in-game than making a pair of shoes. The reason there are Ranks instead of just going off of abilities is to allow characters to get better at various things. The whole system is based on the idea of progression to the next level. Abilities go up by tiny little amounts. You need something to take up the slack. As for it being "complicated"... I don't know what to say. You add a couple of numbers once, and add those results to a die roll. Compared to many system (Hero, Shadowrun), it's amazingly simple.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 04:25 PM	You're confusing my wording of PLAYER vs CHARACTER. Not true; as a matter of fact you were the one who never specified player or character (I did, quite correctly), which is irrelevant to the point I made anyways. And the dice don't determine what you say. They simply determine how well you say it. Which I don't feel makes sense; a paladin shouldn't be able to say, "Come with me, just 'cus" and the NPCs follow- I feel it detracts from the role-playing. As I said, if a PLAYER is a thespian, and is witty and charming, he shouldn't able to use his wits to portray the barbarian who doesn't use social niceties as someone who's going to impress the king's courtiers in a ball, even if that's the player's normal mode of speech. As I said, if the PLAYER is well-spoken (I'm not sure why you insist on saying thespian, I know plenty of thespians who are not well-spoken or quick on their feet when it comes to dialogue) that doesn't affect the character. If the player plays a character barbarian with an intelligence of 3, the player is not going to be using the player's speech. This point is still moot (I already addressed it). If the player plays someone with similar intelligence and social skills like him, he can certainly play that person as he would, but otherwise it is the roleplayer's job to ensure roleplaying. With this sort of logic you might as well say you have to have a "clever" skill that a character has to roll if they want to institute plans like drenching enemies in oil and lighting them on fire or setting fields on fire to bring hiding enemies out. You can't roll for role-playing opportunities. Many people confuse role-playing and acting. I certainly expect some enthusiasm and interaction, but if someone who has a speech impediment wants to take the role of a diplomat good enough to tell people to go to hell in such a way that they'll enjoy the trip; I'm going to let them. Again I'm unsure what you're saying here; I have never met someone who confuses role-playing and acting, although I suppose its possible. I also have never met a DM who wouldn't let someone with a speech impediment take the role of a diplomat- the player's way of speaking does not influence the character's, the player simply dictates what the character says.
Zyrusticae 03-28-07, 05:02 PM	Meh. My only problem with the skill system is that it really doesn't allow for much diversity in characters. That is, you take whatever skills are best for your class, and if you have a really high INT, occasionally something extra on the side. If you're a roleplayer, well... you're much better off not spending the ranks in non-class skills, as it's a complete waste of the extremely limited number of points a character gets in the first place. The way it is now, there's just no room for a character to get 'fluff' skills like the knowledge skills and the like. I mean, why bother, when you have stuff like intimidate, hide/move silently, spellcraft, etc.? I really think the system could be more forgiving to players who would prefer to go against the grain.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 05:43 PM	Meh. My only problem with the skill system is that it really doesn't allow for much diversity in characters. That is, you take whatever skills are best for your class, and if you have a really high INT, occasionally something extra on the side. If you're a roleplayer, well... you're much better off not spending the ranks in non-class skills, as it's a complete waste of the extremely limited number of points a character gets in the first place. The way it is now, there's just no room for a character to get 'fluff' skills like the knowledge skills and the like. I mean, why bother, when you have stuff like intimidate, hide/move silently, spellcraft, etc.? I really think the system could be more forgiving to players who would prefer to go against the grain. I'd agree with what you said here (the system is more forgiving to optimizers than it is to roleplayers) except for the knowledge skills. It depends on your DM (as almost all skills do), but knowledge has always played an important part in our games for... well everything that is game knowledge. Where we are at, who we are fighting, even what certain items do or are, I've always found the knowledges to be generic "good under all situations" skills.
