The infamous 'RPing beats rolling' rule

[ArqArturo]

I'll admit it. I'm guilty of using this rule.

Sometimes also called 'the Rule of Cool', I usually use it when I have players that don't care for optimization, but, they do care about playing their characters. For example, the party's sorcerer lost an arm, and is adamant of not getting a replacement/regeneration as quickly as possible because 'it breaks the feeling of loss', and it cripples him in a lot of ways (spellcasting, for one). But, he does roleplay his character rather well, so when he does something cool, I either let it go at it, or give him a buff to complete what he's trying to achieve. Another case is the Ranger, who is somewhat optimized, but also roleplays a lot, especially if his previous attacks failed.

This of course upsets the player RPing the Druid, who is heavily optimized; he argues that what is the purpose of him taking the right feats/skills/items to perform well, if the guy playing the sorcerer is going to do things just as good as before, sans an arm and he happens to really like his sorcerer. The druid player, however, is sort of a plank of wood when it comes to roleplaying, which suits him fine since his character is a dwarf.

This argument (coming from that one guy) happens commonly during combat. So, am I being too lenient with the Rule of Cool?.

[TheIronGolem]

Any specific examples you can provide?

[Ellowryn]

I think you should make it clear what you are planning to let slide and what not. As the Dm if you want to allow for buffing players that RP then thats something that needs to be made clear, because otherwise the player that planned and stated his character to do the same thing will feel like there is no real purpose for all the work he did if the other players can wing-it as good or better than him. Skills are there for a reason, if you choose to ignore them then make sure every player knows which ones that are so they can plan around it.

[nedz]

There are many different ways of playing this game and none of them are the right way — though a few are the wrong way.

It sounds like you and your Sorcerer player have similar play-styles, whilst your Druid player has another.

As a DM you either run a game which fits the play-styles of all of your players, or eventually you will have fewer players. A compromise on this is not always possible, and may not even be desirable. Most groups contain a variety of play-styles.

[Slipperychicken]

it cripples him in a lot of ways (spellcasting, for one)..

Characters only need one free hand to cast spells with somatic components.


Cast A Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell)

To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Characters only need one free hand to cast spells with somatic components.He also needs to handle material components... Eschew Materials suddenly seems like a good feat.

Then again, how is it good roleplaying to have Regenerate available in universe and not immediately go put your arm back on? Rule of Cool altering mechanics is one thing, but I personally hate it when Rule of Cool trumps basic logic and consistency - unless the game/system/campaign is all about silly action hero stuff.

The way the OP phrases it makes the Druid player sound petty. Either he is, or he's being misrepresented. In his shoes I would definitely wonder how much my choices actually mattered if they were just going to be altered after the fact based on the DM's subjective evaluation of the coolness of my action.

Someone mentioned in the WBL thread that a lot of people play D&D as a "light" game when it really isn't, just because D&D is popular. May I suggest FATE or one of its derivatives? In that game, you get actual built-in mechanical bonuses to having these kind of bad things happen to characters.

[squiggit]

Yeah I'm not sure how much the Druid is being petty and how much he's being caricatured.

On the one hand, doing something sufficiently awesome and hand waving the roll because it's awesome is fine. It's annoying to everyone involved when a cool plan just doesn't work because of a bad roll and.. That's it.

On the other hand I can sympathize with the druid's potion. I've been in games where I go out of my way to try to build something only to bump into a DM who, several sessions into the game decides he's just gonna handwave that stuff away. It feels like a personal slight (especially since GMs usually play favorites here) and makes all the work I put into the character feel like a waste.

So I guess the answer here depends on how muh I an ass the Druid is actually being, how much this "rule of cool" is overshadowing him and whether he gets to be just as "cool" as the sorcerer.

The particular example doesn't seem egregious though and doesn't even really require much adjucation.

[tyckspoon]

He also needs to handle material components... Eschew Materials suddenly seems like a good feat.


I would swear somewhere it says you can do material components and somatic with the same hand, so you still have a hand free to do things like hold onto your staff or make use of a Metamagic Rod. Having trouble tracking down the actual rule, tho.

[neonchameleon]

When RPing beats rolling you're using the wrong system. Simple as that. D&D is not a generic system and it looks as if you're wanting to play something closer to Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/) than D&D 3.X. (Fate's also pretty awesome this way).

[nedz]

When RPing beats rolling you're using the wrong system. Simple as that. D&D is not a generic system and it looks as if you're wanting to play something closer to Dungeon World (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/) than D&D 3.X. (Fate's also pretty awesome this way).

Good point.

For real rule of cool you should perhaps go system less, because if the rules don't matter: why have any ?

[ryu]

Good point.

For real rule of cool you should perhaps go system less, because if the rules don't matter: why have any ?

Alternatively go play exalted. It's rule of cool the game.

[TuggyNE]

I would swear somewhere it says you can do material components and somatic with the same hand, so you still have a hand free to do things like hold onto your staff or make use of a Metamagic Rod. Having trouble tracking down the actual rule, tho.

Not sure there's a rule for that, but I think it's strongly implied; material components don't necessarily occupy a hand (for very long).

However, thanks for reminding me of this, I have some homebrew to polish a bit more! :smallsmile:

[Qwertystop]

Alternatively go play exalted. It's rule of cool the game.

Not quite. The fluff is, but the rules are quite clunky.

[Eldest]

When RPing beats rolling you're using the wrong system. Simple as that. D&D is not a generic system and it looks as if you're wanting to play something closer to Dungeon World (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/) than D&D 3.X. (Fate's also pretty awesome this way).

A heads up, my antivirus pinged the site as a threat. Might want to take the link down till you're sure it isn't.

[ArqArturo]

Yeah, changing systems is another alternative I've thinking, either Savage world or nWod. Alternatively, a friend suggested Rifts, but I've played it, and I'm not touching that with a standard issue ten foot pole.

[RegalKain]

I think it's something to sort out ahead of time, and in the end sit all of your players down, and tell them that as the DM, you sometimes feel the need to fudge things to ensure the game runs smoothly, I had a player in my old group who insisted that I roll infront of the group (using the BESM system at the time.) because he felt I was cheating every roll, whenever someone demands I roll in public I tell them, that I won't fudge it in their favor if it goes badly, less then fifteen minutes later and perhaps 8+ crits in a row, the party was wiped out completely, I pointed at the player who demanded to see my rolls and told him he got to help everyone with new characters this time. Morale of the story? You're the DM, you have to ensure your game runs smoothly and everyone enjoys it, if the Druid is the odd-man out, approach him, explain to him that in this group RPing plays a big part in the system as well, sometimes bigger then the crunch does.

Or play BESM, which has a loose rule set, any type of character can be made in it, and it pretty much says several times throughout the book (2nd edition revised is what we use.) "If the DM says it happens, it does, there doesn't have to be a reason" but it's meant to be an anime, over the top style system as well, there are even rules stating that if certain things have to large a modifier you don't even roll, it just auto-happens. (No chance for crits in either direction as far as the game is concerned.) It's a good system to look into honestly. May be your group's style.

[Totema]

Honestly? I like RPing in conjunction with rolling. The RPing tells what the character tries to do, and the rolling tells how successful they are. It leads to all kinds of memorable moments, especially when an overconfident player fumbles a roll and needs to backpedal like crazy to save face.

[jedipotter]

This argument (coming from that one guy) happens commonly during combat. So, am I being too lenient with the Rule of Cool?.

Maybe? Kinda depends what your doing.

If a character has some sort of penalty, then you should enforce the penalty. If your not going to enforce it, then don't even bother doing it. The penalty might make the game ''uncool'' for the player....but then that is the point of a penalty. A curse is made to ruin a characters day. Can the player work around or even overcome the penalty? Of course! That is part of the fun of penalties. But should the DM randomly change stuff to be cool? No.

I'm the sort of Killer DM that goes after and destroys spellbooks. This is a huge handycap to a wizard, and they have to struggle to rebuild a spellbook. (it often happens in some hostile place like The Abyss, where the character can't just go to town and buy a new spellbook all video game-like) The wizard has to find other ways to be useful, like say using nets and bolas, as they can't blast away with spells. But for the DM to say ''Woah, ok, lets just say your character can eldrich blast with magic for 1d6 a level at will as that would be cool'' is wrong.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Honestly, when it's someone with a really suboptimal build (like...anyone w/ a majority of their levels in monk, for example) or having really horrible luck, and they come up with something cool but mechanically can't catch a break...I'm ok with bending the rules once in a while to let that person do what a more competently built or lucky person could have reasonably achieved within the bounds of the rules.

The dark side of what you've labeled "Rule of Cool" is when it's used to tell a player he can't get the NPC to be his best-est friend despite a 40 diplomacy roll just because he didn't say anything particularly moving. Or when you allow over-the-top stuff like "drop a crate full of acid flasks on that guy do to like a million damage!" and then the players start wondering why something relatively pragmatic like that was a one time only thing.

[Darkweave31]

I'm not entirely sure why people are saying that their group is playing the wrong system, or do they mean playing the system wrong.

No system will ever really be perfect for every group, which is why the role of the GM is there to make up for the shortcomings of the system and adapt it to their individual group's preferences. Trying new systems outside D&D is great and can help you find one that gets closer to what you're looking for, but right now the OP is in the middle of a D&D game that the players are enjoying.

That said, excellent roleplay should remain excellent regardless of the success or failure of the dice. Some of the most memorable roleplaying experiences happen during the failure. Just something to keep in mind when you "rool of cool" things. Besides if it is truly deserving of that title, failure should only make it more epic.

[Alex12]

Not sure there's a rule for that, but I think it's strongly implied; material components don't necessarily occupy a hand (for very long).

However, thanks for reminding me of this, I have some homebrew to polish a bit more! :smallsmile:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040810a


Since manipulating a material component (including a focus) is part of casting the spell, it's best to consider the hand that holds the material component or focus as "free" for purposes of completing a somatic component
Probably the best we're going to get on the subject.

[Blackjackg]

Generally, I'm all for the rule of cool. But I find I'm actually in agreement with neonchameleon: D&D 3.X/PF is not the system for cool to trump mechanics. It's permissible to be cool, of course, but you've got to pay for it by allocating some of your character-building resources (such as class levels, feats, etc.).

To wit, if you have a sorcerer who wants to be able to cast one-handed? Great, that sounds awesome. But if the rules don't permit it (it sounds like they do, but let's make pretend for the moment), you've got to at least burn a feat. If there isn't one that accomplishes exactly that, make a custom one-- being able to do something one-handed that one normally does with two is certainly in the right ballpark.

It'd probably be frustrating for the player to have to burn a feat for something that is, essentially, an aesthetic choice... and I'm very sympathetic to that. But that's the way this particular game runs. Pull too hard on that thread, and the whole system starts unraveling.

[BWR]

Short answer: if your group is fine with the way you're doing things, you aren't doing anything wrong. If the group is not fine with the way you're doing things, you are doing something wrong.

Longish answer: The Rule of Cool, as you put it, is fine as far as it goes, but there are certain systems it's better employed in. Unless explicitly put into the rules rather than just generic GMing advice, RoC should be used sparingly. The more complex the rules, the less I feel you should just gloss over them. You have chosen to use a certain system for whatever reason, and I tend to think that you should stick to rules you have established. House ruling and homebrewing is one thing - you are making a definitive statement about how something should work in just about all foreseeable situations in the game. RoC runs the risk of contradicting previous rulings, and reducing much of the game to arbitrary decisions based on what you feel like at the time. If everyone is fine with this, there isn't a problem, but I know players who dislike the rules of the game being ignored any time the DM feels like it.

The problem of applying two different standards to players is a bit more tricky. In this case I agree with the druid player, for all that I don't much care for optimization and prefer roleplaying to playing the table-top version of 'click your choice adventure'. You have chosen to use a certain set of rules and one player uses them and you are basically devaluing his choices and his accomplishments by allowing others to do the same without the benefit of the rules. It's sort of like working hard for any sort of achievement because the rules say you have to do X in order to get Y, then seeing someone else given Y without X because they are so darn cute - it's going to bug some people.
If the different level of optimization between characters is a problem, set limits on what players are allowed to bring to the table.

[TuggyNE]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040810a


Probably the best we're going to get on the subject.

Huh, yeah. At least RAI is quite clear, and RAW seems at least not unfavorable.

[NichG]

For those saying that you should enforce a penalty given by the rules, etc, etc - D&D 3.5 doesn't actually have a way in the rules for you to lose an arm. Regardless of Rule of Cool, if someone is taking a penalty purely for cool RP, it makes just as much sense that good RP could let them get around that penalty.

This actually sounds like one of those rare cases where I'd say that one of the players (the Druid, if its not clear by my post) is strictly in the wrong, at least as far as the missing arm thing goes. Its not mechanically unbalancing since that penalty of a lost arm shouldn't by the rules be there in the first place (no rules-based way to obtain that condition), and its not making the Druid's 'feats, skills, and items' moot in any way - thats pure hyperbole and is basically just misdirected griping. In such a case I'd tell the player of the Druid to mind their own character and stop trying to interfere with other players' fun or police their play.

