Ah, a breakthrough, I think.  

Quote from: beejazz;308490I'm pretty sure they don't. (?) Did I imply that was their purpose?

It's possible you didn't, and I was reading too much into something.  Likely, it was my turn to  mis-interpret the word 'act':

QuoteThe rules don't determine how you play a role. They determine whether an action succeeds or fails based on circumstance and how players act.

With your clarifications, it appears that you are saying the die roll is modified by the actions of the characters, ie; if the players hand the guard a fish sandwich, they might get a penalty to the bluff check, but more likely they will simply fail.  In other words, the players' actions before the skill check are a factor in the skill check.

QuoteI'm not arguing for it, as if there were anything wrong with the alternative. I'm only arguing that it's valid.

Agreed, I didn't want to imply that a skill check was wholly useless in every circumstance.  There are certainly situations where a skill check is appropriate, even in games without an extensive skill system.

QuoteI was maybe making the mistake of conflating roleplaying with character interaction specifically. One can have rules for character interaction and still roleplay. As you said, that's what I was getting at, even if I was careless about it.

Unrelated things being rules for character interaction and playing a role. They still appear unrelated to me, but maybe I'm not the one to be accusing you of conflating them, as it appears I made the same mistake carelessly. Dropped the ball.

It seems that you are referring to the characters' interaction with the rules, which is also a valid topic.  I was referring to the characters' interactions with each other or NPCs in referring to that as free-form.  Much like a random encounter table, I can see the benefit to some random determination of NPC reactions, I just prefer not to unless absolutely necessary.

QuoteAll valid solutions. The skill system does not prevent a person from doing any of those things. It expedites faster, easier alternatives, but if players want to eliminate the chance of failure, researching the guard rotation schedule or getting a valid appointment would be ideal ways to go.

Common sense + dice rolls = win.

I prefer to avoid dice rolls when possible in those situations, but it sounds like it works for your group.

QuoteI still don't see how those options are eliminated by the presence of dice.

I didn't mean to imply they are eliminated, my apologies if it came out that way.  In my experience, the options tend to be reduced or limited, however.  I understand that may not be a problem for everyone, in either the implementation or execution.  So, some groups may have the standard response list for a skill check, "I look at the walls, the floor, the ceiling, etc." then roll for Check Traps.  If the session isn't a Tomb of Horrors style where finding the danger is the point, poring over every square inch of a wall would be a session drag.

QuoteI'm not sure why a guard would let PCs out of the city against orders to check on his family; dice don't stop me from using the ambush idea (DCs are secret... players won't know they failed and that the real reason they were allowed through is altogether different); maybe the fact that they aren't covered doesn't prevent them from happening because there is a GM at the table whose job it is to decide these things. If only things in the rules were possible, old school games would be more restrictive, not less.

I didn't want to break up your paragraph, but the first part is addressed below.

Regarding vintage games, they are generally written to as not to even attempt to cover every situation.  If that was the intent, I would have no choice but to agree; they are wholly unsuited for the task.  The design intent is to provide overarching guidelines and let the individual groups fill in the gaps.  I realize that doesn't work for everyone, and has been pointed out in regards to the latest edition, it absolutely sucks for convention or 'sanctioned' play.  Hence, the rules have been evolving towards a more standardized design, which necessitates filling in most of those gaps.

Naturally, more rules = more rulebooks = more cash, too.  

QuoteAbsurdity happens. My players broke into a noble's library and were caught. They tried to convince him they were from the church, taking donations, as if that would make it any better. Like I said, I reserve the right to autofail the absurd, but the DC would still have been astronomical even if I decided to let them roll.

But that is still an arbitrary decision, right?  What sounds absurd to you may be perfectly reasonable to a couple of sleepy guards in the middle of the night who are rather irritated they pulled the shit detail.  In real terms, setting the DC to 35,000 is no different than simply deciding the guards are on high alert for whatever reason.

For myself, a skill check is a way to gauge how the character is better than the player at a particular skill.  The player might have some goofball story about taking donations for the church, but what the character says might be more along the lines of "The Church sent us over to inspect the library to insure there aren't any improper materials stored here.  Of course, if the proper fee for owning such materials were to be paid..." or something to that effect.  Perhaps the guards wander off to get these 'funds' or to check with the Captain of the Guard.  I don't see that attempt as an automatic failure, but I also don't want to tell you how to run your games.  

