Dungeons and Dragons 4E

[kris]

That's the whole point. Even if you as a player suck at bluffing, your character does not. This would be impossible without skill checks.

It's not a player being sucky, it's a player being lazy. I make the roll and let the numbers take care of the problem, no 'tactics' involved.

Thats why a double approach is preferable. In the end though I think players should do what they feel is best. Take away skill rolls and players may end up playing themselves, but at the same time, if you take away skillrolls then they have more opportunity to roleplay their character. They suck at bluffing? then a good roleplayer should come up with something patethic.

this would demand more on the gamemaster that plays everyone and always have to adapt, he is better off using rolls at least as a guideline.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

You're being unfair, obediah. It was clearly said that "I roll bluff" or "I lie to X" is despicable, but no, why read when you can piss over other forum-goers instead? Why try to be a gentle, well-mannered person when you can froth from your mouth? Why indeed?

Because this is the Codex?

 

[Lumpy]

I think this previously suggested attempt is best: the player chooses the argument, and the roll decides whether he is successful.
Since I don't care about PnP, I'd like to see this in RPGs - different [intimidate] choices, some with higher DCs, some with lower, some impossible to win. It's up to the player to use his best judgement, and up to the character to plead the cause.

 

[Lumpy]

If you actually want to speak for your character or think about what your character would say/do then you are just a larp fag.

More or less, yeah.

 

[Jasede]

Roleplaying is all about "thinking about what your character would say/do". Sorry to break those news to you.

 

[Lumpy]

Obviously. But somehow, due to my complete lack of PnP experience, I can't comprehend standing around a table, and saying "Foul troll, you shall face my wrath for killing these citizens."
A mock interview with an important figure might warrant full phrases, but if I were ever to play PnP, I can't picture myself saying anything more than "Threaten to hit the troll. :d20:"

 

[Volourn]

Meh. It should be based on the CHARACTER skill; not PLAYER skill. It's called ROLE-PLAYING; not ACTING. There's a HUGE difference.

 

[Jasede]

That's what I meant earlier!

 

[Ismaul]

All roleplaying should be handled just like combat, with a few quick rolls and get the story going. If you actually want to speak for your character or think about what your character would say/do then you are just a larp fag.

The thing is, there is next to no story if you don't know what characters and NPCs say. Think of how Torment would be without knowing what they say, just rolling to see the result instead:

"You see: Ravel. What do you do?"
You have the Bluff skill, Diplomacy, Gather Info and Knowledge (whatever). With no thinking what your character would say, then the options all amount to which skill you use on the NPC. Nowhere near as interesting as actually having a conversation.

Also, how do you do deliberations, multiple checks and back and forth between PCs-NPCs by only rolling?
"I roll Diplomacy to convince him."
"He doesn't want to follow you."
"I roll Diplomacy again to convince him."
"He refuses."
"I roll Bluff instead to deceive him."
etc...

Fucking boring, if you want my opinion. That's why the best way is to have "fag larping" conversations with a framework for skills built on to complement and rule them.

 

[Lurkar]

Jasade, and I don't mean this ironically, ever play Exalted? Sounds like you might like it.

As for social or fighting skills, eh, sometimes players get into it, sometimes they don't. Personally, I see players MORE often get into using social skills then in combat. In villages, towns, and whatnot, players can be (or TRY to be) sneaky or very wordy with how they do things; not always to fool the NPC they're trying to out-bluff, mind you, but to occasionally try to make the DM not notice their botched roll so much. Combat, on the other hand, will 99% of the time degenerate into...how was it said? Ah, yes. "No matter how epic the battle, once begun, the thing sounds more or less like a bingo game: People shout out numbers and other people get excited about them."

 

[Oarfish]

Fucking boring, if you want my opinion. That's why the best way is to have "fag larping" conversations with a framework for skills built on to complement and rule them.

It works prety nicely in Incursion - playing a talker is a totaly viable path for any alignment.

