* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : 2nd Ed Question - Fast Talking Started at 06-06-05 06:33 AM by unipsi Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=442294 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : unipsi Date : 06-06-05 06:33 AM Thread Title : 2nd Ed Question - Fast Talking Ok, I will try to present this as non-bias as possible and I would like everyone out there to tell me their opinion on what should have happened. So here is the situation: A Lv 1 thief goes into a Temple of Mystra in Water Deep to get some magical items appraised. The priest pulls out a pair of eye-glasses and looks at the magical items for a brief second and declares that they are in fact magical, but in order to find the properties he would have to cast a spell. The thief is intrigued by the glasses, and asks if he may see them for a second. The priest quickly declines and puts the glasses into his belt pouch. The thief then hands the priest the items, which are all wrapped inside a cloth, with one hand and uses his other hand to try to pick pocket the glasses. The thief's pickpocket skill is 40%, he got an 87%. The priest succeded in noticing by a margine of 1%. Immediatly the priest begins casting hold person, thinking quickly, the thief begins fast talking and says that "He only wanted to look at them, and he was not trying to steal them." The thief succeded in his fast talking skill by rolling a 4, his skill is 16. The priest believed the thief, but continued casting the hold person spell anyway and then cast another spell to call for his superiors. The superiors came down and cast a zone of truth spell where the thief told them again that he only wanted to look at them and didn't want to steal them. He planned on borrowing them for a day to look at them and then return them, hopefully without the priest even knowing they were gone - which was the truth. They sent him to prison. Now, the question is, if the thief succeded in his fast talking should the priest still have finished casting and call his superiors? If so, then what about when he was telling the truth about not wanting to steal them...should he have been sent to prison for theft? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Warhead Date : 06-06-05 08:50 AM Now, the question is, if the thief succeded in his fast talking should the priest still have finished casting and call his superiors? If so, then what about when he was telling the truth about not wanting to steal them...should he have been sent to prison for theft? I'd say the successful Fast Talking check would have convinced the priest not to bother with the Hold Person, and furthermore not bothered his superiors. Regarding the truth part...borrowing without authorisation is still theft so I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think it should have got to that stage in the first place...well played the player who thought to try Fast Talking. Note: I don't have details on either Hold Person or Fast Talking to hand, so can't be precise about whether the rules would strictly allow that to work, timing-wise particularly, but I like the idea so much I wouldn't bother worrying about the rules if it was my DM-ing decision. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Thailfi Date : 06-06-05 10:41 AM From what I remember about fast talking is that the check is HEAVILY modified by the target's intelligence and wisdom. At certain score levels it becomes useless. Your thief was fast talking to a priest of Mystra whose primary scores are intelligence and wisdom. How do you know he succeeded on his check? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-06-05 02:21 PM Depending on the priests level and wisdom score, I'd say being caught redhanded is a pretty good way to get apprehended. As for being sent to prison, thems the breaks. You dont mess with the church I guess :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-06-05 08:34 PM Now here lies one the biggest problems i have with skill based gaming. Could a thief in this situation fast talk himself/herself out of this? Well yes, but with that lame a story simply because of a lucky die roll. "I just wanted to borrow them?" How about "Sorry but there was a bug on you" how about a quick witted thief just doesn't have to bother with a skill roll the player just needs to come up with better stories. In 1e thats how i'd handle it. If the player could think up even a semi plausible story I'd let it slide. But I just wanted to borrow them? Yeah like a thief ever thinks of stealing as more than borrowing. He should spend his jail time coming up with better excuses. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 06-06-05 09:51 PM The "fast talking" proficiency is from the complete thief's handbook. The description of the proficiency does mention modifiers for targets who have high wisdom and intelligence (probably would have been on the order of a +5/+6 penalty assuming 15to16 wisdom and intelligence for the priest), but unipsi said that the thief in question passed the roll by 12 anyway. The description also said that: "The DM may also introduce modifiers according to the difficulty or plausibility of what the character is attempting" I would say that given that "I only wanted to borrow it" is a pathetic excuse, especially considering that the thief had already been denied such permission, a modifier on the order of +10 or automatic failure could easily be justified I'm sure that priests of Mystra don't have a high opinion of theft of their magical items, so jail seems a perfectly reasonable punishment. Stonebeard: Yes, I generally agree with you re: skill based gaming. But at times, "DM judgement" can be very arbitrary. IMO with situations such as this, there should also be some element of luck. By relying only on the player's skill in coming up with an effective and plausible response, to save the character's skin - the separation of player and character is blurred. Skill systems, while definately opening up potential avenues to destroy roleplaying (by reducing resolution to a die roll), are still useful as a framework for roleplaying by deliniating characters that have special skills in certain areas. In the example discussed in this thread, a PC without fast talking would not have had any chance to avoid capture (IMO). A PC with this proficiency is highly skilled at talking their way out of situations such as this and with a plausible excuse might have gotten away with a stern reprimand with a successful proficiency check. Just my $0.02 cheers, obrf -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 06-06-05 09:57 PM Apologies to you, unipsi - I noticed my previous post doesn't address your real question. In your situation, the priest was ruled to have believed the thief saying he/she only wanted to look at the glasses. Your real question was should the thief have been jailed after the zone of truth spell revealed that he/she was telling the truth. My answer: Yes. Even if she/he was going to return the glasses (and I don't know HOW the DM could be sure that the PC would have returned them in the first place) taking things without permission is THEFT. Hence jail is an appropriate punishment. obrf -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Warhead Date : 06-07-05 09:14 AM I generally agree with the sentiment that skills like Fast Talking can get in the way of role-playing, but they also act as a balance to those players who might not be the most naturally erudite, yet are perhaps playing high Charisma characters. How can you expect them to role-play successfully? Skills like Fast Talking or Intimidate can allow this, and in any case provide a framework for the DM to decide whether it has succeeded, by use of modifiers, no matter how naturally skilled the player might be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : wordserpent Date : 06-07-05 11:43 AM Don't ever let the rules come before common sense. Even though skills like Fast Talk and Diplomact are there to get a player out of a jam as an alternative to combat or fleeing, Getting caught red-handed at stealing and trying to fast-talk your way out of it is highly unlikley. Would you have let said thief climb up a vertical surface that was glass-smooth and had no handholds? My point being if a task is just downright impossible, then have the player fail no matter what the roll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-07-05 07:57 PM The problem with the excuse that skills allow someone who is not otherwise capable in an area to immitate capability in this area is that the player never "learns" how to be capable in this area. If allowed to use a crutch, why would they bother? I don't expect every thief to be glib of tongue but I firmly believe any player that applies themselves could learn to at least to a reasonable level. Skills not only detract from from role playing in general but they hinder the development of good gamers. What do you expect from the new generation of gamers who learn only that a lucky roll can save your butt? You may as well be playing CRAPS with two six siders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 06-07-05 08:56 PM The problem with the excuse that skills allow someone who is not otherwise capable in an area to immitate capability in this area is that the player never "learns" how to be capable in this area. If allowed to use a crutch, why would they bother? People with crutches can eventually learn to walk unassisted, although admittedly for some a LOT of encouragement may be needed. I share the sentiment that the over-reliance on skills can reduce a game to a game of craps, but I also see how some skills if used as an "aid" to roleplaying can help out players who are not natural roleplayers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-08-05 01:43 AM A DM that expects a shy player to be a master speaker, is obviously making a mistake. But if the shy player can come up with a good description of what he is trying to do, then that should count more than a "avoid consequences for your actions" roll, DC 15 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Warhead Date : 06-08-05 04:14 AM What do you expect from the new generation of gamers who learn only that a lucky roll can save your butt? Nothing, I guess that's why we're on this board! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : havard Date : 06-08-05 04:50 AM The problem with the excuse that skills allow someone who is not otherwise capable in an area to immitate capability in this area is that the player never "learns" how to be capable in this area. If allowed to use a crutch, why would they bother? I don't expect every thief to be glib of tongue but I firmly believe any player that applies themselves could learn to at least to a reasonable level. Skills not only detract from from role playing in general but they hinder the development of good gamers. What do you expect from the new generation of gamers who learn only that a lucky roll can save your butt? You may as well be playing CRAPS with two six siders. As I see it, this is a misunderstanding of how skill systems are intended to be used, whether in 3E. OOP D&D or in skill based systems. Skill systems were never intended to be used instead of roleplaying. Also, the concept of the Roll Player is not something that has appeared with any new generation of gamers. I am sure that skills *can* have the effect that you describe, but not more than the lack of such. In the situation mentioned above, I would require some serious roleplaying for the PC to talk himself out of his troubles. Even if he played it out well, I would still make him roll at a penalty due to the ridiculous circumstances. Had the circumstances been more favorable to the player, I would have allowed him to get away with simply the roleplaying if it was done well, but in any case I would *always* allow a die roll. This has nothing to do with level of roleplaying, but all about gaming style. Some DM's say no. I prefer saying yes, but giving a hefty penalty modified by roleplaying. Many players feel this gives them a greater sense of control over the game, and a few times I find myself pleasantly surprised by the direction of the scenario. After quite a few discussions about the usage of skill systems in OOP D&D I have accepted that such are not a neccesity or the only way to handle things in OOP D&D, but saying that it actually automatically hinders roleplaying is something I cant accept. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Elendur Date : 06-08-05 08:11 AM This example is just a strict action/reaction thing with me. No fast talking, whether adjudcated through a skill roll or roleplay, is going to stop a priest casting a spell once he's started. It went down like this: Thief attempts pickpocket, fails. Priest notices, casts spell. The thief isn't going to interrrupt his spell with words. He could try clocking him, maybe, but there'd be an initiative roll for that. I just don't like the principal of a thief being able to negate the consequence of failure before it ever happens. It'd be like like a thief climbing a wall, failing, and then 'thinking quickly', pulling out a spike a jamming into the wall to prevent falling. You attempted a thief ability and failed. Suffer the results, then act. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : unipsi Date : 06-08-05 01:43 PM Ok, granted, a better story would have gotten my thief out of the situation. However, I told the story first then the DM made me roll. Why have me roll if the roll doesn't matter? To add to that, the DM said that he even believed me. BTW, it is not lack of imagination that caused that character to come up with a lame excuse. That character had just got into trouble by lying ( and failing his fast-talking roll ) so he was trying the truth for once. It didn't work. When I failed my rolls previously, I was telling VERY believable stories that were very imaginative and I NEVER got any bonus to my roll. However, when I told the truth, I DID get a PENALTY to my roll! My thief has learned 2 valuable lessons 1) Learn to tell better lies 2) Don't mess with the church. ( Also, I thought everyone might find this humorous. When I started to complain about the reaction of the priest, the DM said "Well maybe if you had come up with a better excuse, like "oops my hand got caught on your robe" he would have stopped casting. That excuse is even worse than mine! Come on, Oops, I'm sorry my hand got caught on your robe while I was trying to steal from you! ) Thanks to everyone for your input. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-08-05 01:52 PM That is a pretty damn poor excuse all right :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-08-05 07:43 PM As I see it, this is a misunderstanding of how skill systems are intended to be used, whether in 3E. OOP D&D or in skill based systems. Skill systems were never intended to be used instead of roleplaying. Also, the concept of the Roll Player is not something that has appeared with any new generation of gamers. Best of intentions I'm sure, all i see is an over all degradation of actual roleplaying skill in general. Its not just in D&D but industry wide. It started with the 1e add-ons (dungeoneers and wilderness survival guides) through 2E and its rule sprawl and continues on to plague role play gaming through today. You can't find a role playing game these days that doesn't have a skill system of some kind and I maintain that this not only limits the imagination of role players and DMs alike but sucks it right out of them. The end result of this can only be described as roll playing. Now some DM's may at their insistance force the players, and in some cases even themselves, into role playing but this is not how it should be. The role playing shouldn't be forced it should come naturally and in time any one can learn how. If a player is shy they learn to come out of their shell. I'll