The Art of Roleplaying OR Why I Hate DnD/Pathfinder [Opinion]

[LordHavelock]

Sounds to me like the problem is one with your group of players. If they're a RAW group (as you put it) then they're taking a very strict constructionist view of the rules. Granted, I'm with you in that I love systems like Shadowrun, FATE, and others that don't have defined character classes and instead let you run with a concept that you build on a point buy basis or what have you. As a player myself, I've run in to exactly what you have experienced, in that I can only get so creative with my character before I run in to the fact that the way the rules are set up, I'm going to have to compromise either my concept, or my characters ability to function effectively in their defined class and role (on or off the battlefield). That's not a fun choice to have to make, but most players want to keep things fair, and want to maximize their characters effectiveness, and that usually means compromising story and role play character elements (especially since that's what most groups want to do).

However, that's not every group. And as a GM, I've found the most fun I've had is when a character comes to me with an interesting concept, one that lies a little outside the realm of the rules (certainly outside the RAW standard) and together we flesh out exactly how this is going to function. Fact is, D&D and Pathfinder have specific rules for almost every situation, but it's at times like these that I like to capitalize on the fact that most players don't read all of them, or can't keep them all in mind all the time. As long as I provide a ruling that sounds fair, and they roll a d20 and apply negative and positive modifiers, the game moves on and everyone gets to have fun.

It sounds like your play group is on the whole, to Vanilla for what you like to get out of your role playing experience. They're probably their to kill monsters, get loot, and derive the most satisfaction from making their characters the best they can be, as opposed to your view which seems to be make the best character and not worry about maximizing returns on xp/loot.

[HalfGrammarGeek]

I concur with White Drake, unless you're playing a freeform system then of course mechanics will not change. 4e everyone gets the same amount of powers that just all seem bland and really number crunched. A zero level spell in 3.5 eg prestidigitation can do a wide variety of tasks and can be used creatively. Powers in 4e are pretty cut and dry with what they can and can't do, I personally prefer have the little bits of wiggle room that allow some creative freedom in the game.

Perhaps you've heard of the 4e Esstentials and psionic classes? Which differ significantly in number of powers and mechanics. And perhaps you've noticed that the 4e wizard also has cantrips, and that nothing in the rules say "Thou shalt use powers for combat, and never creatively." The only thing stopping you from using them creatively is your DM...which brings us back to the "It's your group/DM's fault" argument that Chained Icarus has been repeatedly told.

The fact that you prefer 4e and I prefer 3.5 means nothing, what is important is that we have found a hobby we both enjoy thus there is no need to argue which one is better but to just have fun and realize different people enjoy different things.

Agreed. I'd also append that there's no need to jump on the edition warrior bandwagon that Talya began and start throwing around passive aggressive comments about being bored to tears just because another game isn't to your liking. If you're truly confident that 3.x is an awesome game -- and it is, even if it's not my favorite -- there's no need to put down other games.

[HalfGrammarGeek]

@ HalfGrammarGeekYou want the core mechanic to change everytime you make an action?

I could ask a similar question in response to complaints that 4e is too "samey."

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Easily done in FATE. For a start, the swordsman maxes out Weapons, while the monk makes his highest skill Agility. So one is better with weapons, the other with dodging. Add a couple aspects like "Big Guy with a Big Sword" or "Trained in Tiger Style", and you get bonuses where they apply. Lastly, add a couple stunts, say one that increases the zweihanders damage, or increases agility when fighting groups, and there you have it: two highly distinctive fighters.

If anything, FATE is more distinctive. In fact, FATE easily lets you make two-handed builds (or staff-monk builds, or shadow-rogue builds, or builds of any character archetype you can think of) that feel different from one another.

[LordHavelock]

If anything, FATE is more distinctive. In fact, FATE easily lets you make two-handed builds (or staff-monk builds, or shadow-rogue builds, or builds of any character archetype you can think of) that feel different from one another.