 

[Human Shield]

Ah, no, it's not the male players who pretend to be female: there really are quite a lot of female players who play WoW, some as hardcore raiders/PvPers even. The point, though, that part of it is the medium and--more importantly--the ability to conceal the fact that you're female. There's also the visual aspect; people who are into videogames aren't necessarily also into tabletop.

That is why they are rolling out their D&D online software thing.

 

[obediah]

Meh. It should be based on the CHARACTER skill; not PLAYER skill. It's called ROLE-PLAYING; not ACTING. There's a HUGE difference.

lulz. Did you play PNP RPGs before computer RPGs? There's a reason "Roll Playing Game" is a derogatory term.

Besides it's WRITING/IMPROV, not ACTING.

But the market has spoken, and RPGs are moving towards MMORPG, CCG, and diablo mechanics and away from actual role-playing.

 

[Ismaul]

Meh. It should be based on the CHARACTER skill; not PLAYER skill. It's called ROLE-PLAYING; not ACTING. There's a HUGE difference.

lulz. Did you play PNP RPGs before computer RPGs? There's a reason "Roll Playing Game" is a derogatory term.

Also, role-playing is not about a character playing itself. It's about the player playing the character. You can't separate entirely player from character.

More, it's actually against the idea of roleplaying to try and separate to the max player and character. People roleplay to experience something they can't in real life. To do that, they must have attachment to the character and interest in the character. The way they roleplay is directly in relation with why they play it that way. So there's a lot of the player in the character. A player could even learn things about himself by roleplaying.

So, "acting" is actually nearer from roleplaying than relying only on character skill aka roll playing.

 

[Volourn]

"lulz. Did you play PNP RPGs before computer RPGs? There's a reason "Roll Playing Game" is a derogatory term."

I don't play roll playing games. I play role-playing games.

If I wnated to be ana ctor as wlel, I'd be one. I'm a role-player. I play a role; not myself.

Perhaps you shouldn't play REAL role-playing games, and stick to adventure games.

R00fles!

 

[1eyedking]

Social interactions, as I said, are a different beast.

If we are to follow a strict line of logic, a player describing his attack better should be allowed the same circumstance bonus another player gets when making his speech attempt more elaborately.

In order to avoid this, you can either remove circumstance bonuses entirely (which would lead to the aforementioned player laziness in dialogues), or remove speech checks entirely.

I, as a DM, in order to avoid mechanical gaming, opt for the second choice.

How is this any different than "I attack, using power attack"? It is lazy. The player could say "I swing my sword in a wide, reckless arc, attempting to strike a mighty blow against the troll."

Should the second automatically hit since he described it better?

I remind you, I don't use skill checks, so what you've said holds nothing on my word. Besides, one thing is to describe an action, another is to actually do it. When you're making a speech check and start speaking for your character, you're actually doing that action. It's not the same thing.

 

[Human Shield]

Perhaps if you want to act out story you would use different rules then a miniture war game on the squad unit scale.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

I remind you, I don't use skill checks, so what you've said holds nothing on my word. Besides, one thing is to describe an action, another is to actually do it. When you're making a speech check and start speaking for your character, you're actually doing that action. It's not the same thing.

So everything except combat is based on the arbitrary whim of the DM, and character skills are unimportant. The player will succeed if you want them too, and fail if you do not. It is best to focus on combat, since all social interaction is taken care of without skill checks. The bard has just become much less useful, as do certain types of rogues.

I just came up with a clever lie to get past a guard, but I am playing a stupid, uncharismatic half-orc. Does the lie succeed?

 

[Ismaul]

I just came up with a clever lie to get past a guard, but I am playing a stupid, uncharismatic half-orc. Does the lie succeed?

Which is why you combine both methods, talking it out and skill check. You came up with a clever lie? Circumstance bonus.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

I just came up with a clever lie to get past a guard, but I am playing a stupid, uncharismatic half-orc. Does the lie succeed?

Which is why you combine both methods, talking it out and skill check. You came up with a clever lie? Circumstance bonus.

Which is exactly what I have been arguing for.