TheRealOrion 03-28-07, 06:47 PM	I agree about Knowledge. It and the social skillz, like Bluff or Diplomacy, can solve many, many problems, including avoiding combat altogether. The problem is that (a) we like combat, so obviating it isn't always appreciated, and (b) some DMs don't realize that by talking your way out of fighting the hydra, you have effectively defeated it for game purposes. It's easy to get so caught up in Challenge Levels and killing monsters that you forget to reward other ways of solving problems. I'm playing a half-elf Swash/Fighter right now with Diplomacy up the ass. Between synergies and race, he starts at a +6, before ranks or Charisma. Not only has that Diplomacy bought us time and gotten into places where we have no right to be, it's just damned fun. We're a fairly heavy role-play group that likes our combat fairly simple, but even a tactical group can use Bluff and Diplomacy and the like as part of an over-all strategy.
Vegepygmy 03-28-07, 06:55 PM	I'd certainly call a code an 'incomplete or archaic form. Wouldn't you?No, I wouldn't. "Code," in this context, means: "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings." "Incomplete," in this context, means: "not complete; lacking some part." "Archaic," in this context, means: "marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated." I suppose you could argue that a message written in code but without an attached cipher is "lacking some part," but that's quite a stretch to make. Now, would I allow someone to use Decipher Script to decode a secret message? Absolutely. But that's not what the RAW say it does.
malignor 03-28-07, 07:27 PM	I love the skill system. I've played AD&D, AD&D2ndEd, AD&D3.0 and AD&D3.5, and I have to say that 3.5 has the best skill system to date. Your gripe about jump isn't very accurate. Without skill ranks, Jump is just a strength check (well, modified by speed and encumbrance). But there are those who practice, so they can jump greater heights that a strength score would dictate (watch olympics much?), or to overcome the downfalls of being weighed down with armor. Skill ranks can never get higher than HD+3, and the only jump synergy I see is from tumble, and there are 2 (non-epic) feats that add to jump. So a 1st level human could, theoretically, get a jump bonus of: 4 ranks +4 STR18 +3 Skill Focus Feat +2 Acrobatic Feat = +13. This bonus allows him to (with a running start) jump over 3-8 foot tall obstacle, or across a 14-33 foot space. I, personally, have dive-rolled over a 6'2" human back when I was in martial arts, and I was a skinny kid with maybe the equivalent of a D&D STR of 12 at best. As for the long jump, the current olympic record is 29.4 feet (a jump check of 29). So the game mechanics allow for somewhat above RL human potential, but not catastrophically so (until you get into high levels, monk speed or magical enhancements). As for the comment about the Weasel: With 1-2 HD, it can only have at most 4-5 ranks in jump, allowing it to jump 1' off the ground higher than it could with no ranks. Very reasonable. Social skills are varied because there are different ways of dealing with people. Personally, I see Intimidate as simply a form of Bluff, but Diplomacy is definitely a different animal. Bluff is the manipulation skill of a con man, while Diplomacy is the skill of a merchant or noble, including customs familiarity and protocol. Stealth skills have always been different, since AD&D first ever came out. Remember thieving skills? Climb Walls, Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, etc. Remember? They've always been different, and with good reason. If you're hiding in one place, you only need 1 roll. If your enemy is a sleeping guard, you're not hiding to get past em, but just sneaking by... again 1 roll. But sneaking past an aware guard requires you to be twice as sneaky (2 rolls).
Zyrusticae 03-28-07, 07:28 PM	The knowledge skills are useful, no question about it. (Personally, I find it a bit of a pain to work those into my games - but then, I'm pretty new at it still.) The problem is that there's so many of them, while a character can only gain so many skill points. I can't possibly roleplay a character with encyclopedic knowledge of just about everything, unless I played a rogue with maxed out INT - and then I would have almost no skill points in everything else. (And an 18 INT, the equivalent of a RL genius, only gets a +4 on knowledge checks. Which is to say, slightly better than average. Buh?) I find it even more amusing that the 'bookworm' classes can't even master knowledge in that respect. Yikes.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 07:30 PM	I can't possibly roleplay a character with encyclopedic knowledge of just about everything, unless I played a rogue with maxed out INT - and then I would have almost no skill points in everything else. (And an 18 INT, the equivalent of a RL genius, only gets a +4 on knowledge checks. Which is to say, slightly better than average. Buh?) I find it even more amusing that the 'bookworm' classes can't even master knowledge in that respect. Yikes. I'd be terrified of a skill-monkey so powerful, he'd managed to max all his knowledge skills and then some. That'd either be horribly overpowered, horribly underpowered, or just not fun.