God I love the FATE system for that ability. Especially Spirit of the Century. Never have I had a more diverse group of players with a better reason to be acting in concert as a party with more outrageous builds and backstories working so well in the context of the campaign.

[Arcanist]

Please tell me you see how self-contradictory your post is.

Think of it this way. A village elder can be considered all knowing simply because they've experienced much more then anyone else in the village. To be more accurate, Omniscience is technically impossible since that would imply you know everything that ever is, was and will ever be at which point you matter as well just put your head in a bucket and call it a day. Omniscience from the point of view of a finite species (i.e Humans) would be knowing everything that we as a species known. To summarize, If you are the first of your kind to make fire, you are the most intelligent person of your kind and by default the All-knowing elder (yes, even if you are a toddler).

No, you can't. Because as soon as you need to know anything (which, if you claim to be all-knowing, will probably be soon) it becomes pretty explicit that you're not all-knowing, or anything-knowing. All you're doing is roleplaying someone who's pretending to be all knowing and really isn't.

Having a high enough int score can easily replicate omniscient. Not as well as having max ranks, but it can get the job done. Hell a village sage could have an intelligence score of 12 and be considered omniscient since on average he knows more about a subject then anyone else would. Let's not even pay attention to the fact that "All-Knowing" can be replicated by a 2nd level cleric spell.

I have attempted formulating numerous replies to this, but I'm just really having difficulty here. So lets make this simple. This claim seems highly doubtful, and I think you need to make a much more detailed and compelling argument if you want your claim to be taken seriously.

Spells, a high enough modifier (wisdom or intelligence), masterwork knowledge tools (call it an Encyclopedia), but the thing about actual roleplaying is that it's all make believe. The funniest thing you can ever do to become All-Knowing is writing in your backstory "I've read from the Akashic Records" (which is as likely to get thrown out as fast as writing Knowledge (System Mastery) on your character sheet, but more or less the same thing, with another name).

In conclusion. Omniscience is relative to your cultures advances. A civilization could be a place where knowledge and education is honored and treated with great prestige or it could be a place where it is illegal to read and write. A more easier to understand example would be traveling back in time with a lighter and helping Cavemen discover fire.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That's an excellent summation.

Oh yeah. I never really got why people take the mechanics of ANY edition of D&D seriously, except as a way to stave off boredom. D&D, when compared to other game systems, has nothing going for it except for detailed combat (which honestly still isn't that much greater than other combat systems), disproportionate popularity, and more shapes of dice than other systems.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ Arcanist: "omnicience" doesn't work that way. Either you have it or you don't. In D&D nothing has it, so it's a concept that's completely irrelevant to the game. The closest anything comes are gods and wierds; creatures that know, or can learn in short order, so much information that they appear to know literally everything, even though they don't.

What you've described is simply having expertise in one or more fields of study, or simply being smarter or more travelled than those around you. These things can get you a reputation as a sage, but how well that reputation holds and how far it reaches depend on your ability to deliver information or advice when prompted.

The contradiction I was attempting to highlight was that several alternative mechanics were listed for fulfilling the sage role, followed by a statement that mechanics were unnecessary.

To be considered a sage, as you've described, requires that you have -some- mechanical aspect of your character be able to explain why you're percieved as such by those around you. On the level of a village, sure, a higher than average int or wis score will get the job done. For a small town that's not on any trade routes and the surrounding villiages, perhaps a rank in each of a few knowledge skills to uncap what you know.

If you want to be known as a sage on any grander scale than that, though, you're going to have to sink a noteworthy portion of your resources into it; either keeping a knowledge skill maxed, to be known as a learned person in that field, or one or another of the alternative mechanics such as bardic knowledge or lore, to be known as a person who knows many things. In all cases, you must be willing to share that information to be considered a sage. A guy with a bunch of knowledge noone knows about is just Tim, who lives in the house on baker street.