 

[1eyedking]

Which is why you combine both methods, talking it out and skill check. You came up with a clever lie? Circumstance bonus.

I came up with a clever way of attacking. I thrust instead of swinging, circumstance bonus?

So everything except combat is based on the arbitrary whim of the DM, and character skills are unimportant. The player will succeed if you want them too, and fail if you do not. It is best to focus on combat, since all social interaction is taken care of without skill checks. The bard has just become much less useful, as do certain types of rogues.

If you have whimsical, arbitrary DM then yes. Otherwise, no. And it's quite the opposite: you now have to focus more on social interaction since the "1. I roll Diplomacy 2. ??? 3. Profit!" formula no longer works.

I just came up with a clever lie to get past a guard, but I am playing a stupid, uncharismatic half-orc. Does the lie succeed?

No. Tell it to your intelligent party member (metagame) so that he or she can say it.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

Which is why you combine both methods, talking it out and skill check. You came up with a clever lie? Circumstance bonus.

I came up with a clever way of attacking. I thrust instead of swinging, circumstance bonus?

There are plenty of ways to get circumstance and bonuses in combat by doing more than saying "I attack." They just tend to be hard-coded in the rules. There are cover, flanking bonuses, fighting defensively, etc. They require thought to use properly, and they can be ignored, resulting in your character being less effective.

Saying "I thrust instead of swinging" is just as lazy as saying "I lie to the guard."

 

[Gladi]

I came up with a clever way of attacking. I thrust instead of swinging, circumstance bonus?

Bright day
I force my oponent into way of my half-ogre's mate huge mace... circumstance bonus?

More, it's actually against the idea of roleplaying to try and separate to the max player and character. People roleplay to experience something they can't in real life. To do that, they must have attachment to the character and interest in the character. The way they roleplay is directly in relation with why they play it that way. So there's a lot of the player in the character. A player could even learn things about himself by roleplaying.

There may be people (wierdoes) who might see construction of character different from them as a form of intellectual exercise.

 

[SkeleTony]

Of course skill-checks are needed, else you might as well LARP rule-lessly ala Oblivion players. A character must have choices depending on set, hard-coded skills. That has always been the Codex' credo and I support it both in P&P and in games. Skills are a tool to help you express your character's development in numbers and tie his abilities to them. Those numbers in turn offer choices and those offer consequences. A great system.

100% agree with this. Get rather sick of these "free form"/no numbers-based exercises trying to force themselves into the "RPG" classification. LARPing is gay.

 

[kingcomrade]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... entic=true
www.bugmenot.com

They released the Elf entry for 4E:

Racial Traits

Average Height: 5' 7"-6' 0"
Average Weight: 100-130 lb.

Ability Scores: +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom
Size: Medium
Speed: 7 squares
Vision: Low-light

Languages: Common, Elven
Skill Bonuses: +2 Nature, +2 Perception

Elven Accuracy
Elf Racial Power

With an instant of focus, you take careful aim at your foe and strike with the legendary accuracy of the elves.

Encounter
Free Action
Personal
Effect: Reroll an attack roll. Use the second roll, even if it's lower.

lol, they're so accurate sometimes they get less accurate

Elven Weapon Training: You gain proficiency with the longbow and the shortbow.
Wild Step: You ignore difficult terrain when you shift (even if you have a power that allows you to shift multiple squares).
Group Awareness: You grant non-elf allies within 5 squares a +1 racial bonus to Perception checks.
Elven Accuracy: You can use elven accuracy as an encounter power.

Elf Characteristics: Agile, friendly, intuitive, joyful, perceptive, quick, tempestuous, wild.
Male Names: Adran, Beiro, Carric, Erdan, Gennal, Heian, Lucan, Peren, Rollen, Soveliss, Therren, Varis.
Female Names: Adrie, Birel, Chaedi, Dara, Ennia, Farall, Harrel, Iriann, Lia, Mialee, Shava, Thia, Valenae.

Hahaha
And then you can read the rest of the fluff about how elfs are all sensitive and shit on your own.

I believe I found the new Hallfing concept art