[Eldan]

I've found that it helps to formalize things like that a bit.

In some rounds, I've introduced the concept of fate points (from the game system FATE, obviously) into D&D. The basic idea is something like this:

-Every player gets a fate point. Fate points can be used to change the ways in various small ways. Make a list. Things like rerolling a die or getting a bonus on a roll when you really need it. Look up action points, basically.

-The DM can give a new fate point whenever the player does something that is disadvantageous from a purely technical standpoint, but is in character.

It works pretty well, it's not too strong and it is codified, so it's a bit more fair.

[Tengu_temp]

If "RPing beats rolling" is an infamous rule in your cicles, then you need to switch your cicles. It's a rule every good DM uses - sometimes occasionally, sometimes all the time. A DM who just treats the game RAW all the time is a bad DM, and might as well be replaced by a computer.

Also the druid player is a douche, for complaining that you give other PCs bonuses so they can keep up with his highly optimized druid. What does he want, leave them behind in the dust and steal all the spotlight himself because he's the best optimizer?

[huttj509]

Honestly? I like RPing in conjunction with rolling. The RPing tells what the character tries to do, and the rolling tells how successful they are. It leads to all kinds of memorable moments, especially when an overconfident player fumbles a roll and needs to backpedal like crazy to save face.

I like roll first, then describe. I mean, ok, you failed, but you, the player, get to decide WHY you failed.

[huttj509]

If "RPing beats rolling" is an infamous rule in your cicles, then you need to switch your cicles. It's a rule every good DM uses - sometimes occasionally, sometimes all the time. A DM who just treats the game RAW all the time is a bad DM, and might as well be replaced by a computer.

Also the druid player is a douche, for complaining that you give other PCs bonuses so they can keep up with his highly optimized druid. What does he want, leave them behind in the dust and steal all the spotlight himself because he's the best optimizer?

So you like when the shy introvert is trying to play a charismatic character and keeps failing because he's trying to play a character who's personality/skills are radically different from his own?

Or the guys who tank their charisma, because they know that it's their personal conversation skills that actually matter in the game?

[Mnemnosyne]

For example, the party's sorcerer lost an arm, and is adamant of not getting a replacement/regeneration as quickly as possible because 'it breaks the feeling of loss', and it cripples him in a lot of ways (spellcasting, for one). But, he does roleplay his character rather well,
I will start with this. I would consider this extremely poor roleplaying. Someone who loses an arm, has a method to restore it to perfect functionality with no downsides and no side effects, and intentionally chooses to avoid doing so, is not believable. Could you imagine yourself making that choice? Could you imagine anyone you know making that choice? I can't, at least not without there being some further reasoning for it in-character, and it would have to be a pretty strong reasoning. Removing the feeling of loss is kind of the point, because no rational, sane person wants the feeling of losing their arm if it can be replaced easily and with no downsides or side effects. About the only reasonable explanation I can think of offhand is if they wanted to get something like a fiendish graft to replace it, so they wind up with a better arm. That, or they can't afford a regeneration spell. If neither of those is the case, I find it difficult to imagine a plausible reason that I would in any way consider good roleplaying, to not regenerate one's arm as soon as possible. They're not putting themselves in the mind of the character, or playing the role of the character; they're creating arbitrary drama in an implausible way, the same way it's often done in movies and TV where we roll our eyes and find it ridiculous that the characters don't do something that's obvious to us as viewers, and makes no sense for them not to do.

That said, and for other incidents, I would make it absolutely clear at the outset which things you intend to bypass with your 'rule of cool'. I would be extremely upset if I invested skill points or a feat into something that, it turns out, I didn't need to do that with, because you're bypassing that requirement. Establish clearly what rules can be bypassed, and the players can plan around it. The druid player (ideally) won't feel his choices are invalidated because now he knows what he can do, what character resources he doesn't have to spend, and he can get into doing it that way as well if he so chooses.

I also like Eldan's suggestion of an action point system where players earn action points for doing things in character when they would give them a mechanical disadvantage...but as I said above, make sure the action actually is in character, and not just an artificial means of adding drama. Put yourself in the mind of the character as a reasonable person (or an unreasonable person, if the player is playing a crazy character) and ask yourself if this mechanical disadvantage is truly in-character, or if it's just something the player is arbitrarily doing that is actually poor roleplaying.

[HighWater]

I'll admit it. I'm guilty of using this rule.
...
This argument (coming from that one guy) happens commonly during combat. So, am I being too lenient with the Rule of Cool?.
I'd say yes. In spite of what NichG has said, there are some ways to lose an arm "by the rules" (although they are very niche) as well as plenty of story options. There is no specific condition associated with it, but there are plenty of parts in the rules that deal with the downsides of only having one arm available (TWF, THF, shields, officially items worn in pairs such as gloves and bracers also won't work without two arms free, I'm sure there's more). Spellcasting requires one free hand, the sorcerer can still cast spells, he just can't carry around something else (such as a weapon) in the meanwhile without making the spell both stilled and eschewed.

Your sorcerer said he's not replacing the arm because 'it breaks the feeling of loss'. And there you go, granting him all kinds of stuff negating the arm being an actual loss. Losing an arm should never be "just a cosmetics" thing. It's not a hidden scar, it's the loss of one of 4 major limbs, if the sorcerer gets to play as if he hasn't lost an arm while paying no kind of opportunity cost, you basically gave him a RoC free arm... He should either find a way to play the game straight, with only a single arm, or he should reconsider his position on regeneration like any sane person who regularly goes into dangerous combat situations would do, if the means were available. Giving him a "free arm" isn't "Rule of Cool", it's babying him so he doesn't have to deal with his condition.

I sympathise with the Druid. You said he is "sort of a plank of wood when it comes to roleplaying". Have you considered the option that he probably can't do that much better? He's being held back, because all this "quick-thinking rules-be-darned, just sweet-talk the thing"-stuff just doesn't come naturally to him. So he works hard to make himself viable, by looking up the actual rules and putting a lot of energy into a build that will actually work, to show that he really ís invested in the game although "RP" makes him feel awkward. He works at it, and produces something that will work, and then his ranger buddy goes "yeah, I mucked up a bunch of times this combat, but I'm gonna do this and that regardless", although he shouldn't be able to do that at all, and you go "yeah that sounds pretty kewl". I'd feel pretty mistreated too.

[Svata]

Personally, I, and most of the DMs I've had, would give circumstance bonuses to the rolls if the player roleplayed the situation well.

[Eldan]

Oh yeah, that too. What Svata said. Nothing major, mind you. But just the odd +2/-2 circumstance modifier for a good description is fine.

[Coidzor]

RoC is one of those things that I find best used sparingly to avoid dilution, in no small part because once something becomes par for the course, it isn't really cool anymore.

That, and people overuse the term and misapply it to things that just... really aren't cool to begin with far too often. Causing it to degrade until it's like saying "epic" or, worse, "awesome." :smalleek:


Not sure there's a rule for that, but I think it's strongly implied; material components don't necessarily occupy a hand (for very long).

However, thanks for reminding me of this, I have some homebrew to polish a bit more! :smallsmile:

Color me intrigued. :smallamused:

[neonchameleon]

A heads up, my antivirus pinged the site as a threat. Might want to take the link down till you're sure it isn't.

Link edited to the other useful one (Mine doesn't have a problem - but no sense not playing safe)


Yeah, changing systems is another alternative I've thinking, either Savage world or nWod. Alternatively, a friend suggested Rifts, but I've played it, and I'm not touching that with a standard issue ten foot pole.

Avoid the WoD - the oWoD realised that their rules were not fit for purpose and rather than fixing them they wrote screeds about "Roleplaying not Rollplaying". As for Rifts, yeeeaaaahhhhh.

But seriously, what you need to do is sit down with the player of the druid and ask what they get from the game mechanics and roleplaying. Because that might tell you what they are after, both to resolve the clash and to find a system that fits you all.

[TuggyNE]

I'd say yes. […] Spellcasting requires one free hand, the sorcerer can still cast spells, he just can't carry around something else (such as a weapon) in the meanwhile without making the spell both stilled and eschewed.

What you're actually saying here appears to be "no, not at all". The question is not, as I understand it, "do we just ignore the need for a free hand entirely", but "does spellcasting with one hand and material components even work at all"? To which the answer seems, normally, to be "yes", but here, far from over-indulging in rule-of-cool, the OP does not permit it. If anything, that's not rule of cool enough.


Color me intrigued. :smallamused:

Oh. It was just a fairly minor update to some existing homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?306203-School-Foci-or-Annihilating-Material-Components-(3-PF-magic-system-tweak-PEACH)), which replaces some other bits of spellcasting (notably, material components on most spells) without significantly affecting balance, except for some slight positive changes. (It's now slightly easier to have your casting partially or largely disabled by sunder or theft, expensive material components are no longer free to cart around, and some things are a bit more expensive for spellcasters.)

[Alex12]

For those saying that you should enforce a penalty given by the rules, etc, etc - D&D 3.5 doesn't actually have a way in the rules for you to lose an arm. Regardless of Rule of Cool, if someone is taking a penalty purely for cool RP, it makes just as much sense that good RP could let them get around that penalty.

This actually sounds like one of those rare cases where I'd say that one of the players (the Druid, if its not clear by my post) is strictly in the wrong, at least as far as the missing arm thing goes. Its not mechanically unbalancing since that penalty of a lost arm shouldn't by the rules be there in the first place (no rules-based way to obtain that condition), and its not making the Druid's 'feats, skills, and items' moot in any way - thats pure hyperbole and is basically just misdirected griping. In such a case I'd tell the player of the Druid to mind their own character and stop trying to interfere with other players' fun or police their play.
I'll point out that the penalties for limb loss can be extrapolated. The Hand of Tyr feat (City of Splendors: Waterdeep) grants a bonus as long as you don't use (or are missing) your right hand. It also spells out the penalties you suffer.
"Since you are using only one hand, you cannot fi ght with two weapons, wield a two-handed weapon, or fight with a one-handed weapon and a heavy shield. You can fight with a one-handed weapon and a light shield, but you cannot use your shield hand to hold other objects such as a holy symbol, spell components, or a light source. (This means you must use your weapon hand to cast spells, so you might have to drop or sheathe a weapon when you wish to cast a spell requiring your holy symbol or somatic components.) You take a -4 penalty on Climb, Disable Device, Open Lock, and Tumble checks. You can only gain the benefit of wearing one magic ring. If you previously considered yourself right-handed, you suffer no penalty for using your left hand as your primary hand. Handedness isn't defined in the game; the point of the vow is to restrict yourself to using one hand)."

So you like when the shy introvert is trying to play a charismatic character and keeps failing because he's trying to play a character who's personality/skills are radically different from his own?

Or the guys who tank their charisma, because they know that it's their personal conversation skills that actually matter in the game?
This, so much. If I make the Diplomacy roll, I shouldn't have to actually be Charismatic, any more than I should have to actually be strong to play a character who is.

[HighWater]

What you're actually saying here appears to be "no, not at all". The question is not, as I understand it, "do we just ignore the need for a free hand entirely", but "does spellcasting with one hand and material components even work at all"? To which the answer seems, normally, to be "yes", but here, far from over-indulging in rule-of-cool, the OP does not permit it. If anything, that's not rule of cool enough.

I agree that my statement was somewhat ambivalent due to my desire to also clear up an apparent RAW issue (without clearly denoting such), while advocating against using Rule of Cool to "solve" everything. I got the feeling that the OP would allow for quite a few non-RAW/RAI things, while accidentally only mentioning RoC-fixing a "problem" that isn't really much of a problem by RAW. There are two issues here, I'll be more methodical this time:

Issue 1: Original Poster's example is not something that requires a RoC-fix in any way:
Letting a sorcerer cast spells with his one hand is completely RAW-legal as far as I can tell. "Rule of Cooling" this is an absolute misuse of the term. It's not RoC, it's RAW.

Issue 2: Rule of Cooling a character to do stuff that he really just can't do with a missing hand, or should be much harder than with two hands:
Letting the sorcerer cast regular somatic/component spells with his one hand, while that one hand is also carrying a light crossbow that he gets to shoot at no penalty, would be a houserule, and nót RAW. (Depending on how much of the arm is missing, the aiming penalty might be waivable if it can still function to steady the weapon.) I am against these kinds of "RoC"-fixes, for the previously mentioned reasons.

The OP could perhaps clarify what other "cool" things he lets the Ranger and Sorcerer do? As pointed out several times now, the sorcerer could still cast spells without suffering penalties other than being unable to wield something else in the meanwhile (and similar problems you'd expect when missing an arm, you know, actually experiencing a loss). If your other RoC-fixes turn out rules-legal we have very little to discuss.

[Trasilor]

Rule of Cool should be extremely limited. Like an epic rope swing/free fall from one flying airship to another while leaping off the heads of the flying lizard-monkey folk only to align your spell to shoot through the porthole to blast the enemy captain as a last ditch effort to not die. (Maybe playing too much Exalted :smallamused: )

For me, as a DM, it usually an all or nothing, last ditch attempt. Otherwise, it loses its value. Consistently allowing the player to narrate the encounter invalidates the D&D system and make the Rule of Cool become mundane. Why bother putting ranks in anything when I (the player) can create an incredibly visual scenario that 'looks/sounds cool'?