Alternately, you can be known as a sage who knows many things by being a player in the game. Setup an information network and use the information gathered in a seemingly helpful manner to manipulate the politics of the area around you. A decent wisdom and intelligence score and ranks in the appropriate social skills accomplish this nicely. Spellcasters can, naturally, accomplish this with copious scrying and other divinations, though they're likely as not to gain a reputation as more of an oracle than a sage depending on how they manage their image.

Bottom line: to be known as a sage at all has some basic RP requirements and to be known as a sage on a scale where such a reputation is meaningful -does- require mechanics to support it, though there's a broader array of mechanics for accomplishing this than was initially possited.

[Morbis Meh]

Agreed. I'd also append that there's no need to jump on the edition warrior bandwagon that Talya began and start throwing around passive aggressive comments about being bored to tears just because another game isn't to your liking. If you're truly confident that 3.x is an awesome game -- and it is, even if it's not my favorite -- there's no need to put down other games.

I never said 4e was a bad game I just said that i didn't like it and listed the reasons why I did not enjoy it. It was a completely subjective statement nothing more nothing less and no I have not heard or seen any of the references you pointed out since I will not put that amount of effort into something that i do not find entertaining. Personally I dislike any VS threads since they are pointless bickering among fanboys/girls I much prefer enjoying the experience for myself instead of trying to validate my positive feelings toward said activity by trouncing on someone elses.

[HalfGrammarGeek]

I never said 4e was a bad game I just said that i didn't like it and listed the reasons why I did not enjoy it.

You also used overly dramatic language to say why you don't like it, and you piggybacked on a flagrantly edition-war post. Imagine if Talya had said "All 3.x rules are ill-conceived, overly legalistic, confusing, overbearing and filled with loopholes." And then me piggybacking with "Yeah, I tried 3.x and the rules made me want ram an ice pick through my skull...hey, I'm just telling you why I don't like it." Yeah, I would be telling you about my subjective feelings about it. And I'd also be acting like a [four letter word] edition warrior.

[GolemsVoice]

Easily done in FATE. For a start, the swordsman maxes out Weapons, while the monk makes his highest skill Agility. So one is better with weapons, the other with dodging. Add a couple aspects like "Big Guy with a Big Sword" or "Trained in Tiger Style", and you get bonuses where they apply. Lastly, add a couple stunts, say one that increases the zweihanders damage, or increases agility when fighting groups, and there you have it: two highly distinctive fighters.

As I said, it's not universal, and my comment certainly was a generalization. I'm aware that this doesn't apply to every game out there

[White_Drake]

Perhaps you've heard of the 4e Esstentials and psionic classes? Which differ significantly in number of powers and mechanics. And perhaps you've noticed that the 4e wizard also has cantrips, and that nothing in the rules say "Thou shalt use powers for combat, and never creatively." The only thing stopping you from using them creatively is your DM...which brings us back to the "It's your group/DM's fault" argument that Chained Icarus has been repeatedly told.


Agreed. I'd also append that there's no need to jump on the edition warrior bandwagon that Talya began and start throwing around passive aggressive comments about being bored to tears just because another game isn't to your liking. If you're truly confident that 3.x is an awesome game -- and it is, even if it's not my favorite -- there's no need to put down other games.

I never said anything about 4th edition; you are jumping to conclusions. I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to make an effective argument against fourth edition. As for variety in 3.x mechanics, I would direct you to psionics, martial maneuvers, and maybe (never used it, so I can't say for certain) incarnum. I don't know why you're going on about how things can be used creatively in 4th edition, because A) I don't believe anybody challenged how it is possible to make creative use of your powers in 4e, and B) creativity translates into virtually any RPG, that's what makes them unique (as opposed to pre-scripted games such as video games).

[Hiro Protagonest]

I never said anything about 4th edition; you are jumping to conclusions. I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to make an effective argument against fourth edition. As for variety in 3.x mechanics, I would direct you to psionics, martial maneuvers, and maybe (never used it, so I can't say for certain) incarnum. I don't know why you're going on about how things can be used creatively in 4th edition, because A) I don't believe anybody challenged how it is possible to make creative use of your powers in 4e, and B) creativity translates into virtually any RPG, that's what makes them unique (as opposed to pre-scripted games such as video games).