In general, I have found skill systems more useful to players that are not confident in amateur play acting, for example, or simply don't have the real-world skillset to emulate something within the game.  Rope Use, for example:  I can tie just about three different kinds of knots, but if I am playing a Rogue that has a high skill rank in Rope Use, I would expect to simply describe the kind of effect I am going for, or simply to set the DC of the escape attempt.  Of course, it would be beneficial for the game if I were to hit a couple of Boy Scout or sailing links and get a list together of common knots and what they are used for.  Not strictly required, however, as the skill check for tying the knot simulates my Rogue's knowledge of ropes and such.

QuoteAnd this is what I'm saying is false. It does not have the same odds at all. And this in the rules as written.

Unless it was a feint in combat, that shit wouldn't fly in the rules as written. At the very least the DM needs to know what you're trying to convince the guard of.

We will just have to disagree on this for the moment, then.  I don't recall the DMG providing specific advice on what constitutes a penalty or bonus.  I do recall a paragraph stating that bonuses should be given out in increments of one or two due to balance issues, however.  But it doesn't really state this situation or that circumstance would be a +2 or a -1.

But then, I wouldn't really expect them to.  That is something that really needs to be left up to the DM and the group.  No list could possibly be exhaustive on the subject, any attempts are doomed to failure.

QuoteOkay, it isn't to fix anything broken, and you can do all this without rules, but I happen to like the rules.

Well, there you go, then.  Sounds like it works out well for your group.  Happy gaming!

QuoteTake an example from stormbringer. He's got some valid points and what's more he supports them. It's more constructive and makes for better reading.

Thank you, I find our exchange to be informative as well.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308597I'm not sure about that. TMNT & Other Strangeness and both copies of the AD&D 2e PHB (old style and black cover) that I owned had "Introduction to Roleplaying" sections. In fact, I learnt what roleplaying was from reading the TMNT & Other Strangeness section as a child. It's a fairly stock section in a lot of RPGS (don't all of the various versions of Vampire contain a section on what roleplaying is?)

Ok, hold on to your hats, folks - I'm unveiling some of my issues that I've been writing down for my PHB critique here, since they apply directly to Pseudo's issues. For the record, I have around 10 so far and I'm only to page 30.

I'm talking about the difference between 3e and 4e, not 4e and books from 15 years ago. 3rd Edition did not intend to appeal to new gamers, it was meant to spur sales to established players who would, in probability, bring in newbies on their own. 4e is primarily (in my opinion) designed to hook NEW players because most Old Players have several hundred dollars invested in 3.0/3.5 books that WotC doesn't want to sell anymore. They made a new shiny, and they took MMOs as their template. For god's sake, it SPECIFICALLY NAMES ROLES for the classes as "controller, defender, leader, and striker" (p. 15 PHB) and states that "The classic adventuring party includes one character of each role - wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue." Note that those ROLES come directly from MMO terminology - this is not something WotC invented. Also, the ability to "retrain" - go back and change an earlier skill, feat, or power each time you level (p. 28 PHB) is directly from MMOs. I "retrained" my talents in Warcraft the other day - I didn't have to wait to level, I just had to pay gold to do it. But that is a FUNDAMENTAL change from any RPG I've ever played before - D&D or otherwise. Once you know something,you know it - shoulda planned better. But "retraining" has always been a part of MMOs.

And you know what, that is fine - since 3e came out, MMOs have become the Standard for on-line gaming (and note - nobody calls them MMORPGs anymore. Why is that?) - no reason not to translate it to the tabletop. I'm not complaining. I'm simply stating what seems to be the case.

Also, your counter-argument that the DMG better explains the social resolution system - fine. I haven't read the DMG yet. I'm starting with the PHB - the book that came first, and the book that PLAYERS are supposed to read. So all I have to go on so far is what I've read. My only real-world 4e experience so far had a DM reading blocks of text ,calling for a diplomacy check, and then reading the appropriate text from the next block - hardly Shakespearian. But again, I'm sure you CAN Roleplay as much as you'd like. Not the point. I still contend that the game is designed to foster hack-n-slash, not sip-n-chat, and nothing I've read so far changes my mind. As I read more of the book(s), I might change my impression.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308588That you think of rules as "concrete" is pretty silly. They are by their very nature abstractions. You may be unfamiliar with the notion of "empiricism". I would suggest beginning by consulting a dictionary.

As opposed to the role-playing part, they are concrete.  As in, they are the words on the page that describe the mechanics of the particular game.

Language itself is an abstraction.  You don't get points for tautologies.

QuoteSo you agree with me? Also, no one said anything like "we don't use skill challenges in our D&D games". Are you pretending to quote me, or simply making things up?