DarkRhystar 03-28-07, 07:41 PM	I'd be terrified of a skill-monkey so powerful, he'd managed to max all his knowledge skills and then some. That'd either be horribly overpowered, horribly underpowered, or just not fun. Character: I know everything. In fact, I knew of your plan before the mere thought of it even crossed your mind. Enemy: I'm guessing you're going to stop it then. Character: All I'd need to do would be X or Y or Z... or alpha-13 to the 15th power! Enemy: *Yawn* Can you actually do any of that? Character: Um... uh... blast! Enemy: I'm liking this skill system more and more every day.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 07:46 PM	Character: I know everything. In fact, I knew of your plan before the mere thought of it even crossed your mind. Enemy: I'm guessing you're going to stop it then. Character: All I'd need to do would be X or Y or Z... or alpha-13 to the 15th power! Enemy: *Yawn* Can you actually do any of that? Character: Um... uh... blast! Enemy: I'm liking this skill system more and more every day. Ha ha ha, I guess this is where the DMG hits you over the head and says, "I told you players couldn't properly play anything with over 25 intelligence."
Nom 03-28-07, 08:33 PM	I can't possibly roleplay a character with encyclopedic knowledge of just about everything, unless I played a rogue with maxed out INT - and then I would have almost no skill points in everything else.Core, there are 10 knowledge skills, all of which could be mastered by a human bard or expert with Int 16 (6 + 1 + 3 = 10). That said, of course this requires a superhuman effort! Few enough people are experts in one entire domain of knowledge, let alone in all domains.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 08:36 PM	Core, there are 10 knowledge skills, all of which could be mastered by a human bard or expert with Int 16 (6 + 1 + 3 = 10). That said, of course this requires a superhuman effort! Few enough people are experts in one entire domain of knowledge, let alone in all domains. I think he was referring to getting the skills maxed, not just having ranks in them.
Nom 03-28-07, 10:22 PM	I think he was referring to getting the skills maxed, not just having ranks in them.So was I. If there are 10 (class) skills and you get 10 skill points normally then you can max them all at 1st level and every level thereafter.
Zyrusticae 03-28-07, 10:28 PM	Either way, I'm hard pressed to understand just how a character's supposed to just pick and choose between the knowledge skills and one's other skills - particularly for classes with less skill points. Fighters, wizards, sorcerers, and so on - especially sorcerers - hardly even get enough skill points to max out the required skills, much less work on a knowledge skill on the side. And picking one knowledge skill only gives knowledge of a certain small sect of monsters - why is it that an adventurer, who's going to be facing all kinds of dangers, would not know even the most basic things about the creatures he/she's facing? I mean, a DC 15 check to find out that a creature's an elemental? How friggin' basic can you get?! ...And personally, I don't see how a rogue with 8 of the knowledge skills and maxed out hide/move silently is really that scary. But then, maybe I'm just really short-sighted that way.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 12:05 AM	So was I. If there are 10 (class) skills and you get 10 skill points normally then you can max them all at 1st level and every level thereafter. You are completely right, I apologize. Either way, I'm hard pressed to understand just how a character's supposed to just pick and choose between the knowledge skills and one's other skills - particularly for classes with less skill points. You are not supposed to. DnD is not a min/maxers game; there are no required skills really.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 12:06 AM	edit
TheRealOrion 03-29-07, 01:10 AM	You're all so convinced that you can only take skills that are in your class kit. You can take the others. They're just more expensive, and there are ways to make them out: synergies, race bonuses, equipment, magic, yadda yadda. Class skills are the things you're particularly good at, not the only things in the universe you can do. Duh.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 01:11 AM	You're all so convinced that you can only take skills that are in your class kit. You can take the others. They're just more expensive, and there are ways to make them out: synergies, race bonuses, equipment, magic, yadda yadda. Class skills are the things you're particularly good at, not the only things in the universe you can do. Duh. How is this relevant to anything that has been said? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that and has no bearing on what we are talking about.