Er, he wasn't responding to your post.

[White_Drake]

Oops... Well umm.... If any of that's still at all relevant the point stands...

[Spuddles]

Think of it this way. A village elder can be considered all knowing simply because they've experienced much more then anyone else in the village. To be more accurate, Omniscience is technically impossible since that would imply you know everything that ever is, was and will ever be at which point you matter as well just put your head in a bucket and call it a day. Omniscience from the point of view of a finite species (i.e Humans) would be knowing everything that we as a species known. To summarize, If you are the first of your kind to make fire, you are the most intelligent person of your kind and by default the All-knowing elder (yes, even if you are a toddler).



Having a high enough int score can easily replicate omniscient. Not as well as having max ranks, but it can get the job done. Hell a village sage could have an intelligence score of 12 and be considered omniscient since on average he knows more about a subject then anyone else would. Let's not even pay attention to the fact that "All-Knowing" can be replicated by a 2nd level cleric spell.



Spells, a high enough modifier (wisdom or intelligence), masterwork knowledge tools (call it an Encyclopedia), but the thing about actual roleplaying is that it's all make believe. The funniest thing you can ever do to become All-Knowing is writing in your backstory "I've read from the Akashic Records" (which is as likely to get thrown out as fast as writing Knowledge (System Mastery) on your character sheet, but more or less the same thing, with another name).

In conclusion. Omniscience is relative to your cultures advances. A civilization could be a place where knowledge and education is honored and treated with great prestige or it could be a place where it is illegal to read and write. A more easier to understand example would be traveling back in time with a lighter and helping Cavemen discover fire.

What the hell are you smoking.

[Gavinfoxx]

What the hell are you smoking.

Yea, I'm inclined to agree with this. Omniscience has a very specific definition, and very specific capabilities are required to get something like that in a D&D game.

[RFLS]

Perhaps you've heard of the 4e Esstentials and psionic classes? Which differ significantly in number of powers and mechanics. And perhaps you've noticed that the 4e wizard also has cantrips, and that nothing in the rules say "Thou shalt use powers for combat, and never creatively." The only thing stopping you from using them creatively is your DM...which brings us back to the "It's your group/DM's fault" argument that Chained Icarus has been repeatedly told.


Agreed. I'd also append that there's no need to jump on the edition warrior bandwagon that Talya began and start throwing around passive aggressive comments about being bored to tears just because another game isn't to your liking. If you're truly confident that 3.x is an awesome game -- and it is, even if it's not my favorite -- there's no need to put down other games.

I could ask a similar question in response to complaints that 4e is too "samey."

I never said 4e was a bad game I just said that i didn't like it and listed the reasons why I did not enjoy it. It was a completely subjective statement nothing more nothing less and no I have not heard or seen any of the references you pointed out since I will not put that amount of effort into something that i do not find entertaining. Personally I dislike any VS threads since they are pointless bickering among fanboys/girls I much prefer enjoying the experience for myself instead of trying to validate my positive feelings toward said activity by trouncing on someone elses.

You also used overly dramatic language to say why you don't like it, and you piggybacked on a flagrantly edition-war post. Imagine if Talya had said "All 3.x rules are ill-conceived, overly legalistic, confusing, overbearing and filled with loopholes." And then me piggybacking with "Yeah, I tried 3.x and the rules made me want ram an ice pick through my skull...hey, I'm just telling you why I don't like it." Yeah, I would be telling you about my subjective feelings about it. And I'd also be acting like a [four letter word] edition warrior.