By the way, I think the sorcerer is being manipulative. They are choosing to have a disability b/c it allows them to do things they wouldn't normally be able to do. Ask yourself, "If he had both his arms, would I allow him to do this?" If not, he has turned what should be a huge disadvantage into an asset.

[Vedhin]

I'd say the Druid is in the right here. HighWater above hit the nail on the head: some people just plain aren't good at roleplaying. They are also the ones who typically focus on the mechanical aspects of the game. Now look at it from the Druid player's point of view: without the "Rule of Cool", the Druid is better mechanically and the others better with roleplaying. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. With the "Rule of Cool", the others get mechanically better when they come up with good roleplaying, but the Druid doesn't roleplay better when he comes up with good mechanics. It's inherently asymmetrical.

[Sewercop]

My problem with rule of cool is that it invalidates other characters choices in many instances.
The druid player migh be questioning why he even botherd with some choices if they have no impact on the game at all. If something he has built for are being handwaived for other characters there is no reason for him to have the feats,skills,spells etc at all. The gamemaster sets a presedence for the game when he ignores rules. And that is the essence of all rule of cool discussions. In a set of rules like dnd alot of actions are coverd and has mechanical effects on the game. Rule of cool changes these permanently.

In this case the druid raises a legitimate case. Why even bother doing something when the gm ignores the rules he has built for? What is the point of playing when he faces on set of rules and the other players gets to ignore them? It is favoritism even if it is not intentional.

The campaign im in has a GM that got a hardon for bards since he always plays them himself. Ignoring the fact that other players have more in Lore,skills or spells etc. Doenst matter the bard always gets the information,quests,praise,status etc no matter what. It is annoying.

You have a ship,vehicle,plane,chopper,space freighter in any game... It is bound to get messed with, ignoring any rolls,skills,spells because rule of cool. (at least in our campaigns) So players straight up say no pilots,drivers cause we know the skills are ignored.

Funny thing, the best players i have seen through 20+ years of gaming are minmaxers,optimizers and players with an understanding of the game. Other may disagree, but rule of cool for me is mostly lack of system mastery and playing favorite.

ps. The sorceror is a horrible roleplayer for his choices wich makes no sense at all. The gm is way to lenient and the druid should get a cookie and a free slap to deliver to either the gm or sorceror.

[NichG]

I'll point out that the penalties for limb loss can be extrapolated.

Sure, you can of course extrapolate the penalties. That wasn't my point. My point was that in a purely by-the-book RAW campaign, there is no way to be mechanically forced to lose an arm. If a character is missing an arm in a game of D&D, its either because the DM thought it'd be a cool thing to introduce or because the player thought it'd be a cool thing to introduce.

Its not like someone saying 'hey, can I act really cool and get extra spell slots?'. They're overcoming a penalty that would not exist in the first place if they were just directly following the mechanics. In essence, the Rule of Cool has already been in play to penalize a player, so it makes perfect sense that the Rule of Cool should be able to alleviate that penalty.

[ArqArturo]

Yeah, the way the sorcerer lost an arm was because there was a request in a statue that, if given an inappropriate offering, a trap would spring (summon forth something big, angry and nasty). The offering was 'Rip the arm, bring it to me, and it will show you the way'. There were several other statues (only one with an arm left) all over the place, and it was the player's idea to... Well... Yup.

In my defense, I was picking up on the previous campaign that this happened.

[HighWater]

Yeah, the way the sorcerer lost an arm was because there was a request in a statue that, if given an inappropriate offering, a trap would spring (summon forth something big, angry and nasty). The offering was 'Rip the arm, bring it to me, and it will show you the way'. There were several other statues (only one with an arm left) all over the place, and it was the player's idea to... Well... Yup.

In my defense, I was picking up on the previous campaign that this happened.

Taking an arm can be appropriate in some stories, it being part of a previous campaign makes it beyond your control. The PCs did it to themselves too, so I'm pretty sure you're not to blame. The PC in question also did it to himself not to get a new arm in a universe where this is quite possible, in spite of being in mortal danger on a regular basis, which calls to mind some doubts about whether he's really roleplaying a person, rather than some kind of ideal (not that there's something wrong with that).
However, you asked us whether you Rule Of Cool too liberally, or not. The only hint at an example you gave called up some issues regarding the RAW status of spellcasting and having only one arm, with the general consensus being that you can cast spells with no trouble with just one arm (provided you're not holding anything else), without any RuleOfCool mitigations. We're stuck answering your question, because we don't have the required information. Please give some more info on the kind of things you grant "RuleOfCool" style, specific examples are great for this. This will go a long way to determining whether the complaining player has a point or not.

That said, do talk to him, even if he's wrong (or right) according to a majority of this thread. He obviously still wants and needs to be heard. Try not to be defensive and don't push him into the defensive either. Just have a regular, straightforward conversation discussing this, what he thinks is wrong with it, why you think it works and see if you can find some common ground that will stop further interruptions of what seems to be a fun game otherwise.

[Kazudo]

I have a very odd way of handling it.

D&D 3.5 has, as the majority of its rules, combat at heart. So combat is orchestrated. If you say you jump in the air to strike but lack the Leap Attack feat, then the maneuver might not work so well for you as you think it will. That's just an example, granted.

Out of combat, however, it depends on the flavor of the game. If it's standard 3.5 and we're playing a very RP heavy game, then you there are times when I'll consider the character's abilities as filler for the player's. For example, three of MY players.

There's the guy who is an actor and theater major. We'll call him Nick. Nick will usually have well thought out roleplaying mechanics, and usually approaches his character in similar terms to how he approaches situations. Thus, sometimes we'll actually roleplay a situation thusly:
Knight: "Halt! You cannot enter this dwelling, it is the house of the High Lord, Count Zethlesel! Turn back!"
Nick: "We have business in this dwelling, you see, his entire kingdom is in great danger from a dragon attack!"
Knight: "I do not believe you! A dragon would never attack this kingdom!"
Nick: [Out of Character: So that I recall my character's backstory, his family which lives a mile or two away was killed in a dragon attack, correct?]
Me: [Correct. That's what we agreed happened to him.]
Nick: "But should a dragon attack the kingdom again, as happened a few decades ago, would you REALLY want to be the guard who knew about it but didn't alert anyone?"
Knight: "Uh...Well, you have me there. If it's not worth our time, we'll throw you in the dungeons!"

And so on.

Then there's the guy who usually plays a BSF, but occasionally likes to have kind of a "bad cop" thing going with other players. We'll call him Joe. Joe is a construction worker and not really big into roleplaying, so the following usually takes place:

Knight: "Halt! You cannot enter this dwelling, it is the house of the High Lord, Count Zethlesel! Turn back!"
Joe: "But wait! I totally do!" [Out of Character: I roll my diplomacy to try to convince him to like me a bit better so he'll hear me out]
Me: [Alright, go for it. What kind of things does your character say?]
Joe: [I got a 20 total. I bring up the dragon attacks a few decades ago from my backstory and tell him something needs to be done about it.]
Knight: "I see. Well, you have a compelling story, and to have survived a dragon attack you must know your dragons. Very well, but if you're lying I'll throw you in the dungeons personally!"

And last but not least is the relatively new spellcaster. We'll call him Bob. Bob is a graduating high school student who's pretty socially awkward (shocker there, eh?) and sometimes can't decide what he wants to do.

Knight: "Halt! You cannot enter this dwelling, it is the house of the High Lord, Count Zethlesel! Turn back!"
Bob: "But hey! I could totally take you out for a drink and we could talk war stories! How's that sound bro?"
Knight: "I beg your pardon! I cannot leave my post lest someone sneak in and attempt to assassinate Count Zethlesel!"
Bob: "Uh...well...you see...uh...actually there ARE thieves! Planning to break in! Uh...Um..."
Me: [Would you like to roll your diplomacy to get him to like you a bit better, or your bluff to have him believe that story? Maybe intimidate to get him to back off and let you through?]
Bob: [DIPLOMACY! Diplomacy. My character's good at that, being a paladin. Uh...I got a 30 total.]
Me: [Want that last bit to not have happened?]
Bob: [Yeah. I have no idea what I was going for there.]
Knight: "But I can see that you have urgent business. I'll let you through, but you'll be in the dungeons if you try anything to harm the High Lord!"

That kind of thing.

[Tengu_temp]

So you like when the shy introvert is trying to play a charismatic character and keeps failing because he's trying to play a character who's personality/skills are radically different from his own?

Or the guys who tank their charisma, because they know that it's their personal conversation skills that actually matter in the game?

The latter is not RPing his character right, because a character with low charisma and no skills in diplomacy shouldn't be good at persuasion. And if the former can't make even a token effort at trying to persuade the NPCs, then he shouldn't play that kind of character.

Also, do note what I said:

It's a rule every good DM uses - sometimes occasionally, sometimes all the time. A DM who just treats the game RAW all the time is a bad DM, and might as well be replaced by a computer.
Emphasis added.

Short version: nice strawman.

[Coidzor]

The latter is not RPing his character right, because a character with low charisma and no skills in diplomacy shouldn't be good at persuasion. And if the former can't make even a token effort at trying to persuade the NPCs, then he shouldn't play that kind of character.[/B]

There's still a bit of a problem that was invoked when you included the line "sometimes all the time" as an appropriate option, though, as you're bound to run into some level of disagreement over whether there's ever a time where it's appropriate for Rule of Cool to be constantly invoked and ruling the entire game.

I don't really see how it would be workable to use RoC all the time, unless it's a facetious answer involving someone with the handle "Rule of Cool" or these guys (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). I rather doubt you meant it in a facetious sense, so I'm left curious as to how such a thing is supposed to work, as even in a very heavily narrative game, there's usually lulls if nothing else. :smallconfused:

[RegalKain]

:Snip:
In my opinion your "odd" way of handling it, is how it should be handled, if the DM only ever stuck to RAW, the game would get really unbalanced, and ****ed up in short-order. Especially if a Diplomancer is present in the game, it kind of ruins the flow.


So you like when the shy introvert is trying to play a charismatic character and keeps failing because he's trying to play a character who's personality/skills are radically different from his own?
Despite agreeing with how Kazudo handles it, I expect my players to make an ATTEMPT at playing ot their character yes. If the shy introvert guy is playing the charismatic character and never even ATTEMPTS to be charismatic, I'll talk to him off to the side, I'm sorry but the group I play with finds it boring to not RP at all, and go purely based on the rolling, and in D&D you can not roleplay at all, and play a session purely based on rolls, for us personally that's very, very dull. Find a happy middle-ground as Kazudo did, if nothing else, Shy introvert will learn as he goes, who knows, maybe derping off with his friends in character will give him some confidence and let him actually not be so shy, worked for one of my friends to some degree!

Or the guys who tank their charisma, because they know that it's their personal conversation skills that actually matter in the game?
You're taking it to the extreme I think, I don't think most DMs would run it this way, however, if the ugly barbarian who is only good at punching things, in a moment of brilliance or desperation comes up with a really, really compelling arguement then why are you against tossing him a +2 or +4 to the diplo check he makes? If you stick to RAW that hard, your games have to be odd when someone is using Iron Heart Surge, or if you have a diplomancer playing.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't really see how it would be workable to use RoC all the time, unless it's a facetious answer involving someone with the handle "Rule of Cool" or these guys (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). I rather doubt you meant it in a facetious sense, so I'm left curious as to how such a thing is supposed to work, as even in a very heavily narrative game, there's usually lulls if nothing else. :smallconfused:

Nobody used the term "rule of cool" before you, specifically because it invokes explosions and casual disregard for laws of physics most of the time. Let's just go with "roleplaying beats rules", shall we?

And then, things are very simple. A heavily narratively-driven, diceless game simply means that players succeed when their actions are sufficiently interesting, and within the limits of their characters' capabilities (or breaking those limits in a dramatically appropriate way). The same game with dice means that you give bonuses for doing that, but the action doesn't automatically succeed.

More importantly, there's how to handle things that are not covered by the rules, or handled loosely. Let's say that the players are fighting enemies near a fireplace, and one of the players decides it will be cool to knock one of the bad guys into the fire. How do you handle it?
1. The RAW approach. Resolve it as a bullrush action, if it succeeds, the enemy takes pitiful damage from staying in the fire for one round (most likely lower than what the player would deal just by attacking) and nothing else.
2. The RP > rules approach. There are many ways to do this, but for example: if the attack succeeds, the enemy is set on fire and starts running around as a human torch, not being able to fight himself but potentially setting other stuff he touches ablaze.

The second option is not RAW, but it's much more interesting and rewards the player for having a fun idea. This is something a good DM does. In comparison, the RAW approach discourages the players from having interesting ideas, and just encourages them to play inside the box. Not good at all.

[xroads]

When RPing beats rolling you're using the wrong system. Simple as that. D&D is not a generic system and it looks as if you're wanting to play something closer to Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/) than D&D 3.X. (Fate's also pretty awesome this way).