Steely_Dan 03-29-07, 03:56 AM	The way it is now, there's just no room for a character to get 'fluff' skills like the knowledge skills and the like. I find the various Knowledge Skills to be great crunch. When a dude in the party has mass ranks in Knowledge (the planes) he can really save the party's bacon, when he identifies the demon you are about to throw down with and some of its abilities/weakness (immunities/resistances/special attacks etc).
spectralphoenix 03-29-07, 04:47 AM	In my opinion, when 3.75 or 4e or whatever comes out, they should let all characters choose two or three skills at first level to always be counted as class skills. It would let you get a few non-typical choices for your class (such as a diplomatic wizard or a fighter who knows a lot about nature) or take the edge off multiclassing for a few favored skills. And while you can take cross class skills, you fall too far behind for them to be truly useful at high levels. DCs are calculated assuming max ranks, and most opposed rolls are against opponents with maxxed ranks.
Ian0311 03-29-07, 06:52 AM	Skills are fine as they are, don't muck with a good system. Some skills suck (in some people's opinions), some don't. Also, I doubt any of you who said that a strong man should be able to outjump a well trained jumper have seen a jumper with actual training. Technique beats the heck out of just being strong. On the move silently/hide thing, I agree with the they should stay being two skills thing, because hiding and sneaking are two different things entirely. Hiding's a bit harder because you have to find a hiding spot, get there, and not be detected on the way there. The persuasion skills should stay where they are, because they're all different schools of persuasion.
Zyrusticae 03-29-07, 07:17 AM	You're all so convinced that you can only take skills that are in your class kit. You can take the others. They're just more expensive, and there are ways to make them out: synergies, race bonuses, equipment, magic, yadda yadda. Class skills are the things you're particularly good at, not the only things in the universe you can do. Duh. They may as well be the only things in the universe you can do. Not only are characters limited to raising them half as much as normal class skills, but it takes two skill ranks to even get a single rank in a non-class skill. And more often than not, non-class skills aren't even that powerful for the class in the first place (barring UMD, which is exclusive for a reason). For a fighter with 14 INT who only gets 4 skill points per level, or a similarly kitted sorcerer, it'd be pretty damned stupid to even try going for a non-class skill. You are not supposed to. DnD is not a min/maxers game; there are no required skills really. I'm sure you can make a good caster with no ranks in concentration... ...Right?
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 02:27 PM	I'm sure you can make a good caster with no ranks in concentration... ...Right? I'm sure you can, but ranks in concentration would certainly work well with a caster. Any reason you're addressing my point with an irrelevant issue to it?
TheRealOrion 03-29-07, 02:47 PM	How is this relevant to anything that has been said? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that and has no bearing on what we are talking about. People keep talking about cc skills as if they're barred. They're not. The min/max mentality means that anything more expensive is often relegated to "useless," but I think that's counter-productive. That's all I'm trying to say. In retrospect, that message came off way more confrontational than I meant it to be.