I never said anything about 4th edition; you are jumping to conclusions. I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to make an effective argument against fourth edition. As for variety in 3.x mechanics, I would direct you to psionics, martial maneuvers, and maybe (never used it, so I can't say for certain) incarnum. I don't know why you're going on about how things can be used creatively in 4th edition, because A) I don't believe anybody challenged how it is possible to make creative use of your powers in 4e, and B) creativity translates into virtually any RPG, that's what makes them unique (as opposed to pre-scripted games such as video games).

Pretty sure strawberry with chocolate sauce is better, guys.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Pretty sure strawberry with chocolate sauce is better, guys.

What's wrong with you? Strawberry with chocolate sauce is a cheap money-grab from the ice cream makers who screwed over their loyal strawberry lovers, just so that they could attract a new fanbase.

You disgust me. You're such a choco-noob.

[RFLS]

What's wrong with you? Strawberry with chocolate sauce is a cheap money-grab from the ice cream makers who screwed over their loyal strawberry lovers, just so that they could attract a new fanbase.

You disgust me. You're such a choco-noob.

Yeah? Then what is it YOU think is best, snob? Jeeesh, freaking hipsters in here.

[White_Drake]

Actually, I dislike both chocolate and strawberry; I prefer vanilla. Call me boring if you must.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The best flavor is obviously vanilla, you can customize it with any ice cream toppings and it'll taste good!

[Snowbluff]

The best flavor is obviously vanilla, you can customize it with any ice cream toppings and it'll taste good!

Yeah. Chocolate ice cream always tastes the same no matter where you get it, anyway.

[Spuddles]

Yeah. Chocolate ice cream always tastes the same no matter where you get it, anyway.

Clearly you've never had a quality ice cream.


/not even joking
/takes ice cream way too seriously

[Snowbluff]

Clearly you've never had a quality ice cream.


/not even joking
/takes ice cream way too seriously

So you take the worst flavor, slap a Haagen Das label on it, and it suddenly grows quality? I think not, good sir.

Vanilla is strictly better, even if it were not for the variety you get by varying quality of ingredient.

And I am not talking double chocolate fudge chocolate ice cream versus chocolate variation #26 from the same company. I am saying, outright, that you can not get better chocolate ice cream.

/not even joking
/chocolate makes cheesecake bad too

[White_Drake]

/chocolate makes cheesecake bad too

Even if it's just chocolate chip cheesecake?

[RFLS]

So you take the worst flavor, slap a Haagen Das label on it, and it suddenly grows quality? I think not, good sir.

Vanilla is strictly better, even if it were not for the variety you get by varying quality of ingredient.

And I am not talking double chocolate fudge chocolate ice cream versus chocolate variation #26 from the same company. I am saying, outright, that you can not get better chocolate ice cream.

/not even joking
/chocolate makes cheesecake bad too

Woah. Woah. Chill out, dude. Vanilla's just so...vanilla. It's boring and there's nothing you can do to make it better.

[ThiagoMartell]

Woah. Woah. Chill out, dude. Vanilla's just so...vanilla. It's boring and there's nothing you can do to make it better.

You have obviously never heard of milk-shakes. They take the best out of vanilla and make it even better, without that pesky boringness.

[Snowbluff]

Even if it's just chocolate chip cheesecake?

Nah, the chocolate flavor is typically so strong that you can't taste the cheesecake anymore. Why eat cheesecake if you can't taste the cheesecake?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

So you take the worst flavor, slap a Haagen Das label on it, and it suddenly grows quality? I think not, good sir.

Vanilla is strictly better, even if it were not for the variety you get by varying quality of ingredient.

And I am not talking double chocolate fudge chocolate ice cream versus chocolate variation #26 from the same company. I am saying, outright, that you can not get better chocolate ice cream.

/not even joking
/chocolate makes cheesecake bad too

Freaking grognard.

[Snowbluff]

Freaking grognard.

You do know that is a compliment when you say it to me? I like being considered hardcore. Sets me apart from the mouth breathing meme lovers. Yeah I know I am being a jerk, but meme people treat me poorly.

So I thank you, mister.