I disagree. It’s in the name of the genre. Roleplaying games. Whether there are a lot of rules or few rules, roleplaying is still a large element in the game.

But on a whole, it’s a mute point. Games should be fun.

ArqArturo, if a player isn’t having fun, for whatever reason, you might try working with him and see if you can find a happy compromise in play styles. Hopefully, you will find something.

Good luck.

[Ssalarn]

So you like when the shy introvert is trying to play a charismatic character and keeps failing because he's trying to play a character who's personality/skills are radically different from his own?

Or the guys who tank their charisma, because they know that it's their personal conversation skills that actually matter in the game?

This is my personal problem with "Rule of Cool". Too often, in my experience, it's actually a way to penalize poor roleplayers or reward charismatic or clever players who've decided to ignore some aspects of their character because they figure they can make it up by roleplaying through the moment.
I can remember actually getting upset during a game once because a quiet young lady who was playing the party bard kept getting pushed out during the parts of the game that should have been her chance to shine because the player running Urgnut, the 6 CHA half-orc barbarian, suddenly turned into a loquacious schmoozer whose player just ignored the numbers on his character sheet so he could continue to grab as much of the spotlight as possible.

If you're goign to use the "Rule of Cool", it should be something fair and applicable that affects everybody and doesn't allow them to just ignore crippling negatives in their build. Make it like a +3 modifier or something.

On that same note, there aren't any core rules for losing a limb, so if your player really wants to go with that, I'd suggest either leaving it as a cosmetic change with the occasional hangup, or codify it. " One-armed:You get a -2 to all climb and manual dexterity checks involving the hands and cannot wield weapons. However, you can utilize spell components as long as they are on your person without actually needing to remove them from a component pouch, and you can sheathe or stow a weapon or item as part of the same action used to draw another". Just as like an example of a possible solution that doesn't involve a highly arbitrary judgement call based on the social abilities of the player rather than the character's capabilities.

[Vedhin]

The second option is not RAW, but it's much more interesting and rewards the player for having a fun idea. This is something a good DM does. In comparison, the RAW approach discourages the players from having interesting ideas, and just encourages them to play inside the box. Not good at all.

Me, I see a good DM as one who is consistent. If he's going to break the rules on a basis of what sounds best, I have a worse idea of what my character is capable of.

[A.A.King]

It's a rule every good DM uses - sometimes occasionally, sometimes all the time. A DM who just treats the game RAW all the time is a bad DM, and might as well be replaced by a computer.


This time I added some emphasizes, because you didn't just say "sometimes occasionally". If you are gonna ignore the rules anyway and just gonna wing it, you might as well not play the game. The rules exist for a reason and always going with "what sounded cool" instead of what the actual rules are, makes it pointless to actually have rules in the first place.



And if the former can't make even a token effort at trying to persuade the NPCs, then he shouldn't play that kind of character.

He didn't say the player wasn't make a token effort. In his scenario we have someone who plays a charismatic character but who isn't actually that good in convincing people. We have rolls for a reason, to see what the effect of an action is. If are you always using the rule of cool then you are just as horrible a DM as the guy who goes pure by RAW. You make it impossible for the person who isn't good with words to play a character who is. As long as you believe he or she tried, let him or her have his role to see if it work. Having someone always have to actually be convincing the guard through role-play limits the options for the less charismatic.

If you can play a strength based character once in a while even though you can't even do one successful push up then the guy who has trouble speaking up should be allowed to play the charismatic swindler who sold you the water under the bridge.

[RegalKain]

Me, I see a good DM as one who is consistent. If he's going to break the rules on a basis of what sounds best, I have a worse idea of what my character is capable of.

A DM who makes his case and lets people know ahead of time how he runs, for example telling your players when you start the campaign that "while you can play anything, I expect you to act your character" meaning the big dumb fighter with 100 Str but 4 int and 4 cha, should almost exclusively make things worse when he opens his mouth, asking your players to try and play their roles out isn't a bad thing, if you tell them you expect it ahead of time, then you're consistent, that's not to say you can't meet the middle grounds, Mr.Shyguy can still do well on diplo checks, as long as his player is actively TRYING to act his stats so to speak.

To those saying that RPing<Rolls, or RoC<Rolls let me ask you this, would you never, ever use a verbal puzzle, or riddle in your game? If you do, you're probably breaking your own theory here, afterall the Wizard with 30+ int will know the answer to the riddle, "logically" speaking, or the Bard who has heard everything under the sun before, so then what? You come up with a riddle, player A: rolls an int check, gets a 25, and he gets the riddle? He doesn't even have to try to think about it? By RAW that works sure, I find that really...limiting and boring though. This is where it's, however your group enjoys the game, is the right way to play the game, if your Druid is having issues, talk to him privately try to work it out, barring that, talk to the group as a whole and try to work it out, make it fun for everyone.

[A.A.King]

I don't think anyone is actively saying that Rolls are always more important then Roleplaying, but when it comes down to it you made a character which has certain skills and it is unfair for the DM to say those skills your character has only work if you can play them just as well. Because that seems to only be a charisma thing. If you don't have to be able to be strong as a person to play a destroy of worlds, then I don't see why you should be as eloquent as your character is. Trying your best should be good enough and the DM shouldn't punish you for failing to be "as good as the character"

And with a Riddle it is more fun to try it as a player, but when you do that you include all players. How often does the DM say "Tom **** and Harry, your characters lack the intelligence to solve this puzzle, therefor you are not allowed to participate in the solving of it"? Riddles are hardly ever given to the characters themselves, always to the group. But if the group don't seem able to solve it, is it wrong for the 18+ Intelligence guy to ask for an Intelligence role? And isn't the entire point of the Bardic Knowledge class feature that you can get random knowledge at any point? So why not let your bard role when nobody knows. Or why not set-up a riddle which requires the bard to role Bardic Knowledge (and hope he roles high enough) to give him his moment in the spotlight?

In the end the perfect balance between "Solving it through pure Roleplaying" and "Solving it through rolling" is different from group to group and if all you do is role the game gets pretty boring after a while. But saying that trying isn't good enough (which is what happens when you say always role > roll) isn't in the spirit of the game. If a character's build clearly allowes you to do X, then it should be allowed to do X even if you think that RoC says otherwise


And when it comes to situations like in the original question: If one player read the rules and made sure he could do X by investing the right feats and skillpoints then it is pretty bad DMing to allow a different character who didn't put in the resources to do it just as well "because if he roleplayed it well". If you think there is a problem in power balance then there are different ways from solving it, making someones effort feel worthless is never a good thing.

[NichG]

I'm of the opinion that the right solution is to take all of those skills that would be made moot by RP-beats-rolling and change what they do or just take them out of the system.

I mean, if a player has very little tactical ability and decides to play a wizard, you don't make their spell selections for them and tell them what to do in combat just because their character's Int is really high. Making those decisions is part of the game, and someone can do it poorly or well (or with coaching). I personally like solving mysteries and puzzles, performing negotiation, etc to also be parts of the game, so to enable that a simple 'Diplomacy doesn't get used in this campaign' is sufficient, and even better might be something like 'Diplomacy checks allow you to take back things you just said or gauge someone's reactions to what you propose to say before you commit to it' - the skill still has function, but it makes the challenge for the player easier or gives them tools they would not have otherwise had rather than replacing that part of the game with pure mechanics.

[RegalKain]

I don't think anyone is actively saying that Rolls are always more important then Roleplaying, but when it comes down to it you made a character which has certain skills and it is unfair for the DM to say those skills your character has only work if you can play them just as well. Because that seems to only be a charisma thing. If you don't have to be able to be strong as a person to play a destroy of worlds, then I don't see why you should be as eloquent as your character is. Trying your best should be good enough and the DM shouldn't punish you for failing to be "as good as the character"

Right, and I'm not saying, nor do I think most others are, that you have to play your character to your skills, all I'm personally asking for, is effort in that direction. It's harder to portray this with the physical stats since you're still sitting around playing a game, but some of the things you'd "roleplay" differently is how you handle situations, a skinny guy who can't do a single pushup, should learn the mentality of his character who has a 30 Str, if his super strong character has low int, wis and cha, then his first thought when they come to a door probably shouldn't be "let's check for traps, or magical devices that may hamper our adventure!" It would probably be "I can punch through this easily enough, stand back" I'm not saying you have to be suave to play a bard, or a body builder to play a barbarian, I am saying you should try to get into the mindset of the block of stats you're playing, so you can roleplay better to how your character might act, I personally don't like people who show me a character sheet, never roleplay, and never talk in character, and only tell me what they are doing OOC, but again that's purely group based, opinion based and holds no evidence in fact.


And with a Riddle it is more fun to try it as a player, but when you do that you include all players. How often does the DM say "Tom **** and Harry, your characters lack the intelligence to solve this puzzle, therefor you are not allowed to participate in the solving of it"? Riddles are hardly ever given to the characters themselves, always to the group. But if the group don't seem able to solve it, is it wrong for the 18+ Intelligence guy to ask for an Intelligence role? And isn't the entire point of the Bardic Knowledge class feature that you can get random knowledge at any point? So why not let your bard role when nobody knows. Or why not set-up a riddle which requires the bard to role Bardic Knowledge (and hope he roles high enough) to give him his moment in the spotlight?

Right see, now you're going completely and totally against Rolls>Roleplaying. You're saying the "RoC" is ok as long as the situation warrants it, if there is a puzzle in a room, say a very elaborate and complex puzzle, no the 4 int, 4 wis Barbarian shouldn't be "allowed" to help, at least not in the fashion many players do, that being contributing deep, meaningful context clues, because not only is he not roleplaying at all in this case, but he's so far outside the realm of what his character and his stats say he is capable of, suddenly you're the DM using the "RoC" to better suit your group, that's not saying you are wrong mind you, just pointing out, that more people use it then you might think, some without even realizing it.
As a note I consider the "RoC" to mean any time you let slide Crunch for Fluff.


In the end the perfect balance between "Solving it through pure Roleplaying" and "Solving it through rolling" is different from group to group and if all you do is role the game gets pretty boring after a while. But saying that trying isn't good enough (which is what happens when you say always role > roll) isn't in the spirit of the game. If a character's build clearly allowes you to do X, then it should be allowed to do X even if you think that RoC says otherwise

Right, I'm not saying Role>Roll always I am saying I expect everyone to try, and trying is good enough for me, it helps bring people out of their shells and comfort zones and expand as people and characters in my opinion. The OP hasn't elaborated on his idea of letting the RPers get more of an advantage, so far it's only been one-handed spell casting, which has already been proven. The last part of your statment "If a character's build clearly allows you to doX, then it should be allowed to do X even if you think that RoC says otherwise" is the problem I have with people who think RAW and Stats are absolute, if that's the case, your Int 4, Wis 4 Barbarian shouldn't be allowed to have intelligent thinking, in today's society he'd be special needs, or a child, in the D&D world his buddies and travelling companions would keep him very, very far away from anything that angers him that they want to keep alive or in one piece, and they'd ensure he is silent when speaking with kings and lords, because with an int and wis that low, he's really not capable of intelligent thought processes. Again, this goes to show that you may not think you're using the RoC but you are, because it suits your group better.


And when it comes to situations like in the original question: If one player read the rules and made sure he could do X by investing the right feats and skillpoints then it is pretty bad DMing to allow a different character who didn't put in the resources to do it just as well "because if he roleplayed it well". If you think there is a problem in power balance then there are different ways from solving it, making someones effort feel worthless is never a good thing.
This is a really, really touchy one though, in the OP it seems that the only real issue is that the Druid player is a high optimizer, the rest of the group is not, sometimes this leads to very, very bad interactions, especially when you are better at optimizing then your DM, it then goes into who is the greater rules lawyer and can slow down the game, I'm not saying the Druid is right or wrong, simply pointing out a problem that can very easily arise, it's often why I think the most experienced player in your group needs to be the DM, otherwise you can very easily de-rail a session.

As to the other part, if two players are both Bards, and both have the exact same modifiers to their Diplo rolls, one says to me OOC "I tell the guard to let us go" the other launches IC into quick-talking the guard and telling them why it's a good idea to let the party go, I'm going to give the guy who is actively trying to roleplay a small bonus to his roll, that's not saying one fails the other succeeds, but I'm going to reward the person who is trying to roleplay their character, not the one who holds up his sheet and says "I have this, so I win" .
As for making other people's effort feel worthless, that's such an odd statment when you consider that a person who is exceptional at optimizing plays a Druid, and someone new to D&D 3.5 decides to play a VoP Monk, how do you handle that? Everything the Monk does will feel worthless compared to the Druid in this game, because the Druid can quite literally do everything better mechanically. This is where each group needs to handle it how it best works for them, and there is no "right or wrong" answer, just our opinions we are batting back and forth.

[rrwoods]

One possibility is to use Rule of Cool, but look at the player's skill modifier before determining what happens. Not necessarily make the roll, but adjust based on their score. So if your druid has +35 diplomacy/bluff... their words are more persuasive.