Mirtek 03-29-07, 05:06 PM	The eloquent speaker character should have something eloquent to say So anyone who simply isn't an eloquent speaker is not allowed to play a character who is? That's the point of roleplaying: Letting your character do something which you could never do yourself. If you're not an eloquent speaker you can still play the best diplomat on the planet by putting enough ranks into the skill, that's the reason the skill exist. You, as a player, will never be able to roleplay the char nearly as good as he deserves because the char is simply a better speaker than the player. Almost every single player reaches the point where his character is simply better than himself. No player is as strong as his fighter, as wise as his cleric or as clever as his wizard. Sometimes a character may get the result of an exceptional check in a situation where none of the players has any clue what to say. Yet the exceptional check simply means that the character, who in this case knows more than the player, found something very convincing to say in that situation.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 09:31 PM	People keep talking about cc skills as if they're barred. They're not. The min/max mentality means that anything more expensive is often relegated to "useless," but I think that's counter-productive. That's all I'm trying to say. In retrospect, that message came off way more confrontational than I meant it to be. Sorry, perhaps I conveyed hostility in my tone as well from my first reply, but I don't really see anyone talking about cross-class skills that way. I'm not sure if I am missing a post somewhere, but it does not seem to have come up until you brought it up. So anyone who simply isn't an eloquent speaker is not allowed to play a character who is? No and I said nothing to indicate that. Don't pull arguments out of my throat, write against what I've said and use logic to deduce my points or instead simply ask me if this is what I mean. *to the rest of your points* While I agree that your character is meant to serve as an extension of your will, how is it roleplaying if someone is meant to rouse the army with a great speech and, instead of even attempting the speech, just rolls a dice, gets a natural 20, shrugs, and then acts as if something was said? It isn't. Thats roll-playing. The point of role-playing is to be someone else doing something you could never do, I'd agree there; with rolling a dice neither of you is doing anything. I guess this is where we disagree; I do not see the results of a dice role as putting yourself in a fantasy position, your points seem to indicate you find that suitable role-playing.
Aracor 03-30-07, 10:19 AM	Originally posted by Perseus_Stoned While I agree that your character is meant to serve as an extension of your will, how is it roleplaying if someone is meant to rouse the army with a great speech and, instead of even attempting the speech, just rolls a dice, gets a natural 20, shrugs, and then acts as if something was said? It isn't. Thats roll-playing.I think his point is the same thing as mine. The skills aren't made to REPLACE actual interaction. The skills are there to translate between the player's actions and the characters. In the example above, the non-eloquent player, because they can't think of something 'rousing' to say, is hosed? I hope not. But this is mistaking role-playing for acting. In that case, I'd say the player has to give it a shot, and at least give an idea of what the character is trying to say, even if it involves stealing Braveheart movie quotes. And then use the roll to determine how well the character actually conveys the idea. This is role-playing. I WOULDN'T allow the player to say 'i give a rousing speech', make the roll, and suddenly the entire army is inspired. THIS is roll-playing.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 11:57 AM	I think his point is the same thing as mine. The skills aren't made to REPLACE actual interaction. The skills are there to translate between the player's actions and the characters. But I feel they still do. In the example above, the non-eloquent player, because they can't think of something 'rousing' to say, is hosed? I hope not. But this is mistaking role-playing for acting. Unlike real speeches, a player can take their time to come up with something. They do not need to have a monologue memorized, they can't write down their points and work it out. Eloquency has nothing to do with this; they might be a creative thinker on the spot, but then you are completely skipping over all dialogue (which I consider ruining the role-playing) or you are playing a character who, amazingly, can sometimes deliver rousing speeches, but for the most part is a poor speaker. I do not think someone who can not deliver good dialogue should player a character with good dialogue, unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings. I WOULDN'T allow the player to say 'i give a rousing speech', make the roll, and suddenly the entire army is inspired. THIS is roll-playing. The original argument was based around this exact situation.
Vegepygmy 03-30-07, 12:15 PM	I do not think someone who can not deliver good dialogue should player a character with good dialogue, unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings.I think that makes as much sense as saying that someone who cannot fight well with a sword should not play the role of a skilled swordsman unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings. Some people enjoy describing every rapier-thrust their characters make or the exact words they speak; others prefer to simply say "I attack" or "I give a rousing speech." Both are equally valid styles of role-playing. As long as you are directing your character's actions based on what that character (as opposed to you, yourself) would do, you're role-playing.
Mirtek 03-30-07, 12:56 PM	No and I said nothing to indicate that. Don't pull arguments out of my throat, write against what I've said and use logic to deduce my points or instead simply ask me if this is what I mean. You just said exactly that: I do not think someone who can not deliver good dialogue should player a character with good dialogue, unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings.
