The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman wrote: You do have to make a roll to use good tactics in a fight. You do some attacking thing, and then you roll a die to see whether it worked or not. If it worked, it was presumably better than the tactics being used by your opponent to not get hit. If it didn't work, I guess it wasn't.

Well no. You have to roll to physical hit a flanked opponent, but you don't have to roll to have your character decide to think of the strategy of trying to flank someone.

You're rolling for a physical action, not a mental one.

In all cases, the decisions of what tactics to do are entirely in the player's hands. Your character doesn't decide to cast wall of stone or try for a disarm, the player does. And that's a totally good thing, because player interaction makes the game.

How is that any different from deciding that you're going to translate the document in Old Draconic and then rolling dice to see if you succeed? The decision to try is the player's, but the ability to succeed is the providence of the dice.

Or how about deciding to go talk to the guys on the dock to see if any of them would be willing to part with some sun rods? Wouldn't rolling dice to see if that social endeavor was successful?

-Username17

Murtak wrote: Now this is just silly. You roll attacks, right? So rolling "social attacks" like "convincing someone to do something detrimental to himself" seems appropriate. You do not roll to draw weapons, hence you do not roll to use your fork during dinner. Some DMs may have their players roll to draw weapons while swinging from a candelier, those same GMs can have their characters roll to use their fork in foreign cultures.

What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say anything that remotely disagrees with what you're saying?

FrankTrollman wrote:If you don't force players to roll attack rolls, why should there be Strength?

-Username17

I said that I don't make them roll skills every time. There are some cases when I wouldn't force someone to make an attack roll, either--slapping someone, attacking a sleeping person (even if a coup de grace didn't automatically hit), and so on.

hogarth wrote:

Murtak wrote: Now this is just silly. You roll attacks, right? So rolling "social attacks" like "convincing someone to do something detrimental to himself" seems appropriate. You do not roll to draw weapons, hence you do not roll to use your fork during dinner. Some DMs may have their players roll to draw weapons while swinging from a candelier, those same GMs can have their characters roll to use their fork in foreign cultures.

What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say anything that remotely disagrees with what you're saying?

Right where you compared a trivial action (drawing your sword) to a social save-or-die (convincing a relevant character to agree to your plan).

FrankTrollman wrote:How is that any different from deciding that you're going to translate the document in Old Draconic and then rolling dice to see if you succeed? The decision to try is the player's, but the ability to succeed is the providence of the dice.

Or how about deciding to go talk to the guys on the dock to see if any of them would be willing to part with some sun rods? Wouldn't rolling dice to see if that social endeavor was successful?

-Username17

Then why not roll to attack the ground for each step you make.

You decide to move to your left, now it is up to the dice to see if you succeed.

So roll a DEX check for each step you take to see if you actually move in the direction you decided to go it.

You don't need to roll for everything, only the things you cannot do with the other players. (Note: The DM is a player.)

You're being snarky, but hilariously, the ability to walk to the left is mechanical. Without at least a Dex score of 1 and a base land speed you can't walk, and there are many effects that can rob you of your mechanical ability to walk.

Additionally, if there's something actually resisting you walking to the left (the floor being covered in grease), you actually *do* roll the dice. That's part of what the Balance skill does. You can legitimately argue that "trying to walk to the left" is most of the time just a Balance check which has a DC so low that you automatically succeed, even with no ranks and a -5 ability modifier.

Utterfail wrote:You're being snarky, but hilariously, the ability to walk to the left is mechanical. Without at least a Dex score of 1 and a base land speed you can't walk, and there are many effects that can rob you of your mechanical ability to walk.

Yes, but on the average you don't need to roll to be able to walk, and likewise you don't have to roll for everything else either. It is when you have to put that one thing into the game that many people don't like....common sense.

One of the big complaints about skill challenges with 4th is still that it is "social combat". One side says it was done for those lacking social skills enough to talk during the game to do something, and at the same time to prevent DM fiat from unfairly denying people from succeeding at things because they are socially inept even to be able to play their own character.

That is when you change the DM, not add some new control for THEM to use. If they were abusing the players before, and since the DM runs the game; what makes you think the DM won't find a way to abuse the new system? So fix/replace the DM.

Another side says "skill challenges" streamline the game so you CAN just roll through the "social combat" and not have to bother with it. You can get back to the physical combat of the game quick (which is what is fun about the game) if you bypass that boring social interactions quicker.

Whatever happened to the side that likes roleplaying? The ones that don't need to constantly be rolling dice, and haggle with the merchants with real world words to encourage, and the decent DMs that could roleplay back.