[Saintsqc]

I sympathise with the Druid. You said he is "sort of a plank of wood when it comes to roleplaying". Have you considered the option that he probably can't do that much better? He's being held back, because all this "quick-thinking rules-be-darned, just sweet-talk the thing"-stuff just doesn't come naturally to him. So he works hard to make himself viable, by looking up the actual rules and putting a lot of energy into a build that will actually work, to show that he really ís invested in the game although "RP" makes him feel awkward. He works at it, and produces something that will work, and then his ranger buddy goes "yeah, I mucked up a bunch of times this combat, but I'm gonna do this and that regardless", although he shouldn't be able to do that at all, and you go "yeah that sounds pretty kewl". I'd feel pretty mistreated too.

Pretty solid post IMO



In our group, good RP has an impact on game mechanics. We usually give XP bonus to players who played their PC especially well. But also, good RP will decrease the DC of a check. Ie :

Jack want to convince the NPC to help him :

Scenario 1 : Jack needs supply from a king to defeat a dragon. If he says something like "This dragon has killed my familiy many years ago. Since then, my only motivation is to find him and kill him. Give me Dragonslayer (a +5 magic sword), and I swear to you, I will bring his head to you!". The DC will be around 15-25 depending on different factors.
Scenario 2 : Jack needs supply from a king to defeat a dragon. If he says something like "Give me that
+5 sword, and I will kill the dragon for you". The DC will be around 30-40 instead.

So, good RP has an impact. But if a player doesnt give a damn about RP, he can enjoy the game anyway.

[Tengu_temp]

We have rolls for a reason, to see what the effect of an action is. If are you always using the rule of cool then you are just as horrible a DM as the guy who goes pure by RAW.

Actually no, the DM who always goes with rule of cool (ugh, I really ****ing hate this term) is probably more fun to play with. His games are just freeform diceless ones, not heavily structured ones like DND tends to be.

Example? I'm playing such a game right now. Been playing it for several years, in fact. No dice, no stats, just descriptions of what you're capable of, players describing their actions and then the DM describing the results. It's not my favorite kind of gameplay, but the game itself is pretty damn sweet.


If you can play a strength based character once in a while even though you can't even do one successful push up then the guy who has trouble speaking up should be allowed to play the charismatic swindler who sold you the water under the bridge.

Actually, when it comes to mental stats? Yes, you have to at least pretend your character might be very charismatic, or very smart, or whatever. Be able to spin some ridiculous tale, even if you pause and stutter in the middle, and the roll makes it sound convincing and flowing in the actual game. But if you are painfully shy in real life and can't even make an attempt at roleplaying a persuasive character, and just say "umm... I'll roll diplomacy to change his mind"? You have no business playing a high-charisma character. Similarily, you don't have to be a genius to play a high-intelligence character, but you at least have to be able to try pretending you're smart. It's not that hard - most of the time it's about breaking your inner barriers about roleplaying more than anything.

Does that mean I think some players shouldn't play some types of characters? If it's a game that cares about roleplaying, yes. If it's a beer and pretzels game, I don't care (and I don't really play such games to begin with).

Physical stats are a different matter, because they don't show in roleplaying. High-strength characters don't suddenly start talking like the Hulk.

[Yawgmoth]

As a general rule, never call for a roll unless all outcomes will be interesting. I'm not going to go into a huge diatribe on the concept of Fail Forward, if you're so inclined you can google it and spend the next week reading. But with regards to RPGs, if failure is boring and success is not, then let the players succeed and move on to the next scene. Conflict has to exist and that conflict has to generate something fun either way for a game to be a game, because games are for fun, first and foremost. There should never be a time when you as a DM say "well I guess you guys are just F'ed right in the A." If you do, you have failed as a DM.

As a DM, you know where the conflicts and the dice rolls will be ahead of time; plan for success and failure, and make them both interesting. Otherwise you are literally gambling your free time and several other people's enjoyment thereof on the capriciousness of molded plastic.

[Ssalarn]

Actually, when it comes to mental stats? Yes, you have to at least pretend your character might be very charismatic, or very smart, or whatever. Be able to spin some ridiculous tale, even if you pause and stutter in the middle, and the roll makes it sound convincing and flowing in the actual game. But if you are painfully shy in real life and can't even make an attempt at roleplaying a persuasive character, and just say "umm... I'll roll diplomacy to change his mind"? You have no business playing a high-charisma character. Similarily, you don't have to be a genius to play a high-intelligence character, but you at least have to be able to try pretending you're smart. It's not that hard - most of the time it's about breaking your inner barriers about roleplaying more than anything.

Does that mean I think some players shouldn't play some types of characters? If it's a game that cares about roleplaying, yes.

What an ignorant stance. "If you aren't at least a little charismatic you have no business playing a charismatic character".... Seriously?
Part of the point of a game like this is for people to explore parts of themselves they maybe wouldn't otherwise express in a creative environment. Sometimes the shy quiet girl in the corner may only want to roll the dice because she's working up the courage to try and be a little more like the character on the sheet. The person who has no business playing is the one who's going to judge her for trying to be something she isn't very good at being IRL.

[A.A.King]

I'm of the opinion that the right solution is to take all of those skills that would be made moot by RP-beats-rolling and change what they do or just take them out of the system.

I mean, if a player has very little tactical ability and decides to play a wizard, you don't make their spell selections for them and tell them what to do in combat just because their character's Int is really high. Making those decisions is part of the game, and someone can do it poorly or well (or with coaching). I personally like solving mysteries and puzzles, performing negotiation, etc to also be parts of the game, so to enable that a simple 'Diplomacy doesn't get used in this campaign' is sufficient, and even better might be something like 'Diplomacy checks allow you to take back things you just said or gauge someone's reactions to what you propose to say before you commit to it' - the skill still has function, but it makes the challenge for the player easier or gives them tools they would not have otherwise had rather than replacing that part of the game with pure mechanics.

If you want to change the game that much (by taking out the skills and changing Diplomacy) then that's fine, but that is something that will be well established before the game starts. It is not something you, as DM, decide on the fly. Changing the game beforehand and explaining it to everyone is a bit different from the DM saying mid-game that you failed your skills check not because of a bad role but because the lack of sheer natural talent. Tactical ability isn't based pure on INT, might even be more based on Wisdom or in the very least requires a big portion of both. The right spells is something anyone can research beforehand, finding the right thing to say at the right moment is not.

But yeah, changing the game from the beginning is a perfectly fine thing to do. I myself would still find it unfair on certain people but if you feel like you can't play what you want to play because of the house rules then you don't play.


Right, and I'm not saying, nor do I think most others are, that you have to play your character to your skills, all I'm personally asking for, is effort in that direction. It's harder to portray this with the physical stats since you're still sitting around playing a game, but some of the things you'd "roleplay" differently is how you handle situations, a skinny guy who can't do a single pushup, should learn the mentality of his character who has a 30 Str, if his super strong character has low int, wis and cha, then his first thought when they come to a door probably shouldn't be "let's check for traps, or magical devices that may hamper our adventure!" It would probably be "I can punch through this easily enough, stand back" I'm not saying you have to be suave to play a bard, or a body builder to play a barbarian, I am saying you should try to get into the mindset of the block of stats you're playing, so you can roleplay better to how your character might act, I personally don't like people who show me a character sheet, never roleplay, and never talk in character, and only tell me what they are doing OOC, but again that's purely group based, opinion based and holds no evidence in fact.

If you don't try it at all then you also fail in my book, I just mentioned my opinion on this because atleast one person said "sometimes it's better to have RoC always trump rolls". And those situations also usually end up meaning that the people who aren't supposed to be able to do something because of bad stats are able to do it. If you punish the guys who play to smarter then their character is then that helps make it more fair. "I check for traps" "No you don't, you know perfectly well that you have an int and wisdom of 4. You open the door and a trap springs"


Right see, now you're going completely and totally against Rolls>Roleplaying. You're saying the "RoC" is ok as long as the situation warrants it, if there is a puzzle in a room, say a very elaborate and complex puzzle, no the 4 int, 4 wis Barbarian shouldn't be "allowed" to help, at least not in the fashion many players do, that being contributing deep, meaningful context clues, because not only is he not roleplaying at all in this case, but he's so far outside the realm of what his character and his stats say he is capable of, suddenly you're the DM using the "RoC" to better suit your group, that's not saying you are wrong mind you, just pointing out, that more people use it then you might think, some without even realizing it.
As a note I consider the "RoC" to mean any time you let slide Crunch for Fluff.

What I was trying to illustrate here (but didn't succeed at) was the fact that a Riddle or a Puzzle is different from the rest of the game. It always challenges the player outside of character. You might even use references to things your players know but your characters don't (like Greek Myths). It is different from social situations.




Right, I'm not saying Role>Roll always I am saying I expect everyone to try, and trying is good enough for me, it helps bring people out of their shells and comfort zones and expand as people and characters in my opinion. The OP hasn't elaborated on his idea of letting the RPers get more of an advantage, so far it's only been one-handed spell casting, which has already been proven. The last part of your statment "If a character's build clearly allows you to doX, then it should be allowed to do X even if you think that RoC says otherwise" is the problem I have with people who think RAW and Stats are absolute, if that's the case, your Int 4, Wis 4 Barbarian shouldn't be allowed to have intelligent thinking, in today's society he'd be special needs, or a child, in the D&D world his buddies and travelling companions would keep him very, very far away from anything that angers him that they want to keep alive or in one piece, and they'd ensure he is silent when speaking with kings and lords, because with an int and wis that low, he's really not capable of intelligent thought processes. Again, this goes to show that you may not think you're using the RoC but you are, because it suits your group better.

As to the other part, if two players are both Bards, and both have the exact same modifiers to their Diplo rolls, one says to me OOC "I tell the guard to let us go" the other launches IC into quick-talking the guard and telling them why it's a good idea to let the party go, I'm going to give the guy who is actively trying to roleplay a small bonus to his roll, that's not saying one fails the other succeeds, but I'm going to reward the person who is trying to roleplay their character, not the one who holds up his sheet and says "I have this, so I win" .
As for making other people's effort feel worthless, that's such an odd statment when you consider that a person who is exceptional at optimizing plays a Druid, and someone new to D&D 3.5 decides to play a VoP Monk, how do you handle that? Everything the Monk does will feel worthless compared to the Druid in this game, because the Druid can quite literally do everything better mechanically. This is where each group needs to handle it how it best works for them, and there is no "right or wrong" answer, just our opinions we are batting back and forth.

Stats should be somewhat absolute. That's why I'd never play a character which such horrendous mental stats because I would find it impossible to act like them. I would do more then I'd be allowed to do which isn't fair on the people who didn't dump intelligence and wisdom like that.

As long as we can agree that "if you clearly tried role playing how this diplomacy check is supposed to work, then I'll allow you to roll for it" then that's good. Utter failure to be convincing yourself shouldn't mean that your extremely convincing bard failed as well. It's only when someone only asks for a roll and doesn't try is when you can simply say "no roll for you bro".

And there are more ways to making someone feel worthless. If I invested in building a mounted combatant (putting skill points in Ride and Handle Animal, taking the appropriate feats and investing GP into the right equipment) then it will make me feel bad if the DM let's another character with no such investment just ride an animal (which he shouldn't have been able to control in the first place) while at the same time ignoring the rules about mounted combat. If he then even allows the guy to do the same thing my Mounted Combat feat does "because he acted it out nicely" or because he was just quick in saying "I make a turn to try and avoid the attack" then why did I bother? Why try and make something consisted according to the rules if someone else gets to do it without that. It's not just about the difference in base class levels because the other guy is a sorcerer, not a monk. It's about the fact that my careful and smart choices of spending my finite resources are being dwarfed by someone else because it "sounds cool". If the problem is the difference in power, then you have a talk with the druid it outside of the game. You don't try to balance the game, mid-game, by giving to everyone the things which made the druid unique.


This is a really, really touchy one though, in the OP it seems that the only real issue is that the Druid player is a high optimizer, the rest of the group is not, sometimes this leads to very, very bad interactions, especially when you are better at optimizing then your DM, it then goes into who is the greater rules lawyer and can slow down the game, I'm not saying the Druid is right or wrong, simply pointing out a problem that can very easily arise, it's often why I think the most experienced player in your group needs to be the DM, otherwise you can very easily de-rail a session.
It also says that the druid is a bad roleplayer and the others are not and when the rules are being ignored for kewl ideas then the better roleplayer has a bigger advantage.


I will just say this again. If the problem comes down to the difference in power level, then you solve that by talking out of character to everyone involved. Maybe give tips to the other guys to player "smarter" or more likely explain to the Druid that in this game he just has too much power and that it might be better if he played something else. The rules exist for a reason and sometimes you can twist and ignore them but if a player heavily feels that you all of a sudden ignoring a lot of rules is unfairly targeting him and his character then you are doing something wrong.

[NichG]

If you want to change the game that much (by taking out the skills and changing Diplomacy) then that's fine, but that is something that will be well established before the game starts. It is not something you, as DM, decide on the fly. Changing the game beforehand and explaining it to everyone is a bit different from the DM saying mid-game that you failed your skills check not because of a bad role but because the lack of sheer natural talent. Tactical ability isn't based pure on INT, might even be more based on Wisdom or in the very least requires a big portion of both. The right spells is something anyone can research beforehand, finding the right thing to say at the right moment is not.

