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

[Zubrowka74]

You find cocoa butter in some hand creams. Are those chocolate?
Also, depending on local food labelling rules, I don't think you even need cocoa butter for white chocolate.
Of course, 'ware anything that says 'chocolaty' or 'fudge'.
The worst I ever saw didn't even include cocoa, just fat, flavour and colour.

Well, if people settle for chocolate NOT made with cacao butter it's THEIR choice ;)

But more seriously, of course white "chocolate" is not chocolate anymore once you take out the only other element that comes from the cacao bean.

You find cocoa powder in scented candles or other non chocolate products, does this make "brown" chocolate not chocolate ? And since this thread has already derailed more than it should have, you also find fish parts in lipstick, seeweed in milkshakes and pork gelatine in yogurt. (double yuk)

[Ravens_cry]

Well, if I was vegan or of a religious persuasion that cared about those things, yeah, I'd care.
But truly I say unto thee, only when the cocoa and the butter art combined in one mass, with some measure of sugar so as to be palatable, and milk if that art thy thing (though without be also scrumptious), only then dost it be True Chocolate*.
* I really, really apologize to any scholars of Early Modern English in the audience for any ignorant mistakes.

[Snowbluff]

Well, if I was vegan or of a religious persuasion that cared about those things, yeah, I'd care.
But truly I say unto thee, only when the cocoa and the butter art combined in one mass, with some measure of sugar so as to be palatable, and milk if that art thy thing (though without be also scrumptious), only then dost it be True Chocolate*.
* I really, really apologize to any scholars of Early Modern English in the audience for any ignorant mistakes.

I think the existence of White Chocolate speaks volumes about what people like about the treat. The texture! I wonder what would happen if the chocolate flavor was entirely replaced with kola or coffee (2 similiar, caffeine bearing beans).

[Ravens_cry]

I think the existence of White Chocolate speaks volumes about what people like about the treat. The texture! I wonder what would happen if the chocolate flavor was entirely replaced with kola or coffee (2 similiar, caffeine bearing beans).

Coffee goes well with chocolate, but I wouldn't want to replace it.

[Unusual Muse]

Which is the harder bridge to cross? Where you need permission or know your favorite color?

Depends on whether you're using Core-Only swallows or allowing swallows from splatbooks.

[White_Drake]

Well, if people settle for chocolate NOT made with cacao butter it's THEIR choice ;)

But more seriously, of course white "chocolate" is not chocolate anymore once you take out the only other element that comes from the cacao bean.

You find cocoa powder in scented candles or other non chocolate products, does this make "brown" chocolate not chocolate ? And since this thread has already derailed more than it should have, you also find fish parts in lipstick, seeweed in milkshakes and pork gelatine in yogurt. (double yuk)

The point was that cocoa makes chocolate chocolate, and therefore the removal of it changed so-called "white chocolate" into something else entirely. Cake has butter in it, does this mean that butter cookies aren't butter cookies? Of course not.

[Alabenson]

Depends on whether you're using Core-Only swallows or allowing swallows from splatbooks.

Everyone knows European swallows are completely broken; you should use African swallows instead.

[White_Drake]

Everyone knows European swallows are completely broken; you should use African swallows instead.

It took me entirely too long to get that reference.

[navar100]

I like chocolate and white chocolate, but if it's not churned by waterfall then it's inferior quality.

[Optimusnorm]

It's both, really.

I just feel other systems contribute more to actually roleplaying, and get caught up on rules less.

I agree D&D is not the first system of choice when thinking of deeper, richer roleplaying. I have been gaming since the late 1980s and only know one D&D group that has any kind of rich roleplaying experience...and that group uses heavily modified AD&D rules.

As others have said though it is ultimately the fault of the group not the rules. Yes some systems are just better at encouraging roleplaying over min/maxing and numbers but it will always be the group first and the game system second.

Hate to say this but you have outgrown your group and need roleplayers not roll players.

O.

[Talya]

Because it's bad. Time and time again I come across really cool character concepts (not always mine, other people's), or story ideas, or whatnot that would be fun and fantastic to play... But the rules don't support them. Yes yes yes, I know, the front of the book says "Always open to the group to pick and choose the rules, blah blah blah." But what if you're in a group that is a RAW group? (RAW = Read As Written. Taken literally. Etc. Etc). I deslike RAW. I've always, always hated RAW in any system. But Pathfinder/DnD seems to run into it the most.Most character concepts, too, because of the rules, can't be done VIABLY. Say I want to be a staff-wielding martial artist - Similar to Son Wukong of legend (the Monkey King, you uncultured...). CAN I be? Sure, there's a quarter-staff and I can wield it as a monk. But the staff itself is pretty weak with no real way to fix that, and almost all the monk abilities want you to be unarmed. And yeah, you can play around mixing and matching classes to get the powers you want to make it work, but it becomes increasingly harder and harder to, plot wise, justify why your character is suddenly picking up some of these abilities.
...
4th was different. It encouraged different. Sure, it was more "gamey," but it allowed SO MANY MORE OPTIONS for how a character PLAYED, and made so many choices "purely cosmetic," but it let me do more with a story and a concept.4th was widely rejected by my friends, so we adopted Pathfinder (3.7 edition of DnD, really).

Really? 3.x/PF lets you play anything. Sure, some things are harder to make work than others, but there's always a way to make a concept work "viably."

4e only lets you play one thing. Every class is cookie-cutter identical...there's no variety. It's not just that the choices are purely cosmetic - the cosmetics are bad. No matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, it still looks like a pig.

[JusticeZero]

Grab a DM screen and run a game. Ban core. My last campaign banned all arcane and divine casting in favor of lots of psionics, and it worked great. Next one, I get to play with Akashic and PoW stuff. And some funky races. And no elves or dwarves. Seriously, push the envelope of your playgroup.

[Yahzi]

I don't like Pathfinder, or DnD.

If you're playing your characters solely for their mechanical differences in combat, you're going to get bored of pretty much any game system pretty quickly.

What you need to do is stop focusing on how your character achieves things, and start thinking about why he does.

It's true that the mechanics of a game system affect the kinds of stories you can tell. You're not going to have effective murder mystery adventures in a world with Zone of Truth and Speak with Dead. But the desire to change the world - either to impose justice or merely to make a safe place to raise your family - is universal.

I suggest running a character who has a dependent child, say a 3 year old. Think about every adventure, every action, in light of how it affects your goal of providing for your child. The mechanics of your class simply become a tool by which you achieve that goal, rather than the focus of the game. I would even suggest you roll up a character randomly to get started.

[Talya]

merely to make a safe place to raise your family

Ah, Necromancy is always fun.

[Oko and Qailee]

It's both, really.

Group is set on one game, exactly how it's written.

Exactly how it's written is dull, limited, and does not encourage players to try fun things for the sake of Roleplaying.
.

Except your post doesn't reflect that, you even made the fleshed out character within the rules, proving that the system isn't limiting. The problem seems to be your group.

The idea that RAW doesn't let you do stuff is false, by RAW you can nearly build every fictional concept or character, you just have to want to dig deep enough or be creative enough or use psionic fiends of possession enough.

[Flickerdart]

Except your post doesn't reflect that, you even made the fleshed out character within the rules, proving that the system isn't limiting. The problem seems to be your group.

The idea that RAW doesn't let you do stuff is false, by RAW you can nearly build every fictional concept or character, you just have to want to dig deep enough or be creative enough or use psionic fiends of possession enough.

OP hasn't been active on the forum since January. This thread has been dead for two years. You're not going to get much out of addressing him.