Didn't you just scold someone for a reading comprehension issue?

QuoteAnd? It certainly would be a drastic deviation from the rules as written. It would also be perfectly fine with me so long as there were reasons for doing so.

We are talking about the rules as written, not your interpretation thereof.

Werekoala, that latest posts of your solidifies my impression that you are one of those blessed souls who picked up the 3E core books early on (in 2000 or 2001), left WotC at its supplement tread mill, and now scream murder and mayhem on picking up the 4E core books in 2009. It's a bit like Sleeping Beauty.

Let me tell you: a lot happened in those intervening years while you were away. You won't have an easy time digging up stuff you find repusilve about 4E that didn't first appear in 3E. Retraining? That's an old story, when WotC introduced in Player's Handbook II for 3.5. And yes, it got totally boo-booed down for mimicking MMOs back then. And, just to forestal a similar observation, reattaching enhancement bonuses from one magic item onto the next via "power crystals"? That's 3.5 as well.

But bring them on. As I indicated, it's endearing to listen to a fellow 3E-gamer who hasn't been exposed to the pile of crap that WotC poured onto D&D well before the advent of 4E.

Quote from: Windjammer;308624Werekoala, that latest posts of your solidifies my impression that you are one of those blessed souls who picked up the 3E core books early on (in 2000 or 2001), left WotC at its supplement tread mill, and now scream murder and mayhem on picking up the 4E core books in 2009. It's a bit like Sleeping Beauty.

Let me tell you: a lot happened in those intervening years while you were away. You won't have an easy time digging up stuff you find repusilve about 4E that didn't first appear in 3E. Retraining? That's an old story, when WotC introduced in Player's Handbook II for 3.5. And yes, it got totally boo-booed down for mimicking MMOs back then. And, just to forestal a similar observation, reattaching enhancement bonuses from one magic item onto the next via "power crystals"? That's 3.5 as well.

But bring them on. As I indicated, it's endearing to listen to a fellow 3E-gamer who hasn't been exposed to the pile of crap that WotC poured onto D&D well before the advent of 4E.

You're exactly right. The only 3.5 book I own is the DMG that I bought because I had moved and needed a replacement, and they didn't have 3.0 books. We still use Immovable Rods for Pete's sake. The consensus of my group was that 3.5 was a money-grab by WotC. Again, we had tons of books already, why "upgrade" when for the past 4-5 years 3.0 seemed to work fine?

So for the record, sounds like some of my bitching might just be due to the fact that I missed the 3.5 party.

Quote from: Werekoala;308628So for the record, sounds like some of my bitching might just be due to the fact that I missed the 3.5 party.

That would have to go for me as well.

I got the 3.5 Core Rulebooks and then found the stuff that interested me wasn't from WotC, but from Third Party Publishers like Privateer Press, Necromancer Games, Fantasy Flight Games, Goodman Games, Green Ronin, and Paizo. So I didn't buy or use the WotC splatbooks that came later. I've only glanced through the 3.5 PHB2, but didn't read it in depth.

Quote from: StormBringer;308620As opposed to the role-playing part, they are concrete.  As in, they are the words on the page that describe the mechanics of the particular game.

Language itself is an abstraction.  You don't get points for tautologies.

Are you sure you understand what the terms "abstract" and "concrete" mean? Your usage of them there is idiosyncratic at best.

QuoteDidn't you just scold someone for a reading comprehension issue?

Indeed I did. In the language I speak (often referred to as "English"), one of several uses, the most common use in fact, of the quote-marks is that the text inside excerpts or repeats another's statements. That's why I asked. You put text inside quote-marks. A reasonable question, since you don't appear to be quoting anyone on this thread, is who you are quoting?

So I ask once again, who are you quoting, or did you just make up some text and stick it inside some quotation marks? And if so, why?

QuoteWe are talking about the rules as written, not your interpretation thereof.

Actually, we're discussing both, and how one relates to the other. Once people started making claims about how people play 4e (and Hairfoot, for example, has done just that), my play experience of 4e becomes directly relevant.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308689... did you just make up some text and stick it inside some quotation marks? And if so, why?

I do that all the time, because it's fun. Then again, I don't speak English, I speak American, and we're allowed to do crazy shit that don't make sense with that language

Sometimes, I wonder about some of you guys.  Have people like Hairfoot never seen another RPG in the last 30 years?

Pretty much every RPG since OD&D has included social interaction type skills.  Even the other two grandfathers of the RPG, Traveller and Runequest, included some social interaction skills.