But yeah, changing the game from the beginning is a perfectly fine thing to do. I myself would still find it unfair on certain people but if you feel like you can't play what you want to play because of the house rules then you don't play.

Or you realize that no GM is perfect and the GM offers a rebuild so people can change their characters to acclimate to the new mechanics.

[pwykersotz]

I had the exact same problem a couple years back. One player loved roleplaying, and the other loved rolling. The one who loved having their character sheet actually mean something was continually frustrated by my interference in his (and others) character sheet. I had to learn that while Rule of Cool is great, it should be used sparingly and NEVER render moot what the player has built. Also, that some people don't game well together. Now I run separate games for both players, and they have a much better time.

I've also moved away from substituting rolls with roleplay and onto giving circumstance modifiers, usually between -4 and +4 depending on what the party member decides to do. Remember, good roleplay can also be rewarded in other ways, such as bonus exp, though you should probably look for good tactics or similar to provide the same benefit so the non-roleplayers aren't left in the cold. In the instances I do feel that a player does a great enough job that a roll should be unwarranted because failing would seem silly, I try to assign a die roll to what they have done, but use their stats and circumstance modifiers. This keeps their numbers in perspective, allows them to still fail if their stats/ranks just aren't up to the task, and doesn't alienate the players who just want to roll the die nearly as much.

[The Insanity]

I don't do Rule of Cool. I sometimes do Rule of Fun, but mostly just Rule of Common Sense/Balance.
As for "RPing beats rolling", never. I'm completely willing to help with a player's mechanics to realize his RP concept, or homebrew something if it's impossible/non-existent, but I won't change stuff, especially in the middle of the game, to accomodate someone or "for the sake of the story".

[nedz]

What an ignorant stance. "If you aren't at least a little charismatic you have no business playing a charismatic character".... Seriously?
Part of the point of a game like this is for people to explore parts of themselves they maybe wouldn't otherwise express in a creative environment. Sometimes the shy quiet girl in the corner may only want to roll the dice because she's working up the courage to try and be a little more like the character on the sheet. The person who has no business playing is the one who's going to judge her for trying to be something she isn't very good at being IRL.

I read the original comment as being more about one player overshadowing the game by always stealing the limelight. IMHO You need to create space for the quieter players to participate, but that's an OOC problem with the Barbarian's player.

[icefractal]

Sort of a sidebar, but since people are discussing Diplomacy, among other things -

If you follow the rules on Diplomacy, what you say already does make the difference between success and failure. A lot of people seem to have the impression that the Diplomacy check determines whether the NPC agree to what you're asking. By RAW, this is not the case: the Diplomacy check does exactly one thing - determine what the NPC's attitude toward your character is.

Now obviously, attitude makes a difference. If a close friend comes running up and says "I can't explain, but I have to borrow $100, it's vitally important!", then I'd give it to them. If someone I barely know, or know and dislike, says that, I'm not going to.

However, it's not the only factor. If a casual friend says they need my car for an unspecified amount of time, no explanation given, then I might give them a ride to wherever, but I'm not giving them the car. If someone I don't know and who seems kind of annoying asks for the same thing, but gives a very convincing proof that the city will be doomed otherwise, then I think I'd give it to them.

So by the rules, it is absolutely possible that someone could succeed or fail despite a lower/higher roll.

[Vedhin]

What an ignorant stance. "If you aren't at least a little charismatic you have no business playing a charismatic character".... Seriously?
Part of the point of a game like this is for people to explore parts of themselves they maybe wouldn't otherwise express in a creative environment. Sometimes the shy quiet girl in the corner may only want to roll the dice because she's working up the courage to try and be a little more like the character on the sheet. The person who has no business playing is the one who's going to judge her for trying to be something she isn't very good at being IRL.

I just want to second this.

You don't stop someone from playing a strong character because they're weak, or a dexterous character because they're clumsy, or a tough character because they're frail. So don't stop someone from playing a smart character because their unintelligent, a wise character because they lack common sense, or a charismatic character because they're not very social.

People often make characters who are radically different from them because they'd like to imagine what it feels like to be that way. Perhaps the wallflower with a high Charisma character wishes they were more social, like the weakling with a high Strength character might wish they were stronger.

[Amphetryon]

Actually no, the DM who always goes with rule of cool (ugh, I really ****ing hate this term) is probably more fun to play with. His games are just freeform diceless ones, not heavily structured ones like DND tends to be.

Example? I'm playing such a game right now. Been playing it for several years, in fact. No dice, no stats, just descriptions of what you're capable of, players describing their actions and then the DM describing the results. It's not my favorite kind of gameplay, but the game itself is pretty damn sweet.



Actually, when it comes to mental stats? Yes, you have to at least pretend your character might be very charismatic, or very smart, or whatever. Be able to spin some ridiculous tale, even if you pause and stutter in the middle, and the roll makes it sound convincing and flowing in the actual game. But if you are painfully shy in real life and can't even make an attempt at roleplaying a persuasive character, and just say "umm... I'll roll diplomacy to change his mind"? You have no business playing a high-charisma character. Similarily, you don't have to be a genius to play a high-intelligence character, but you at least have to be able to try pretending you're smart. It's not that hard - most of the time it's about breaking your inner barriers about roleplaying more than anything.

Does that mean I think some players shouldn't play some types of characters? If it's a game that cares about roleplaying, yes. If it's a beer and pretzels game, I don't care (and I don't really play such games to begin with).

Physical stats are a different matter, because they don't show in roleplaying. High-strength characters don't suddenly start talking like the Hulk.

Cannot disagree with this enough. All stats are created equal, though their roles in the game are different. If you're making sure that the guy with low real-life CHA, or poor WIS, doesn't play Characters that go against his own personal type, there's absolutely no rational reason why you're not also having the guy playing the high STR Character prove he can do enough push-ups to accurately portray the brute, or requiring the high DEX Character's Player to do some juggling before she's allowed to pretend she's coordinated enough to undertake that role. . .

And there's no reason in the rules to require any of those things. You are not your Character. People often gravitate toward archetypes that are different than how they are in real life.

[Anlashok]

Actually no, the DM who always goes with rule of cool (ugh, I really ****ing hate this term) is probably more fun to play with. His games are just freeform diceless ones, not heavily structured ones like DND tends to be.

His games are the one where he gets to blatantly play favorites without anything for other players to fall back on. His games are the ones where someone's mechanical choices end up made irrelevant on a random whim while another player's weaknesses get brushed aside by the same win. His games are the ones where you can't play your concept because the DM doesn't think you do it right and doesn't give you the random bonuses he deems necessary to function.

Yeah I can see why that's awesome.

I wouldn't touch a game with a ten foot pole where someone is seriously arguing that shy people should be banned from playing bards either though.

[RegalKain]

His games are the one where he gets to blatantly play favorites without anything for other players to fall back on. His games are the ones where someone's mechanical choices end up made irrelevant on a random whim while another player's weaknesses get brushed aside by the same win. His games are the ones where you can't play your concept because the DM doesn't think you do it right and doesn't give you the random bonuses he deems necessary to function.

Yeah I can see why that's awesome.

I wouldn't touch a game with a ten foot pole where someone is seriously arguing that shy people should be banned from playing bards either though.

That's taking it to the extreme, if you want to take it to the extreme, never play anything lower then a T1 in a D&D 3.5 game, because if your DM is playing by RAW, Tier 1 trumps everything you can do forever, unless you're also a T1. This is again proven because D&D is such a fragile system when it comes to balance and optimization at a table, if say Tippy sat down at your table with a Wizard he rolled up, to be near perfect, and some poor sap who saw Truenamer and played it sat down, you'd find it nearly impossible to balance the game, you have two characters and players who are on such different ends of the spectrum as to make your life as a DM a living hell. (To be fair, I think Tippy would not only curb his optimization for this game, but help Truenamer not be so gimped, using his name as a reference to high level optimizers only.) There has to be some balance, it's hard to tell what the OP did, and didn't do, the OP still hasn't expanded upon it much. Playing favorites? That can happen in a strict RAW game, based on the enemies and encounters the DM sends against you, the "rule of cool" or whatever you want to call it, doesn't instantly mean the DM is playing favorites, you can still have bad DMs, just like you can in a RAW only game, or a game that mixes both.

[NichG]

Cannot disagree with this enough. All stats are created equal, though their roles in the game are different. If you're making sure that the guy with low real-life CHA, or poor WIS, doesn't play Characters that go against his own personal type, there's absolutely no rational reason why you're not also having the guy playing the high STR Character prove he can do enough push-ups to accurately portray the brute, or requiring the high DEX Character's Player to do some juggling before she's allowed to pretend she's coordinated enough to undertake that role. . .

And there's no reason in the rules to require any of those things. You are not your Character. People often gravitate toward archetypes that are different than how they are in real life.

By the book, Int and Wis do not help you solve puzzles or determine tactics. What Int and Wis actually do are very mechanically constrained. The argument isn't that an option someone has taken should be made pointless. The argument is that certain aspects of the game should not have a mechanical basis to them in the first place - those are the parts of the game in which you are challenging the players. Those things don't have to do with the equality between stats, but rather a particular decision as to what parts of the game are for challenging the players and what those challenges should be structured like.

One (extreme) type of game you could create would be one in which the entire challenge of the game is the character-building process, and once thats done there is no more input on the part of the players. Basically, in such an example a character's Int determines what moves they make on the battlefield, what spells they choose to cast, and even what large-scale strategic decisions they make (do we go to the ruins or the dragon's cave?).

Another (extreme) type of game would involve the players swordfighting with rattan in order to resolve combats, where the challenge of the game is a player's swordfighting ability and character building has no mechanical impact.

Its not a spectrum either - there are lots of different games you could construct in this way, focusing on 'testing' particular aspects of play. None of these are 'correct' in an absolute sense. Its a choice as to what one wants to focus on in the game and where the player engagement with challenge comes from. There's nothing in particular that should defend 'being convincing' as something that is always mechanical - its perfectly reasonable to make a game that tests that, in which case some players will do better or worse at it, just as some players will do better or worse at the character-building minigame that tends to be so dominant in D&D 3.5.

[Knaight]

To those saying that RPing<Rolls, or RoC<Rolls let me ask you this, would you never, ever use a verbal puzzle, or riddle in your game? If you do, you're probably breaking your own theory here, afterall the Wizard with 30+ int will know the answer to the riddle, "logically" speaking, or the Bard who has heard everything under the sun before, so then what?

Putting aside how that's not logical at all - I can easily find a number of very bright people who aren't particularly good at riddles - I'd be inclined to say that I wouldn't. Riddles and verbal puzzles tend to be contrived, tend to muck with game flow in an obnoxious manner, and are, in my experience, best left out. Honestly, I'd rather there were fewer of them in the fiction the games are based off of - the niche they fill is already full if the game isn't a straight dungeon crawl and the story isn't a bunch of repetitive violence.

As for the role playing, there's the matter of the decisions made as much as how they're implemented. It's not a matter of RPing<Rolls. It's a matter of using the rolls where they apply, with what rolls come into it in the first place probably being determined by role playing.

[Amphetryon]

By the book, Int and Wis do not help you solve puzzles or determine tactics. What Int and Wis actually do are very mechanically constrained. The argument isn't that an option someone has taken should be made pointless. The argument is that certain aspects of the game should not have a mechanical basis to them in the first place - those are the parts of the game in which you are challenging the players. Those things don't have to do with the equality between stats, but rather a particular decision as to what parts of the game are for challenging the players and what those challenges should be structured like.

One (extreme) type of game you could create would be one in which the entire challenge of the game is the character-building process, and once thats done there is no more input on the part of the players. Basically, in such an example a character's Int determines what moves they make on the battlefield, what spells they choose to cast, and even what large-scale strategic decisions they make (do we go to the ruins or the dragon's cave?).

Another (extreme) type of game would involve the players swordfighting with rattan in order to resolve combats, where the challenge of the game is a player's swordfighting ability and character building has no mechanical impact.

Its not a spectrum either - there are lots of different games you could construct in this way, focusing on 'testing' particular aspects of play. None of these are 'correct' in an absolute sense. Its a choice as to what one wants to focus on in the game and where the player engagement with challenge comes from. There's nothing in particular that should defend 'being convincing' as something that is always mechanical - its perfectly reasonable to make a game that tests that, in which case some players will do better or worse at it, just as some players will do better or worse at the character-building minigame that tends to be so dominant in D&D 3.5.

Could you show me where I mentioned puzzles or tactics in my quoted commentary, since you used it as an apparent starting point for a counterargument? For that matter, COULD you show me where the rules indicate that puzzles and tactics should wholly come down to Out-of-Character, rather than In-Character, abilities? Could you highlight the relevant rules passage indicating that these stats differ in that you must be as smart, as wise, or as charming as the Character you portray but not as strong, agile, or hardy?