Vegepygmy 03-30-07, 01:06 PM	You just said exactly that:To be fair to Perseus, So anyone who simply isn't an eloquent speaker is not allowed to play a character who is?and I do not think someone who can not deliver good dialogue should player a character with good dialogue, unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings.are two significantly different statements.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 01:26 PM	I think that makes as much sense as saying that someone who cannot fight well with a sword should not play the role of a skilled swordsman unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings. Maybe in the case of LARPing, but when it comes to roleplaying all you do is dictate your character actions and their dialogue. Some people enjoy describing every rapier-thrust their characters make or the exact words they speak; others prefer to simply say "I attack" or "I give a rousing speech." Both are equally valid styles of role-playing. As long as you are directing your character's actions based on what that character (as opposed to you, yourself) would do, you're role-playing. (Bolded emphasis mine) I agree; in the case of dice-rolling I do not feel you are directing your actions- instead the dice are. You just said exactly that: Vegepygmy beat me to the punch; I am still adamant that I said nothing of that sort. Forgive me if I took a bit of a hostile tone in my response, but I felt like you were trying to "manipulate" me into saying something I definitely didn't.
Vegepygmy 03-30-07, 02:53 PM	I agree; in the case of dice-rolling I do not feel you are directing your actions- instead the dice are.The dice are not directing your actions; they are determining the results of your actions. When I say "I attack the orc" and I make an attack roll, the result of that roll doesn't direct my character to attack the orc; it just determines whether he's successful or not. Likewise, when I spend five minutes giving what I intend to be a rousing speech "in character," choosing the exact words my character will speak and acting out the gestures, intonations, and facial expressions he will use, the Diplomacy check I make doesn't direct my character's actions (clearly, I'm doing that); it just determines whether his speech is as rousing as I intended it to be.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 03:06 PM	The dice are not directing your actions; they are determining the results of your actions. When I say "I attack the orc" and I make an attack roll, the result of that roll doesn't direct my character to attack the orc; it just determines whether he's successful or not. Likewise, when I spend five minutes giving what I intend to be a rousing speech "in character," choosing the exact words my character will speak and acting out the gestures, intonations, and facial expressions he will use, the Diplomacy check I make doesn't direct my character's actions (clearly, I'm doing that); it just determines whether his speech is as rousing as I intended it to be. But you choose how to attack the orc, and when, and what abilities to take into consideration and the like. When you tell your DM, "I want to roll so these guys will go fight well" I think that takes place completely out of character and detracts from role-playing. You're not roleplaying, you're just letting the dice determine what your character does. Roleplaying combat is significantly different than roleplaying out-of-combat too. I agree you direct your actions, but it feels that if you're leaving dialogue completely behind the scenes you could just say, "Okay DM... I want my character to gain 2 levels today and rescue a princess. I succeed on a 14 and up." Sure you might fight every now and then, but why play DnD if all you want is combat? Its the character development that is the beauty of it and when you roll to determine what your character says it takes away from that.
Vegepygmy 03-30-07, 03:25 PM	I think I've made my point, and your response is essentially: "I prefer a more immersive style of role-playing. Also, it makes me feel good to believe that my preferred style is qualitatively superior to a less immersive style. Therefore, I like to say that my preferred style is 'real role-playing,' and less immersive sytles are 'not really role-playing.'" I don't subscribe to that set of beliefs at all. If you and I decide to play a game where you are going to take on the role of Prince Charming, and you decide that what Prince Charming would do that day when he wakes up is go and find a princess to rescue, and the rules of the game are so simple that his success in that endeavor can be determine by a single d20 die roll (14 or better succeeds)...then you are role-playing when you make that decision as Prince Charming would. Now, I happen to prefer more complicated role-playing games than that, and (like you) I enjoy a more immersive style of role-playing. But some other people don't. That doesn't make me a "better" role-player than them.
