|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 5:38PM
#181
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
That's funny. Did you ever stop to think that your contention that "the player is not the character" is not applicable to all styles of play? For you to even suggest such a thing shows that you are in fact the one that does not get it.
Okay, then tell me, in which playstyle is my character 100% me, the xx-year old guy living in some town in germany, playing videogames and enjoying his nicely-going campaign of D&D? In which playstyle are my own capabilities 100% those of my character and vice-versa?
I'm highly interested. Speak up.
They don't have to be 100% the same. That would defeat the purpose of role playing. If there is no challenge then role playing becomes pointless. It's actualy very typical for people to play characters that are completely different from their own personality. In fact, playing a character that has the same personality as you is typically frowned upon.
In much the same way that an actor tries his best to become the character he is acting, a role player does the same with his character.
I think I made it clear that the style of play I'm talking about does not require player skill. It requires player effort. In fact if a player does something that is more skillful than his character the DM had best ask for a skill check. Sure, rolling the dice is what determines success, but you don't get to roll unless you role play and make an effort. In other words, if you don't role play nothing happens. The dice just keep things in check and become cues for role playing.
Anyway, I hope you can now clearly see how different this approach is over the skill challenge mechanic. They are completely incompatible.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 5:50PM
#182
|
|
|
They don't have to be 100% the same. That would defeat the purpose of role playing. If there is no challenge then role playing becomes pointless. It's actualy very typical for people to play characters that are completely different from their own personality. In fact, playing a character that has the same personality as you is typically frowned upon.
In much the same way that an actor tries his best to become the character he is acting, a role player does the same with his character.
I think I made it clear that the style of play I'm talking about does not require player skill. It requires player effort. In fact if a player does something that is more skillful than his character the DM had best ask for a skill check. Sure, rolling the dice is what determines success, but you don't get to roll unless you role play and make an effort. In other words, if you don't role play nothing happens. The dice just keep thinks in check and become cues for role playing.
Anyway, I hope you can now clearly see how different this approach is the skill challenge mechanic. They are completely incompatible.
Actually I don't really see the incompatibility with the way I run SCs and what you're talking about. Nor do I think that any SC system that was INTENDED and was the literal thing that was mechanically described in the DMG work incompatibly. The DMG SPECIFICALLY spells out that SCs are problem-solving/RP exercises. The player is REQUIRED to describe what they do. The DM is picking a skill and deciding on results and narrating them (if appropriate, the text talks about all kinds of possibilities).
So, to summarize, in a 4e SC which is written ACCORDING TO THE RULES the players must describe what they're doing, the DM decides when to call for skill checks and what skills they use, and thus RP is effectively mandatory. Nothing happens if you don't RP. You literally CANNOT by the rules as a player say "I'm going to use Diplomacy" and have anything happen. It is simply not part of the procedure. Of course there are times when a PC's participation might be so obvious that there's no need to doubt what skill is involved. If the fighter decides to lift the boulder the player is probably going to go ahead and make a STR check. At least in my experience though those are only a pretty specific subset of situations. It would be ludicrous to just toss some dice for a social skill without explaining and doing some form of RP.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 5:52PM
#183
|
|
|
Really? Could you explain it to me? because I have no idea what you're talking about.
community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...
You're welcome.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 6:02PM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
I'm not seeing the connection.
Spell it out.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 6:05PM
#185
|
|
|
Hint: I think it had something to do with stating facts that didn't mesh with someone else's notions 
OTOH apparently there are a lot of people who have slow combat. Oddly enough we had slower combat in AD&D than we do in 4e. It is one of those things where there's no one truth. What happens though is the people something worked well for rarely say much about it, it isn't an issue for them. People something didn't work so well for OTOH will be vocal about it.
Close, it was more stating an opinion that didn't mesh with the facts.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 6:43PM
#186
|
|
|
I'm not seeing the connection.
Spell it out.
I have found 4e combat to be slow.
Really slow.
Like multi-thread spawning "how to make my 4e combats faster" slow.
For 4e combat to be faster then 3e combat, you would (hyperbolic-ally) have to be playing in a party of druids that summoned tribes of monkeys that only attacked by grappling and no one bothered to note down the rules for summoning, grappling and the stats for the monkeys.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 7:19PM
#187
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
But what did that have to do with my post?
Are you disagreeing with it? What's with the futurama poster?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 8:16PM
#188
|
|
|
Yes I disagree.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 8:27PM
#189
|
|
|
Essentially you do not roleplay. You demand player skill. And that violates the most important distinction in roleplaying games: THE PLAYER IS NOT THE CHARACTER!
Hear hear!
Exactly. It is the difference between storytelling and role-playing.
Role-Playing: Playing the role of your character.
Storytelling(house ruling): Telling the story your character is in while most probably violating the rules.
Once you realize the difference its easy to set aside the house ruling as what it was: getting the DM to allow you to either break the rules or do something that was outside the rules. It ended up that no two DM's would adjudicate the same. One might tell you to go **** it. Another might give you a chance but you had to roll some dice. Another might allow it to happen without a single word.
Once you realize that you weren't playing by the rules you realize that it doesn't matter what system you play, you can do the same thing and therefore is not a valid comparison between a house ruled game and a by the book game. I.e. your version of 3.xE versus the rules as written 4E.
If you played by the rules (not bypassing them or outside them) then fighters got 2-3 attack per round at high levels, but the wizard could clear a battlefield with 1-2 spells from a distance. They could also pretty much replace any class in the game with the right combination of memorized spells. Throw in some magic items and they could have twice as many low level spells or a near infinite supply of spells with wands, potions, and scrolls...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 10, 2012 - 8:42PM
#190
|
|
|
Ok for the last time just because 4e did combat well doesn't mean it took anything away from non-combat. I mean since when has there ever been detailed rules for social interactions? All of the same non-combat options are availiable in 4e as were in 3e.
It absolutely did take away from non-combat, mostly by turning combat into such a huge time sink.
The other problem, at least at release, was the absolute lack of role playing structure which was touted as a "feature". That was the first time I have seen "no rules" marketed as a good thing since Cowboys and Indians.
Show me some rules for role-playing in previous editions that were any more extensive than the page 42. in 4E...
|
|
|