[Propagandalf]

I would suggest Hero Points from pathfinder.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/hero-points

They give you several bonuses when the character decides to be awesome.

Also, seconded the Fate system. That thing runs on Rule of Cool. :smallbiggrin:

[neonchameleon]

I disagree. It’s in the name of the genre. Roleplaying games. Whether there are a lot of rules or few rules, roleplaying is still a large element in the game.

It's in the name. Roleplaying Games. One phrase. If the game is not assisting the type of roleplaying you want to do then you are playing the wrong game. The Roleplaying and the Game shouldn't be in opposition.


But on a whole, it’s a mute point.

Moot point (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point)


Games should be fun.

Agreed

[A.A.King]

It's in the name. Roleplaying Games. One phrase. If the game is not assisting the type of roleplaying you want to do then you are playing the wrong game. The Roleplaying and the Game shouldn't be in opposition.
Very well said



Moot point (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point)

No, it's a Moo point (http://nl.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moo+point)

[xroads]

It's in the name. Roleplaying Games. One phrase. If the game is not assisting the type of roleplaying you want to do then you are playing the wrong game. The Roleplaying and the Game shouldn't be in opposition.

Fair enough. It is still a game, and not simply storytelling.

But my point is that even a game as rules heavy as Champions can be treated lightly, as long as everyone has fun. When everyone isn’t having fun, that’s when the players and the GM need to make a compromise.




Moot point (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point)

Interesting. I didn't know that. I think because “mute” seems to me like it would work also (i.e. mute as a synonym for "silent" or "muffled").

[neonchameleon]

Fair enough. It is still a game, and not simply storytelling.

But my point is that even a game as rules heavy as Champions can be treated lightly, as long as everyone has fun. When everyone isn’t having fun, that’s when the players and the GM need to make a compromise.

And mine is both that that isn't working here, and that it counts as having fun despite the rules rather than aided by them. I'd rather use rules that help than hinder.

[Segev]

I'm going to chime in on the side supporting using the rules wherever possible. While the sentiment of only calling for a roll of failure is interesting is a good one, where I'm really looking is towards those players who use mechanics to build a character who can do things they, the player, cannot themselves do.

You don't require that a Wizard's player be able to demonstrate the casting of Magic Missile in real life, nor that the Druid's transform into a bear. You don't require that the Barbarian's player fly into an incoherent, frothing rage and show you how his flailing makes him more accurate.

You do require them to state when they use their powers and towards what ends.

The same is true in any case. A non-charismatic player playing a charismatic bard or paladin or sorcerer should be able to say what he thinks his character might be trying. Is he seducing the guardswoman? Is he stirring the drow guard into a Men's Rights tizzy to foment a rebellious streak? Is she commiserating with the Drow Matriarch over the stupidity and weakness of men? Is she demonstrating that she can not only do math, but use it to design a perfectly portioned meal that will appeal to all attendees at the diplomatic meeting?

Whatever they're doing, make them describe it, and then use the rules to see how well it works. They don't have to be too terribly detailed; if the player is not that clever but the character is, maybe let them brainstorm with the other players, and have the character take credit for the idea that you think will work that the player likes the best. (This ensures that they don't accidentally go with a "cool" idea that is totally boneheaded given knowledge the players may have forgotten, helps them come up with ideas the player may not have on his own, and still gives that player agency over his character as his character comes up with a good idea that the player likes.)

Rule of Cool should be used at most to enable "stunting," which is a concept I first saw explicitly named in Exalted. I've seen it elsewhere phrased as "if you have a good idea, you get a small bonus to the roll," or even as "a good argument gets the easy target number, while a weak or no argument gets the harder one." But if the player thinks of something cool that you want to encourage and would help make the scene better, reward him with a bonus to his checks or by having some neat environmental effect. But before even resorting to that, see if the rules handle it.

That "knock a guy into the fireplace" example somebody discussed earlier may be a "paltry" 1d6 fire damage, but it's fire damage on top of the normal effect of knocking somebody around. And if you can keep them in it, that's 1d6 damage per round, which isn't negligible (unless it's all you're doing). And if keeping somebody in a fire is really so ineffective compared to beating on them with a sword, it stops being "cool" and enters "lame fiat" territory to try to make it do more. But again, recall that there are rules for checking to see if their flammable clothes and items catch fire, and that'd be extra d6s, too. So...maybe the rules do cover what you want.

If somebody wants to "stunt" an action that normally takes a feat or class feature they don't have, I might - might - let them try it, if it actually gives them a mechanical advantage. Once. And only if they aren't taking the thunder from somebody who HAS the feat AND if they are going to pick it up at the first opportunity. And that is DM fiat even to let them have that.

If their stunt is just a cool visual, I'll let them do it. The mechanics remain what they are. (Maybe with a +1 or +2 bonus if I'm running a game where I explicitly have outlined that stunting rules are in effect; then all the players know of the house rule and can take advantage of it.)


But mechanics should be the ultimate determinator of results. Because I HAVE been in a game with a player whose character was mechanically as charismatic as Gilbert Godfried critiquing your singing voice while gargling his words out to the tune of "My Heart Will Go On." And he'd declare that he was saying, "in character," precisely what he said out of character before giving eloquent speeches with thorough and well-placed arguments. Never mind that his character's stats don't support the ability to think that way nor to elocute so smoothly. And the DM would oft forget to ask for a diplomacy roll or the like because all the right things were said and there's no way the NPCs involved would disagree.

So yes, it happens when a game allows "rule of cool" or even "roleplay trumps rollplay:" the optimizers will notice this and dump the "roleplay" stats, because they're useless. They get more mileage out of doing their best to "roleplay" as if their character were much better than the character's stats indicate in those areas.

[NichG]

Could you show me where I mentioned puzzles or tactics in my quoted commentary, since you used it as an apparent starting point for a counterargument? For that matter, COULD you show me where the rules indicate that puzzles and tactics should wholly come down to Out-of-Character, rather than In-Character, abilities? Could you highlight the relevant rules passage indicating that these stats differ in that you must be as smart, as wise, or as charming as the Character you portray but not as strong, agile, or hardy?

I'm not making an argument about what the rules say about specific challenges, I'm making an argument about the design of roleplaying games in general. If you wanted to make a roleplaying game that tested the player's out of character dexterity, you could do so, and that would be a perfectly reasonable game. In fact I believe such a game exists, called 'Dread' or something like that, which uses a jenga tower as one of its game mechanics. Players who are more dextrous out of character will perform better in that game.

If you want to run a game of D&D where the player's actual negotiation abilities are being tested, you can absolutely do that and its as valid a game design choice as running a game of D&D where the player's character-building and book-reading abilities are being tested.

There are various reasons we don't generally see games that test strength, agility, or hardiness. That kind of test isn't very popular with the core demographic for one (though I've actually been in games where the GM instituted a 'sit-up rule' where you could get a bonus to physical checks by doing sit-ups out of character, so there are exceptions). Another thing is that those kinds of tests are somewhat difficult to implement in a way that makes sense in-game. For example, it makes immediate sense that a player's intelligence is going to shine through in making tactical decisions and the like - the test is a natural extension of the scenario. On the other hand, doing out-of-character situps to lift an in-game boulder is pretty dissonant.

But negotiation and 'speaking in character' isn't dissonant, its actually a pretty natural continuation of the idea that 'you control what your character does'.

[Coidzor]

There are various reasons we don't generally see games that test strength, agility, or hardiness. That kind of test isn't very popular with the core demographic for one (though I've actually been in games where the GM instituted a 'sit-up rule' where you could get a bonus to physical checks by doing sit-ups out of character, so there are exceptions). Another thing is that those kinds of tests are somewhat difficult to implement in a way that makes sense in-game. For example, it makes immediate sense that a player's intelligence is going to shine through in making tactical decisions and the like - the test is a natural extension of the scenario. On the other hand, doing out-of-character situps to lift an in-game boulder is pretty dissonant.

Nor are they fair, barring very, very niche situations. Also the problem where if you pit Shelly, Mark, Steve, and Jolene together you're going to find out that things are a foregone conclusion in most situations depending upon what the contest is and which pair is competing, eliminating the need to go through the motions because you already know what's going to happen.

[NichG]

Nor are they fair, barring very, very niche situations. Also the problem where if you pit Shelly, Mark, Steve, and Jolene together you're going to find out that things are a foregone conclusion in most situations depending upon what the contest is and which pair is competing, eliminating the need to go through the motions because you already know what's going to happen.

They're as fair as anything else really. What makes it unfair is if you mislead the players into thinking the game is about something other than what it actually is. A sit-up contest between me and that GM would be a foregone conclusion in his favor, but if I sign up to play a game where that's the mechanic, then I've said 'okay, I accept that this is the challenge' - its fair because I've accepted the premise and am aware of whatever disadvantages I might face.

In general I would however agree that intellectual and social challenges are more interesting than arm wrestling, because they give rise to a much richer structure overall. Jolene may be better at identifying inconsistencies, whereas Steve might be better at figuring out logistics and Shelly might be better to remembering small details, and Mark might be good at saying clever things and getting people to react - between all of those out-of-character talents, things can go in very different ways - you aren't already know what's going to happen. But even if you know what's going to happen (usually the case since in most games the answer is 'the PCs win') its often fun and even interesting to actually go through the exercise of playing it out. I might know that we're going to win the battle, but its still fun to play it through.

[Yogibear41]

The only thing we ever generally "rule of cool" if you will is diplomacy checks and that is only some of the time, depending on what exactly it is that you are asking.

Most of my characters aren't really the diplomatic type anyway, and luckily enough I usually botch my diplomacy roll play anyway ha ha.

so my old dwarven fighter type gets to do the the ole I have a +1 to diplomacy roll. I fail, walk away, go get our hyper attractive half-elven cleric and she talks them into it, usually.

But we also have some unwritten rules about things like skill checks so essentially her DC is lower than mine alot of the times because well she is a sexy half elf chick, and i'm a scruffy dwarf.

Same type of things apply to stuff like Knowledge checks, for example my wizard character who spent over 50 years at basically a wizards college has easier DCs for knowledge checks about critters or Spellcraft Dcs to identify arcane spells. Than say some fighter who just put ranks in spellcraft.


None of this applies to things like attack rolls, or saving throws, because even the best in the world can still screw up.

[Anlashok]

Jolene may be better at identifying inconsistencies, whereas Steve might be better at figuring out logistics and Shelly might be better to remembering small details, and Mark might be good at saying clever things and getting people to react - between all of those out-of-character talents, things can go in very different ways - you aren't already know what's going to happen. But even if you know what's going to happen (usually the case since in most games the answer is 'the PCs win') its often fun and even interesting to actually go through the exercise of playing it out. I might know that we're going to win the battle, but its still fun to play it through.

That's all well and good. Not so good when Mark ends up being the party face even though he's a 6 charisma barbarian the DM likes the "clever things" he has to say and the party bard has his charisma and all his skill points amount to nothing because, hey, he can't come up with witty one liners and like some of the posters in this thread have indicated, he obviously doesn't "Deserve" to have a good diplomacy skill. Nevermind the character he's roleplaying, nevermind the skills he put in.

You keep talking about how it's not dissociative and other things are but it seems like an arbitrary distinction. Basing a character's Diplomacy or Knowledge on how much they actually know or how many clever phrases they can turn isn't any different than making them do sit-ups to lift a bolder, set up a pommelhorse to see how well they do on dexterity checks and stab them with rusty needles to see if they get a CON bonus to resist diseases.


That's taking it to the extreme
Not at all. It's the logical extension of letting the DM pick and choose which skills matter, moreover it's been my experience with every single DM who's used such a system to one degree or another, and since everyone else is relying on anecdotes here, why not offer mine?

[Coidzor]

They're as fair as anything else really. What makes it unfair is if you mislead the players into thinking the game is about something other than what it actually is. A sit-up contest between me and that GM would be a foregone conclusion in his favor, but if I sign up to play a game where that's the mechanic, then I've said 'okay, I accept that this is the challenge' - its fair because I've accepted the premise and am aware of whatever disadvantages I might face.

Obviously we have very different understandings of "fair." I believe you'd have quite a bit of difficulty finding people who would accept such a proposition over just admitting that you wanted to just do **** freeform.


In general I would however agree that intellectual and social challenges are more interesting than arm wrestling, because they give rise to a much richer structure overall. Jolene may be better at identifying inconsistencies, whereas Steve might be better at figuring out logistics and Shelly might be better to remembering small details, and Mark might be good at saying clever things and getting people to react - between all of those out-of-character talents, things can go in very different ways - you aren't already know what's going to happen.

Which potentially might work just fine if they had perfect division of labor and no overlapping or competing interests. Once you've got an interpersonal dynamic setup where any conflict always shakes out in one player's favor over another's, regardless of utility or the realities of the story, you've got a problem.

Implementing rules then is an equalizing element so that Suzie doesn't always get her way over Greg when it comes to the things that he has decided to invest himself in.


But even if you know what's going to happen (usually the case since in most games the answer is 'the PCs win') its often fun and even interesting to actually go through the exercise of playing it out. I might know that we're going to win the battle, but its still fun to play it through.