Tyraxus 03-30-07, 03:34 PM	I WOULDN'T allow the player to say 'i give a rousing speech', make the roll, and suddenly the entire army is inspired. THIS is roll-playing. Lemme get this straight... because I'm not very charismatic and often don't know quite what to say (I, personally, have what Mark Twain called "the wit of the stairway," which is when you think of the perfect response as you're walking down the stairway twenty minutes later), that I shouldn't be able to play a silver-tongued bard? Roleplaying is great, but isn't the point to be able to escape your own limitations for a while? What would I have to say to be able to make the roll? "I'm going to attempt to inspire the troops by reminding them that they are the best the country has to offer, and reminding then that it is far better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees"? Or do I have to make up a speech on the spot? Hell, if you're making him do that, do you make the bard's player actually sing something when he's inspiring courage, or have the swash player actually go to a bar to pick somebody up when he's attempting to seduce the Lord's daughter? Pardon the absurdity, but where do you draw the line between what you have to do to make the roll and what is unnecessary? I agree you direct your actions, but it feels that if you're leaving dialogue completely behind the scenes you could just say, "Okay DM... I want my character to gain 2 levels today and rescue a princess. I succeed on a 14 and up." Sure you might fight every now and then, but why play DnD if all you want is combat? Its the character development that is the beauty of it and when you roll to determine what your character says it takes away from that. Yeah, and when all you do is roll to attack, or roll to see if you maintain your balance on a ship's deck on a tossing sea, you're taking away from the development of the character as he learns to deal with adversity. You say it's absurd to roll once for the success of an entire adventure (and I agree!), but I say it's equally absurd to require the group take an hour and a half off for me to write a monologue to inspire the troops and give them a morale boost. If you're really good at coming up with things to say, good for you, but don't tell the shy freshman in the corner that he can't play a bard because he doesn't roleplay well unless you're willing to tell the 5'2", 98lb president of the AV club that he can't play a fighter because he couldn't even pick up a sword, let alone kill anything with it. And that would rule out any magic-using class whatsoever. I'm ranting now, and I'm sorry for it, but guys that say "Rollplay everything! Roll for success only after you've done the action IRL, but nevermind that I can't cast a spell or swing a sword to save my life," just grate on my nerves for the seemingly blatent hypocrisy and bias against those who just aren't as popular, social, or quick-witted as you yourselves.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 03:38 PM	I think I've made my point, and your response is essentially: "I prefer a more immersive style of role-playing. Also, it makes me feel good to believe that my preferred style is qualitatively superior to a less immersive style. Well I agreed with you up until that last sentence, which is not true. I do not consider my style superior to any, it is in direct opposition to RAW and DnD's base fundamentals. I was merely asked to elaborate on it and I did, no where did I say, "This is how you should play the game" I simply said how I enjoy playing my game. Therefore, I like to say that my preferred style is 'real role-playing,' and less immersive sytles are 'not really role-playing.'" Again not true, I simply stated my own opinion on these- I know rolling for dialogue has role-playing values about them, you had simply requested for information and I obliged. No where did I try to shove my style in your face as you seem to now be implying. I don't subscribe to that set of beliefs at all. As I don't yours. If you and I decide to play a game where you are going to take on the role of Prince Charming, and you decide that what Prince Charming would do that day when he wakes up is go and find a princess to rescue, and the rules of the game are so simple that his success in that endeavor can be determine by a single d20 die roll (14 or better succeeds)...then you are role-playing when you make that decision as Prince Charming would. Agreed, and as I pointed out that would role-playing; albeit half-assed (in your example, not implying that DnD's is). Now, I happen to prefer more complicated role-playing games than that, and (like you) I enjoy a more immersive style of role-playing. But some other people don't. That doesn't make me a "better" role-player than them. And yet you are the one who keeps bringing "better" and "superior" into this debate... No where have I said the way I play is better, I just said, "This is what I think, if this helps you follow it. If you don't like it, ignore it." This is a game, play how you want to play.