grant you with the proliferation of skill based role playing games that my opinion is very much in the minority. But if you ever wondered why i hang out ONLY in the oop board, its because i'm disgusted with the state of role playing today and that not a crack at 3e it a crack at the whole industry. Back in the day I played AD&D and called it a hobby. Today its just a money making racket, devised to pull in literally anyone even if they have no talent for role playing or not and no real effort is ever made to teach them how. Their just given this crutch called skills and thats good enough. Its not good enough for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-09-05 01:37 AM I'd recommend checking out indie games, like FATE and such. Many of them are surprisingly refreshing in their straight forwardness. I do agree on a fundamental level though, that classes and skills should not be mixed in the same system. The purpose of both is to limit and restrict your characters capabilities. Using both is, in my opinion, overkill, and needlessly complicated and confining the issue -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 06-10-05 02:12 AM I think I'm beginning to see one of the main rifts between gamers of older editions and newer editions. I, too, feel that the skill system (and to an extent, the nonweapon proficiencies of 2e) is a crutch for bad roleplayers to lean on. I've always felt this way, but have never thought of it as a primary reason why I prefer to play 1st edition. Sometimes you need to put down your dice and just talk. I've grown tired of such situations as informing a player that someone they're talking to doesn't believe them, and them responding by asking which die they need to roll to make that person believe them. Just... talk to them. Convince them. No die rolling involved. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : havard Date : 06-10-05 04:37 AM I think I'm beginning to see one of the main rifts between gamers of older editions and newer editions. I, too, feel that the skill system (and to an extent, the nonweapon proficiencies of 2e) is a crutch for bad roleplayers to lean on. I've always felt this way, but have never thought of it as a primary reason why I prefer to play 1st edition. I suddenly realized that I belong to the "new" generation people refer to around here. Untill now, I thought "new generation" were the people who started gaming with 3E, not the generation that started gaming with BECMI D&D in the mid 80s... Sometimes you need to put down your dice and just talk. I've grown tired of such situations as informing a player that someone they're talking to doesn't believe them, and them responding by asking which die they need to roll to make that person believe them. Just... talk to them. Convince them. No die rolling involved. I agree. Skill rolls should not get in the way of roleplaying. That doesn't mean that skills automatically hinder roleplaying though. Or are you saying people who play D&D are better roleplayers than people who play skill based systems? Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-10-05 04:45 AM I dont have a problem with a skill based system. Or a class based system. But I think combining the two is unnescesary, and making the two required components in the same system is just plain bad writing, IMO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-10-05 04:58 AM But D&D has always relied on skills - it's just that the number of them has increased over time, and recently they were given a more universal mechanic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-10-05 01:53 PM Always is hardly true. They didnt appear untill the gazeteer series and the Rules cyclopedia for classic D&D. AD&D's skills were from various supplements, while AD&D 2nd edition had them in the book. However,they were always optional, and were never written as a "must use". The current skill system is required, unless you want to rewrite half the book. Thats my point. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 06-10-05 07:29 PM *snip* I agree. Skill rolls should not get in the way of roleplaying. That doesn't mean that skills automatically hinder roleplaying though. Or are you saying people who play D&D are better roleplayers than people who play skill based systems? Håvard If I wanted to generalize, I'd have to say yes. What I think is that the system can be abused, and I see it abused all to often. I'm struggling in my attempt to describe what exactly I mean, though. Hm. I'll leave it at that, hopefully I made some sort of sense. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-10-05 07:34 PM Always is hardly true. They didnt appear untill the gazeteer series and the Rules cyclopedia for classic D&D. AD&D's skills were from various supplements, while AD&D 2nd edition had them in the book. So the thief didn't always have thief-skills and that table of thief skills in the RC was a later addition to the rules? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-10-05 09:56 PM So the thief didn't always have thief-skills and that table of thief skills in the RC was a later addition to the rules? The thief skills in 1st edition AD&D were assigned and thus a class ability. If you were a thief you had the skills you needed to be a thief. The skill system I'm referring to is one that expands beyond a class. A fighter has no tactical knowledge unless he takes the Tactical Skill. A group of players who don't have the boating skill can't manage to cross a small lake even though it happens to be integral to the adventure on hand. Skills systems micromanage what players can and can't do within the bounds of the almighty rules system to the point where yes they limit choices confine the imagination and ultimately destroy the integrity of role playing experience. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-11-05 01:07 AM So the thief didn't always have thief-skills and that table of thief skills in the RC was a later addition to the rules? oD&D doesnt have thieves in the core rules so no ;) But as he said above, thief skills are a class ability, similar to spellcasting, weapon specialization and druid shapeshifting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-11-05 01:24 AM The thief skills in 1st edition AD&D were assigned and thus a class ability. A skill by any other name still performs the same function. The most basic skill in D&D that has always been there is fighting. The skill system I'm referring to is one that expands beyond a class. So you're not really talking about skills, you're talking about character customization through game mechanics - which certainly carries with it a great many problems of its own. Skills systems micromanage what players can and can't do within the bounds of the almighty rules system to the point where yes they limit choices confine the imagination and ultimately destroy the integrity of role playing experience. Like the rest of the rules, skills only confine you as much as you let them confine you. Micromanaged character creation/growth, however, can potentially strip the soul from the game as it becomes focussed on accumulating shiny +1 bonuses from every nook and cranny of the system the player can find. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-11-05 01:27 AM A skill by any other name still performs the same function. The most basic skill in D&D that has always been there is fighting. I think the argument is that class and skill based systems handles things in a different manner. Compare oD&D to GURPS for a pretty clear example of the differences -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-11-05 02:33 AM I think the argument is that class and skill based systems handles things in a different manner. Not a very different manner at all when you really look at it. In a class-based system, a player might gain 300 XP and gain a level - and by proxy he gains +1 in class ability x, class ability y, and class ability z. In a skill-based system, a player might gain 300 XP - and spend 100 XP each on skill x, skill y, and skill z to gain +1 in them. The real difference lies in the mechanical customization available to each style. In a class-based system the character is committed to a path and will receive specific abilities whether he wants/needs/uses them or not - this arguably has the benefit of allowing a player to focus more on the, er, character of his character rather than worrying about collecting bonuses. In a skill-based system the player has more freedom to customize what his character can do - and although that may appear to be an entirely good thing at first blush, it carries with it a number of problems related to micromanagement and over-specialisation. HERO/Champions is a good example of the ultimate horrors this may bring. Of course, there are varying extremes on either side as well. I'm aware of the differences, but I'm also acutely aware of the similarities. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-11-05 02:36 AM I agree that the execution can be rather similar, though I believe the implementation and philosophy are quite different. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-11-05 03:33 AM I agree that the execution can be rather similar, though I believe the implementation and philosophy are quite different. I feel that implementation/philosophy may vary from group to group and is therefore not inherent to the game mechanics themselves. In much the same way, I don't think of D&D as a hack-&-slash/dungeon-crawl game though some people are quick to label it as such - the game is what the group makes of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-11-05 07:30 PM Your tactic worked, you completelty lost me with your technobabble. But thats not the end of it because it just brings us to where the skill based system always bring us. A game so micromanaged by skills and rules and such that you have to be an Engineer to figure out how to play the GAME. Which is precisely what i want to avoid. You say skills allow players to customize their characters and new and exciting ways... I say they bog the game down with unneccessary details. So whats an unneccessary details? Well no fighting isn't so its built into the game. Abilities that make your class work aren't unneccessary so yes as you gain levels you become better at what your class does. Makes perfect sense to me so far. A fighter who wants to learn how to pick locks. NO! What the heck is so terrible about putting some bounds and what players/character can and cannot do? Sounds like a good way to stop a munchkin to me. On a side note is it just me or does unrestricted customizing and munchkinism seem to go hand in hand? I'd also like to address this rediculous notion of introducing realism into a game. Who's bright idea was this? Oh heh, yeah The Blumes and WotC thats why i stopped playing at 1st edition -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Elendur Date : 06-11-05 10:21 PM Surely though you can see how "unnecessary details" is a subjective concept? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-12-05 01:49 AM Your tactic worked, you completelty lost me with your technobabble. And here I thought I was speaking rather plainly. You say skills allow players to customize their characters and new and exciting ways... That's not exactly what I said. I said it allowed for customization but I didn't say that customization was new or exciting. And you must've become completely lost before you got to the part where I agreed with what you were saying about micromanagement bogging down the game. ;) I say they bog the game down with unneccessary details. So whats an unneccessary details? What constitutes unnecessary details, as Elendur pointed out, is a completely subjective matter. What the heck is so terrible about putting some bounds and what players/character can and cannot do? Absolutely nothing. I'm all for limitations. On a side note is it just me or does unrestricted customizing and munchkinism seem to go hand in hand? A munchkin will munchkin regardless. But free customization certainly lends itself well to the process. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : eshombrule Date : 06-12-05 12:32 PM Thread Title : Comments on the original situation.... Hey man, Sorry to see that it turned into yet another role vs. roll/1st/2nd edition vs 3.0/3.5 editon. But let me tell you it the way I see it. The Priest would still cast the Hold Person spell. It just makes sense, heck I would if you did it to me! The Priest cast the detect lie spell or whatever he casts, but..... After that, I do think that it isnt a matter of anything other than your DM allowed you to make the roll, you MADE the roll, and yet he (the character) still is imprisoned. Now..a few facts need to be put into light (for me): 1) What alignment was the priest? If he was any type of good, he should have had a punishment for you, but certainly not imprisonment. If he was Lawful neutral, he might imprison you based on local laws. 2) Is your DM not good at RPing or is there a history of your character making brash tries at stealing and getting caught? Maybe the DM is trying to teach you a lesson, not the priest. 3) How long was your character imprisoned? Did the DM RP that aspect out for you as well? Mystra is a curious Goddess...Elminster himself is a bit of a scoundrel and a thief, so should she and her disciples look down upon you? Especially after your story proved to be true? -------- All that being said, I would have let you get away with it (if it was just like you stated). Characters are suppossed to do wild, oustanding feats, are they not? BUT, getting caught would have lead to many sessions of RPing between you and the work details of the church or the city/state to which it resided within. ~Eshombrule -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-12-05 07:39 PM Humblest apologies if i'm argueing with someone who's agreeing with me, it happens so little I must have missed it. But in reviewing the posts, its not so plain to me as it was to you when you wrote. So the written language isn't the perfect medium for discussion or conveying a thought, well that certainly not news. You can't pick up on inflection through writing either unless perhaps everyone involved were an English major. All that aside this has not been another 1e 2e 3e bash. except for the coincidence that 1e is pretty much devoid of a skill system except in the later add-on products while 2e it throws it in your face and 3e shoves it down your throat. And that is why I brought this matter up in a thread that provides a perfect example of what can happen when the game of D&D follows this progression. This has been going on for years, it started before WotC was even making card games and if allowed to continue unchecked threatens the very fibre of role playing. IMHO Skill based games are lame, their a crutch used by players and DMs who lack the talent to run a game that hasn't been micromanaged in advance for them. The more these games invade the market (and as previously mentioned they dominate it already) the worse the roll playing situation will get. This! more than the PC the gameboy or anything else will lead to the eventual demise of paper based role playing games altogether. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 06-14-05 04:17 AM I'm almost afraid to post an opinion to this thread, but I can't help myself. Seems to me that there's a core question here someplace, and I think it's something like: Does your gaming group aim to let players imagine they're something that they're not? All of a character comes down to a list of stats, whether they're skills, attributes, or class abilities. Most of the things my characters can do, I cannot. So at some point, I've got to be able to say, "Hey, my fighter can bullseye the orc leader with his longbow," then roll the dice and make it happen. The same thing is true, regardless of whether it's a skill or not. I have players who're relatively dense, but playing highly intelligent wizards. They can't remember what happened last session ... but their character should, so I'll refresh their memory or hint to them they ought to check their notes, if they're missing an important point. How is that any different from a character who has a skill that the player doesn't? I haven't a clue how to fletch an arrow, but I could have a character who could do that. But should every Fighter be able to? Why? Doesn't that make all Fighters kind of the same? Wouldn't that hamper roleplaying rather than encourage it? If you don't allow for skills, don't all the characters end up being reflections of the players, more or less? You have the bright guy playing the dwarf fighter with the IQ of 6 ... but he's still the one coming up with all the best ideas in the group. The way we play, skills allow the players to become something they're not in real life. And that's fun. Absolutely, I give players a chance to roleplay out the use of an appropriate skill, and I'll give bonuses to someone's chances if they do an especially good job. But even if they come up with a lame excuse, I'm willing to give them a roll, because they're playing a character who is different than themselves. At least the way my group plays, I think skills engage players into more roleplaying, not less, as they feel their way through describing what their characters are doing, and how they're reacting, engaging in activities that they themselves cannot do. I know I'm rambling, but I must also mention this: NWP's don't have to overly define what you can and can't do, they just outline how WELL you do some things compared to others. If I have characters who don't have Boating, that doesn't mean they'd never be able to get in a boat and row across the lake. It means they might not win a race against someone who's proficient at it, but they'll still get there. (It's called a non-proficiency penalty in 2E.) unipsi, what I would've done as DM in your situation: The Priest would complete his Hold Person spell, as he was already casting it when you started your Fast Talking, and would want to ensure you didn't escape until the situation could be reviewed. But when you were trying to convince the rest of the newly summoned clergy that your intentions were not malicious, THAT's where the Fast Talking roll should've happened. And it would've been all the more effective because the clergy would've known you were speaking the truth! That was a lame excuse though, I'm sorry to say, and without the Fast Talking I would've given you NO CHANCE to avoid imprisonment. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-14-05 04:20 AM Each their opinion :) Personally, skills can put words on your character concept, if you arent sure, or even be a source of inspiration, but they dont give you something you couldnt already come up with. Mechanically, skills tell you that your character is bad at everything, except those things there on the sheet. Some players prefer more tightly focused games, others dont. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : unipsi Date : 06-14-05 08:04 AM Dugald, I completly agree with your assessment. After talking with the DM, he decided that the situation should have turned out a little differently. Now, he has decided to either give a bonus or penalty based on what is said during fast talking. However, what you said makes sense. Why should he give me a penalty to fast talking because the PLAYER comes up with a bad excuse? Does a fighter get a penalty to his fletching proficiency? Fast talking already has its own set of bonuses and penalties associated with it, why should the DM add more of them based on what the PLAYER says? Its the CHARACTER that is fast talking. Also, just as a point of defense, we played again this weekend and my character became a social butterfly and started fast-talking guards left and right. I bent them to my will like a wet noodle. Thanks for everyone's input =) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Alathriel Date : 06-18-05 10:33 AM Thread Title : From the DM-Why poor roleplaying affects social rolls Since I am the DM, and made the rules call on the player's fast-talking, I wanted to add a few things. I think that D&D is of course about playing things that you are not. You could be the best diplomat in the world, or a man with the strength of an ox. What I like to see is people who will at least put a solid effort in roleplaying their social proficiencies, such as etiquette, fast-talking, and information gathering. I feel that if you walk up to the local lord, and then say, "I need food and shelter for the night. I'm an adventurer on a mission. Help me." and then say, "I'm rolling etiquette to get him to do what I want!" It won't work just like that. You haven't given the lord much info, and logically he won't do what you say just because you have a high charisma or a good proficiency check. Social proficiencies are not charm person spells, suggestion spells, or anything of the sort. They are just a representation of a silver tongue, and an ability to sway people. Now if you would have given the lord good reasons for helping you, such as the fact that you are Frederick III, cousin to the local baron down the road, or that your mission