I mean, its all good and well to carry on about how 4e is ruining role-playing, but it seems pretty fucking ignorant to base the argument on the fact it uses rules and die rolls for social interactions.  D&D has been doing that for at least 10 years.  Everybody else has been doing it for 30.

Actually, if you play the RAW and use the Reaction Rules, that was just a die roll combined with a modifier for charisma score.  So I guess maybe D&D has had some die rolls in it all along...  :rolleyes:

This is the same nonsense as the whole "reducing searching a room to a die roll" argument.  Which was also bullshit (oh wait, the old D&D rules also had flat-out die roll rules for thieves and elves to automatically find shit...)


See - that's the main problem with these arguments - the whole "4e is so different!!!" crap is nonsense.  People have been resolving searches and interactions with NPCs for 30 years now, in both D&D and pretty much every other RPG.

Does 4e possibly go too far?  Maybe.  And the skill challenge system is certainly a half-baked mess.  But don't act like the trend hasn't been there for the last three decades.

Including social interaction skills =/= making them the primary way of resolving social interactions.

I've played GURPS since 1989 or so. I always put points into social interactions - guess I just like the way "Diplomacy-14" looks on the old resume. I could tell you, probably to within 5, how many times I've actually ROLLED those skills as the primary, or even secondary, method of resolution since 1989. Same with 3e, although I usually DON'T put points into social skills there - because we always roleplay the social interactions. Well, talk through them at least. Anyway, althought those skills are on the list, I'm trying hard to remember when either 3e or GURPS stated that social interactions should be resolved with rolls.

In the context of the letter and spirit of 4e, I think the complaint still has validity.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308689Are you sure you understand what the terms "abstract" and "concrete" mean? Your usage of them there is idiosyncratic at best.

It really isn't.

QuoteIndeed I did. In the language I speak (often referred to as "English"), one of several uses, the most common use in fact, of the quote-marks is that the text inside excerpts or repeats another's statements. That's why I asked. You put text inside quote-marks. A reasonable question, since you don't appear to be quoting anyone on this thread, is who you are quoting?

So I ask once again, who are you quoting, or did you just make up some text and stick it inside some quotation marks? And if so, why?

Ah, "...the most common use..."  In other words, there are other uses?  Perhaps someone would be so kind as to "enlighten" you as to the other uses; I know, it seems redundant with your self-professed mastery of English.  "Time for the grammar Nazi!" is the usual battlecry of people well out of their depth, after all.

QuoteActually, we're discussing both, and how one relates to the other. Once people started making claims about how people play 4e (and Hairfoot, for example, has done just that), my play experience of 4e becomes directly relevant.

Not really.  You want it to be, but I have already been over this.  This banal theory of yours isn't relevant here, as we are really discussing how the rules are presented at the moment.

This one time I read a trilogy of books and it had all sorts of dialogue in it, all of which was inside quotation marks.  Quotation marks out the yin-yang.  Then someone told me that the Cyborg Commando novels are fiction and nobody ever said any of that stuff.  What a ripoff! Who do I speak to about getting my money back?

Quote from: Sigmund;308718I do that all the time, because it's fun. Then again, I don't speak English, I speak American, and we're allowed to do crazy shit that don't make sense with that language

As much as I don't care for the direction at times, that is what happens when a living language evolves.  New grammar, new words, new phrases.  Did you know, for example, that all new verbs in English are invariably weak verbs?  Strong verbs appear to be a remnant of our Saxon background that have survived for a thousand years or more.  Verbs that have been recently introduced all take the -ed suffix.

See?  It is fun.  

Quote from: StormBringer;308737As much as I don't care for the direction at times, that is what happens when a living language evolves.  New grammar, new words, new phrases.  Did you know, for example, that all new verbs in English are invariably weak verbs?  Strong verbs appear to be a remnant of our Saxon background that have survived for a thousand years or more.  Verbs that have been recently introduced all take the -ed suffix.

See?  It is fun.  

That's what I'm sayin'

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308582No, I'm claiming that to claim that the books of 4e have an "intent" is silly. I also think any intent they might possess (perhaps because they are inhabited a ghost?) is unimportant.
.

I haven't seen this line of reasoning since Justin Achilli tried to claim the Vampire books couldn't POSSIBLY be Pretentious because they were inanimate objects. And he was an Editor so he would know.

God it was glorious.  Why is no one trying to pull Psuedo into a quick recreation of that?  I demand BLOOD!

Bah. This thread's gone anemic. I'm headed back to the Gay thread.