Tyraxus 03-30-07, 03:41 PM	Wow, re-reading my post, I think I need to apologize to you guys. I let myself get angry and spouted off. Sorry about that, it's just that people that look down on other people make me mad (not that you guys do, I just know people that play the way you guys seem to that do look down on less charismatic people). Sorry again.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 03:47 PM	Wow, re-reading my post, I think I need to apologize to you guys. I let myself get angry and spouted off. Sorry about that, it's just that people that look down on other people make me mad (not that you guys do, I just know people that play the way you guys seem to that do look down on less charismatic people). Sorry again. In all fairness it appears I'm the only one touting this philosophy, so don't blame anyone else. I read your post, but I feel much of it has already been addressed in earlier posts. However just because you feel you're not charismatic doesn't mean you can't try to play as a charismatic bard. Real life has no "hard-set" charisma rules, your strength, physical and mental abilities, and ability to socialize can both be degraded and improved upon. While you might start out doing poorly constantly verbalizing a bard, I do not believe there is anyone that, without some practice, would still have the same boring bard after a few sessions. When you role for everything you're just playing the same uncharismatic character all the time, who relies on rolls to get his point across. Sure you can have trouble with words, but if you're just not going to try to play a charismatic character charismatically, why are you wanting to play one?
Dragonteuthis 03-30-07, 03:50 PM	I'm sure you can make a good caster with no ranks in concentration... ...Right? Heck yes. I've seen it happen twice. And they were both quite powerful in the end.
TheRealOrion 03-30-07, 03:58 PM	Sorry, perhaps I conveyed hostility in my tone as well from my first reply, but I don't really see anyone talking about cross-class skills that way. I'm not sure if I am missing a post somewhere, but it does not seem to have come up until you brought it up. I should have been clearer. It wasn't brought up, but it seemed to be both implied and assumed in the subtext. Some classes certainly get fewer ranks, but there's also the implication that they have access to fewer skills, which actually isn't true. They all have access to (almost) all of the skills. They just have different kinds of access. Perhaps this isn't on topic. It just bugs me that people think "I'm a Fighter, therefore I can't take Knowledge skills." It's not true. You can take them. You're just not as good at them. That's all I was trying to say.
Vegepygmy 03-30-07, 04:16 PM	I do not consider my style superior to any, it is in direct opposition to RAW and DnD's base fundamentals. I was merely asked to elaborate on it and I did, no where did I say, "This is how you should play the game" I simply said how I enjoy playing my game.When you say I do not think someone who can not deliver good dialogue should player a character with good dialogue...it sounds a lot like you are telling people how they should play the game. And qualifying it with ...unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings.creates the impression that to do otherwise is less "role-playing" than to do it the way you prefer. :tiphat:
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 04:25 PM	"I do not think someone who can not deliver good dialogue should player a character with good dialogue" it sounds a lot like you are telling people how they should play the game. And qualifying it with "unless they wish a substantial part of their role-playing to be replaced with rollings." creates the impression that to do otherwise is less "role-playing" than to do it the way you prefer. :tiphat: I'd agree with what you said here about my believing my style has more role-playing; but this does not imply my style is superior because there is "more" roleplaying in my mind. It simply implies I believe my style leads to more roleplaying opportunities than would be available otherwise, which is more fun for me. I simply delivered my opinion, but I did not tell anyone what they should/should not do. On a side-note is anyone else being driven bonkers by spellcheck for the forum? For some reason it keeps telling me I'm spelling "roleplaying" and "dialogue" wrong. If this is the case could someone correct me, but I do not believe it to be so and this underline red crap is wearing at my nerves.
Vegepygmy 03-30-07, 05:28 PM	I'd agree with what you said here about my believing my style has more role-playing; but this does not imply my style is superior because there is "more" roleplaying in my mind.Well, at least we have clearly identified where we disagree. :) I do not think your preferred method involves any more role-playing than less immersive methods. It's just a different style.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 05:47 PM	Well, at least we have clearly identified where we disagree. :) I do not think your preferred method involves any more role-playing than less immersive methods. It's just a different style. Dang... of course we resolve our differences right when I found the perfect tool here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=818716). Well... not necessarily tool, but it phrases my feelings perfectly.