will have a positive impact on the lord, etc. etc. then the lord would be more prone to help you in the given situation. That's why I have decided to give bonuses or penalties based on certain applications of social profiences, where necessary. I think when it comes to social proficencies logic should not get in the way of rules. This requires a knowledge of social relationships and human behavior, and while I don't major in Psychology, I have had a Psych course in college and have a job that puts me in the public spotlight every day where I have to present myself in a pleasing manner. Customer service is the art of kissing butt, ecspecially when you are selling things. I consider myself a good judge of human behavior, and while sometimes my players might disagree, I am always open to discuss rules calls among the group, but ultimately I do have final say as the DM. So, if the player puts up a passable effort on his attempt, then he gets the check and we'll see where the dice fall. But if he's very suave, comes up with a great story, etc, he might get a bonus of +1 or +2, maybe more. As far as penalties go, I think penalties won't be imposed much because a bad story just won't fly *period*, no matter what the check is. Basically as long as the character doesn't put his foot in his mouth, he should be ok. Because social profiencies are not suggestions spells. I'd rather just give out bonuses to be honest, and the Intelligence of the person being fast-talked will make the check more difficult the more intelligent they are, based on the chart in the Thieves' Handbook. Some people might find it a little offensive that I ask characters to roleplay out social rolls, and if they don't roleplay them out very well they don't accomplish what they intended. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye with this, but that's just how I run my game. I'm not asking someone to be a speech writer, just to put an honest effort into it and use logic and politeness to get things done, or wit and charm, etc. I am from the school of thought that creativity should be your tool in solving problems sometimes, not just good die rolls. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 06-18-05 02:21 PM I agree with that Alathriel, and as long as your players are aware that's what you're expecting from them, seems perfectly reasonable to me! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Stonebeard Date : 06-19-05 06:29 PM So lets suppose that a player comes up wth a great story to tell this lord. He's got it all together. He works it so the lord is coming out on the top, the peasants end up loving the lord for his part in it and the players get what they want to, and its all on the up and up. Then the player rolls a 1 (or what ever) and this great story gets flushed down the toilet because he failed the skill roll. Skills not only serve as a crutch for bad role playing they also hinder good role playing. The only controversy in this thread is the skill roll if you removed that and put it all in the jurisdiction of the DM there is no more controversy. The DM rules as he needs to propel the story onward. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : eshombrule Date : 06-19-05 08:19 PM I guess, since I too am a very creative DM with a flair for NPCs taking onb entire lives before the players, I would expect my players to do the same. I mean, who wants to be the only one totally getting into the story right? Wrong. Some players aren't going to be creative or get their words out like they would if they were you or myself. Some players are ROLL players, but get into the story the way you lay it down as a storytelling DM. Just like some people get into TV shows and enjoy watching them, while others know things about the characters that no one else does and wince when their favorite ones get shot at, beat up, etc. so are there players of characters. DMs as well. (this IS for the DM in said situation, incase I was too far off in left field to make that clear) I guesss what my question would be to you, as the DM is this: Do you expect every person can be creative and as story-capable as yourself? If that is what you want from all players, you need to get a group of all story orientated players. Either that or realize that SOME players, heck even good ones sometimes, don't feel like ALWAYS role-playing out every situation. Not saying that is what happened or how you play/dm. I had previously caught myself in the same situation as yourself, expecting too much from two players. We sat and talked, found out what each other wanted/expected from the game and the game play. One left the group, while the other decided he would get over his shyness and start RPing more. He has really come out of his shell, but I lost a good tactical player in the process, who was more into the battle and the planning than the "chit-chat" as he called it. As a rule of thumb, for all games and all paths in life remember: "Not everyone wants things your way, except maybe you." - My mom, right after I got socked in the eye by a little girl that I THOUGHT wanted to go down a slide. She didn't and punched me in my 8 year old eye! OUCH! (I dated her later on in high school. Always stayed on her right side, cuz her left I could handle! ;)) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.