If some people don't know how to do this, then when watching the DM and another play do it, they learn how. With always rolling dice, the roleplaying is being lost from the roleplaying game. It is just an adventure board game, where the character is your playing piece and you click the response or icon to signify the scripted action you wish to perform.

So like walking, most of the times other things can be done WITHOUT dice, and everyone needs to learn how to do them that way.

Futurama wrote:Gary Gygax: Greetings! It's a <rolls dice> pleasure to meet you!

http://www.veoh.com/collection/Fox-Futu ... 21xYtpT57m

Quantumboost wrote:Additionally, if there's something actually resisting you walking to the left (the floor being covered in grease), you actually *do* roll the dice.

Sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't. If Joe the fighter walks down to the local pub in the middle of winter, you don't say: "Roll ten Balance checks. Oh, you failed three, so you take 5 non-lethal damage from falling down a flight of stairs." Because that would just be a stupid waste of time and it wouldn't really advance the game.

TL; DR: Just because you can roll dice for some activity doesn't mean that you have to roll dice for every variation of it, every time.

hogarth wrote:

Quantumboost wrote:Additionally, if there's something actually resisting you walking to the left (the floor being covered in grease), you actually *do* roll the dice.

Sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't. If Joe the fighter walks down to the local pub in the middle of winter, you don't say: "Roll ten Balance checks. Oh, you failed three, so you take 5 non-lethal damage from falling down a flight of stairs." Because that would just be a stupid waste of time and it wouldn't really advance the game.

TL; DR: Just because you can roll dice for some activity doesn't mean that you have to roll dice for every variation of it, every time.

The answer to that situation is "Joe the fighter's player automatically takes 10 if possible when that would succeed". That's why you take 10, that's why taking 10 is an option. Slightly slipperly but roughly even ground only has a Balance DC of 2, even someone with Dex 1 can manage that if they aren't being rushed (i.e., not running).

On the other hand, if Joe is trying to walk across a slope covered in sheer ice, then you really are supposed to roll actual checks. Every round.

shadzar wrote:Whatever happened to the side that likes roleplaying? The ones that don't need to constantly be rolling dice, and haggle with the merchants with real world words to encourage, and the decent DMs that could roleplay back.

Roleplaying is not diminished by the presence of dice. Indeed, roleplaying is playing a role, not playing yourself. Social interaction is in effect no different than combat interaction. Most people are not super strong or fantastically dexterous, and most people are not social charmers and deal makers, but people play these types all the time.

There really is no difference between wanting to hit the guard with a mace to the face and trying to convince the guard that you really are a nice guy who loves children. Do you succeed or do you fail and how do you determine that? You could rely on the whim of the DM to decide. You could also rely on the roll of the die to decide. I remember the days when the DM used to roll dice behind the screen just to give the illusion that he was being fair; he never even looked at the result. I used to be one of those DMs.

Once again, the problem is the granularity of the social encounter system; it has to be the same level of granularity as that of the combat system. It’s not a one dice and everything works or fails but a matter of trying one thing, possibly failing and trying something else.

Unless: It is institutively obvious that the action will produce the desired result. But this is also a function of the notion of the RNG; rolls are only needed when there is a reasonable question on the success of the action.

“Noah how christens his ark with a bottle of bubbly.”
“Roll to hit.”

(I think you can automatically hit a stationary object the size of Noah’s ark. The same is true for some social skills.)

I still say a decent DM can work within the confines of his/her groups natural abilities.

I have seen MANY poor DMs since 3rd came out and made more people play, that DMs need to be taught again how to run a game.

So you have someone that cannot be so eloquent. If they can speak well enough to play the game, then they can attempt to sway someone during a social encounter and make their case, without having to let dice tell them if they pass or fail. A decent DM will be able to weigh the attempt with the player's nature, and say if it passes muster to pass the social encounter.

And the worst thing to say in this day and age is playing a role, is roleplay with the bastardization that 4th created injecting its "role system" into the game. I always disagreed with Gary's idea that no theatrics need be involved, in a game of imagination. You need to be able to talk for your own fucking character. They are in part an extension of the player, since they are controlled by the player.

"So you have someone that cannot be so strong. If they can punch well enough to play the game, then they can attempt to punch someone during an encounter and make their case, without having to let dice tell them if they pass or fail. A decent DM will be able to weigh the attempt with the player's nature, and say if it passes muster to pass the encounter."

Yes, because punching is so fucking a social encounter...oh wait! its a fucking combat encounter! But D&D is a real combat game right, so you should be able to perform the actual combat required in it...oh wait, it is a fucking social game!

Please remove your head form your ass so you will no longer spew forth shit when you open your mouth.

That strawman argument had been tired for over a decade Kaelik.

Punching is generally a social encounter unless you happen to be punching a bag is your basement.

shadzar wrote:Yes, because punching is so fucking a social encounter...oh wait! its a fucking combat encounter!

Do you even know what an analogy is?

Do you know what a strawman is?

An RPg is not a physical activity, but a mental one, therefore someone in a wheelchair can play and not need to prove they can walk in the fantasy world, because the fantasy world does not exist for them to physically perform the activity (unless you use some sort of true VR).

Therefore physical feats performed by characters need not be performed by the player, wherein social feats can be by opening your mouth* and speaking**.

*Steven Hawking can use his speech device as well anyone else without a working mouth that requires such.

**Sign language might as well be considred speech for it is the closest that can be gotten to verbal communication for those that never heard speech before.

So social events can happen via the player, not the game mechanics.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled attribute for casting spells, and other things not covered by the normal 6 stats associated with RPGs.

[/derail]

So why the fuck is Charisma a stat?

I understand it is physically impossible for anything you say or post to ever be even remotely not retarded, but this is ridiculous.

1) A Person is not charismatic, but is playing a charismatic character:

Your solution: NO DICE!

2) A person is not physically strong, but is playing a physically strong character:

Your solution: DICE!

"Therefore physical feats performed by characters need not be performed by the player, wherein social feats can be"

A social feat would be for example "convincing the opposition" or "seducing the sexy lady" These are things that many people cannot perform, period, at all.

But if their characters can in fact perform these actions, then you should in fact base it on their character.

By for example, having a Charisma stat and a Diplomacy skill. You'll notice those are in fact in the game.

So when your character needs to seduce someone, the correct response is to roll the fucking dice, to represent your character's ability, and not your own.

Kaelik wrote:So why the fuck is Charisma a stat?

Men & Magic wrote:Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth. Its primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract. This is not to say that he cannot hire men-at-arms and employ mercenaries, but the charisma function will affect loyalty of even these men. Players will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order to strengthen their roles in the campaign.

To tell how many Nodwicks you can have of course.

3rd screwed up the purpose of Charisma. It tossed out the things affected by it such as "loyalty base", "# of henchman", and "reaction adjustment to henchman's morale"; and replaced it with feats that use the score for their function that used to be based on actual roleplaying, such as "bluffing", "diplomacy", "gathering information", etc.

3rd changed Charisma from a roleplaying stat to a roll-playing stat.

Kaelik, don't waste your time.

shadzar is incapable of responding to a direct argument without posting some kind of ranting non-sequitur.

Sorry, but I did answer it even if you do not want to read the answer. From the 3-volume set through 2nd edition AD&D, Charisma was the same thing. When 3rd came out they changed it to be used with feats. Granted that was built from the optional rules of 2nd's NWPs...but they were optional and still included the henchman as the function of Charisma.

Of course Comeliness only lasted through OA, and UA, and didn't reappear in 2nd or afterwards for the "pretty" stat.

No, you ninny, Kaelik did not ask you about why Charisma was invented as a stat, he is asking you why should we keep Charisma as a stat if you want to make it useless or nearly useless.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:No, you ninny, Kaelik did not ask you about why Charisma was invented as a stat, he is asking you why should we keep Charisma as a stat if you want to make it useless or nearly useless.

And the answer is the same. For henchmen, familiars, etc. The very reason it was designed for. Also to tell you how NPCs react to you: hostile, friendly, or indifferent.

That is both why it was originally included, and why to further keep it if you so choose to.

As I said earlier on, You should be able to dump all the stats save for STR, CON, and DEX.

Seeing this thread was about (originally) creating a stat to suffice spells, then you may as well have one for dealing with your subordinates. There just happens to be one in place, if you want to keep it in its original form.

Kaelik came in with snark about a response I had to Tzor about DM in a roleplaying vs roll-playing sense.

You want to get down to bras tacks? Then why have ANY score other than a physical attribute that handles everything within the game world, and all the social is done by the player around the table in OOC comments and IC comments to the DM DBA an NPC.

So IF you keep Charisma, then the reason is the one it was built for. I never stated you HAD to keep it, just what to do with if IF you did.

So Shadzar's argument is that Charisma should apply to off-screen social interactions, like those that are involved in maintaining henchmen and cohorts, but not onscreen ones.

That's interesting and potentially viable in asystem that didn't use the d20+stat resolution mechanic. Intellect would be similar, allowing off-screen research and design but not applying to on-screen riddles.

Of course, at that point Strength would let you win wrestling matches and stuff off-screen or as a one-roll minigame, while having NO EFFECT on the full combat rules.

To be honest, there's potentially some value in stats that bypass, rather than being necessary to, the ordinary game rules. But you can't put those on par with stats that do impact the primary resolution mechanic.