This feels like you're dodging the issue by talking about the story of the game when what we were really talking about was the resolution mechanic and its effect on the story. If you're going to use resolution mechanics then there should be an actual chance of resolution, otherwise you're just being dishonest to yourself about playing a free form, ad-hoc roleplaying game with no resolution mechanics beyond what you can harangue the designated referee or the rest of the group to go along with, which, again, basically ends up with one person or maybe two of them utterly dominating unless you've got a very specific mix of people. To the point where it's not really useful or interesting to talk about in the greater conversation about such things because it's so far off the path.

[NichG]

That's all well and good. Not so good when Mark ends up being the party face even though he's a 6 charisma barbarian the DM likes the "clever things" he has to say and the party bard has his charisma and all his skill points amount to nothing because, hey, he can't come up with witty one liners and like some of the posters in this thread have indicated, he obviously doesn't "Deserve" to have a good diplomacy skill. Nevermind the character he's roleplaying, nevermind the skills he put in.

In a game where the intended player challenge is in saying clever things and tricking people, this is actually the right outcome. 'The character he's roleplaying' does not override that design decision. My entire point is that its perfectly reasonable to design a game where you cannot mechanically have a character that lets you mechanically succeed at saying clever things. There is no mandate that a 'Diplomacy skill' or 'party face stat' must exist in a game system.



You keep talking about how it's not dissociative and other things are but it seems like an arbitrary distinction. Basing a character's Diplomacy or Knowledge on how much they actually know or how many clever phrases they can turn isn't any different than making them do sit-ups to lift a bolder, set up a pommelhorse to see how well they do on dexterity checks and stab them with rusty needles to see if they get a CON bonus to resist diseases.


These would all be valid ways to construct a game, although I'd question the sanity of anyone playing the last one there since it'd be a game that'd risk real personal harm. But replace that with 'holding your breath' and you have something that isn't really crazy.

When you design a game (and a campaign), you're always making decisions about 'what is the player challenge?'. If you provide a huge setting book and then rely on the players remembering things from there to solve the situations in the game, then you're challenging memory and dilligence. If you make a character-building system that allows people with system mastery to be tens or hundreds of times more powerful than people who slap together something randomly, then you're testing their ability to optimize a rule system.

Unless the players really have no feedback into the game at all, challenges are always with respect to certain abilities possessed by the players, not the characters. 'Challenging the characters' is a meaningless concept - any time you do that, what you're really doing is challenging the ability of the players to build a character.


Obviously we have very different understandings of "fair." I believe you'd have quite a bit of difficulty finding people who would accept such a proposition over just admitting that you wanted to just do **** freeform.

Well, no one walked out of the campaign with the sit-up rule, or a subsequent campaign where you could auto-succeed on certain Willpower checks if you were willing to take a fear test (look at a scary website, etc). I consider both of those to be far more extreme cases than 'RP determines success/failure in social encounters', but for the particular groups involved they were acceptable.

This isn't really that bizarre of an idea in the arena of games in general. Lots of people play single and multi-player computer games that test the reflexes, social ability, economic acumen, patience, quick-thinking, etc of the players. Tabletop RPGs don't test things like reflexes more because its not a great fit for the medium (most of the ways you could do it end up feeling very artificial, like the sit-up rule), but you could easily design things to challenge the rest.



Which potentially might work just fine if they had perfect division of labor and no overlapping or competing interests. Once you've got an interpersonal dynamic setup where any conflict always shakes out in one player's favor over another's, regardless of utility or the realities of the story, you've got a problem.


The thing to recognize is that this is never not the case. The guy who has played D&D for 10 years has a strict advantage over the guy who has only played for 6 months. The guy who has an IQ of 150 has a strict advantage over the guy who has an IQ of 100. The guy playing a Wizard has a strict advantage over the guy playing a Fighter.

If you're designing a competitive game, then the right design response is to actually broaden the different ways that the players can compete with eachother. Maybe Mark always comes out ahead in social situations because he's just socially more clever than the rest, but if Greg can maneuver events so that succeeding in social encounters isn't worth as much as winning the tactical parts of the scenario, then Greg can shift the game to be more in his advantage and win despite having a strict loss condition against Mark in social contests.

When you have a game that tests a set of players at something in which they have a large gap in ability (enough to ensure a solid outcome) then you can start introducing handicaps explicitly to even things and keep the game interesting. The players know Mark has played for 10 years and Greg is a newbie, so they agree that Mark will play a T4 class and Greg can play T1. Or they know that Mark dominates the game because he's a better manipulator than the rest, so the players agree that Greg starts in an alliance with another player, but Mark has to claw his way up from nothing.

Anyhow, that kind of handicap really matters a lot more in competitive environments than in collaborative ones.



This feels like you're dodging the issue by talking about the story of the game when what we were really talking about was the resolution mechanic and its effect on the story. If you're going to use resolution mechanics then there should be an actual chance of resolution, otherwise you're just being dishonest to yourself about playing a free form, ad-hoc roleplaying game with no resolution mechanics beyond what you can harangue the designated referee or the rest of the group to go along with, which, again, basically ends up with one person or maybe two of them utterly dominating unless you've got a very specific mix of people. To the point where it's not really useful or interesting to talk about in the greater conversation about such things because it's so far off the path.

There's an implicit assumption here that I don't appreciate, namely that its impossible for the referee/GM to present a scenario where there are actually objectively better/worse responses to it without representing it through 'discrete' mechanics like Diplomacy checks. If the GM notes something like 'this NPC is obsessed with his family honor, and absolutely will not do anything that brings shame to himself and his family, but will easily go along with any plan that might prevent shame or restore honor' then there's still an objective resolution even if there's no explicit 'resolution mechanic'. If a player who is usually bad at figuring stuff out figures that out and suggests blackmail as a solution then its as much a solution coming from their mouth as if it came from the player who usually figures the stuff out.

If the scenario is that 'if Sauron gets the One Ring, the world ends' then even if there isn't a set of hard mechanics that delineate how this comes to pass, if the ringbearer says 'I give the Ring to a Ringwraith' then that's still a action that has an objective relationship to the context of the scenario. There's a lot of space between the extremes of 'cowboys and indians' and 'boardgames'.

[Anlashok]

In a game where the intended player challenge is in saying clever things and tricking people, this is actually the right outcome. 'The character he's roleplaying' does not override that design decision. My entire point is that its perfectly reasonable to design a game where you cannot mechanically have a character that lets you mechanically succeed at saying clever things. There is no mandate that a 'Diplomacy skill' or 'party face stat' must exist in a game system.
We're, however, talking about D&D 3.5. A roleplaying game explicitly designed to allow you to roleplay characters that function outside the normal bounds of a player's behavior. That's what the game is, suddenly demanding on a whim that the party bard doesn't get to be a diplomat because his player is no more absurd than insisting the Wizard can't cast spells because his player can't channel magic either.

It's a game with hard mechanics and rules designed to allow players to do things they can't in a real setting. Arbitrarily deciding to punish one player for those choices and reward another player for not making those choices isn't any sort of good play.

[NichG]

We're, however, talking about D&D 3.5. A roleplaying game explicitly designed to allow you to roleplay characters that function outside the normal bounds of a player's behavior. That's what the game is, suddenly demanding on a whim that the party bard doesn't get to be a diplomat because his player is no more absurd than insisting the Wizard can't cast spells because his player can't channel magic either.

D&D 3.5 is a really broad field of potential games - every table is different, and you can do a lot of things using it as the basic engine. As long as its made clear to players that 'RP is going to beat rolling' then its on them to decide whether they want to play at that table or not. If none of the players available want that kind of game then the DM will either run something else or not run anything.

Every DM is basically a game designer, whether they like it or not. Even if they aren't changing things like how the Diplomacy skill works, they're creating scenarios when they decide what monsters will be present, what the world looks like, what the NPCs are doing, and so on. It behooves everyone at the table that the decisions they make be conscious and intentional rather than accidental, and that means recognizing that fundamentally nothing is actually about the characters - its about the players.

Once you recognize it, you can also recognize what information you need to give potential players to avoid situations like the one in the OP's post from happening from the start.

[icefractal]

I get where people are coming from, with wanting things like social interactions to be purely based on character abilities, not player ones. There's always going to be a trade-off between making something part of the challenge (potentially fun) and allowing everyone to participate equally, despite their OOC skills. So it's certainly a valid stance to take.

However, I don't agree that it's anything more than a preference, or that wanting certain things to be player-fueled is an objectively wrong decision. Because if that were the case, then D&D has already failed. D&D already has a number of things that are based on player skill, and aren't "fair" by the definition some people have been using.


For example - tactical skill. Let's say Abel wants to play a genius warrior with high Int/Wis, Knowledge(history), an expert in all things tactical. Meanwhile, Bob is playing a not particularly bright bruiser.

If, however, Abel makes bad tactical decisions - moving in ways that provoke AoOs, attacking from places he doesn't have the advantage, not using abilities at the right time - then he's not going to look very smart. And if Bob uses effective tactics, he's going to look like a lot more like a tactician than Abel's character.

Now is that fair? By the standard people have been applying for social skills, it isn't - we're letting OOC player skill completely stomp on IC ability. But the alternative is that the players don't make tactical decisions, you instead roll a character skill for tactical advantage. And since most D&D players like making tactical decisions, that's not going to happen.


Another example, and this one would be even harder to "solve" while retaining any player agency at all. Abel makes a character with the intention of being the party leader - charismatic, good at all the skills you'd imagine a leader to have, appropriate background. Bob doesn't, his character is a shifty-looking drifter who only talks in terse mutterings.

However, Abel's plans are kind of terrible, and the other players don't take him that seriously. Bob, on the other hand, has good plans, and is known OOC for this. So the other players tend to following what Bob's character mutters more than what Abel's says.


So - "I don't like player-based social situations / puzzles / etc?" Completely valid preference. "I do like them?" Equally valid, and fully in keeping with D&D as it already exists.

Just make sure that your whole group is on the same page, or can compromise. It sounds like the OP's group isn't. And importantly - tell players how you're doing things up front! Letting someone spend a bunch of skill points on things that won't actually matter is not cool.

[TuggyNE]

So - "I don't like player-based social situations / puzzles / etc?" Completely valid preference. "I do like them?" Equally valid, and fully in keeping with D&D as it already exists.

The usual distinction I draw here is between expressing the results of a single attempted action (swinging a sword, convincing the Duke of the danger of the ogres of X, whatever) and determining what general strategy or tactics to use (which enemies to attack, whether to appeal to what you know of the Duke's pride or rely on his ideas of duty). The latter has, in D&D, no particular representation, so it tends to get mingled in for no particularly good reason with every other layer of social stuff.

Therefore, the player directs the character's attempts using a variety of character skills etc, both in perception and in action; without sound strategy, no cunning build will be effective, but with even a fairly minimal strategy a good deal can be accomplished if the character is sufficiently skilled.

[Incanur]

However, I don't agree that it's anything more than a preference, or that wanting certain things to be player-fueled is an objectively wrong decision.

This.


For example - tactical skill. Let's say Abel wants to play a genius warrior with high Int/Wis, Knowledge(history), an expert in all things tactical. Meanwhile, Bob is playing a not particularly bright bruiser.

If, however, Abel makes bad tactical decisions - moving in ways that provoke AoOs, attacking from places he doesn't have the advantage, not using abilities at the right time - then he's not going to look very smart. And if Bob uses effective tactics, he's going to look like a lot more like a tactician than Abel's character.

A solid example example of how player skill matters. While especially under this circumstance, I think it's appropriate for the GM to advise the player, I don't see how we could completely remove this element without eliminating player agency. Even if combat were simply a d20 roll plus modifiers, the player would still retain choice about when to engage in combat and could royally screw that up.


Another example, and this one would be even harder to "solve" while retaining any player agency at all. Abel makes a character with the intention of being the party leader - charismatic, good at all the skills you'd imagine a leader to have, appropriate background. Bob doesn't, his character is a shifty-looking drifter who only talks in terse mutterings.

However, Abel's plans are kind of terrible, and the other players don't take him that seriously. Bob, on the other hand, has good plans, and is known OOC for this. So the other players tend to following what Bob's character mutters more than what Abel's says.

This isn't necessarily a contradiction. In rules terms, think of terrible plans as imposing a circumstance penalty and good ones as providing a circumstance bonus. To use an extreme example, character would need some serious diplomancy to convince the party to jump off a cliff. If the charismatic PC talks nonsense, the party strikes me as justified in ignoring them. Even if the former can persuade many NPCs, the same doesn't apply to other heroes.

One thing I've often seen happen at the table is that the savvy player with a PC lacking in social skills makes suggestions to the diplomancer, who then uses the former's logic and arguments on the NPC(s). This works well, and actually mirrors how many charming politicians rely on creepy/awkward/quiet advisers.

[Coidzor]

This isn't necessarily a contradiction. In rules terms, think of terrible plans as imposing a circumstance penalty and good ones as providing a circumstance bonus. To use an extreme example, character would need some serious diplomancy to convince the party to jump off a cliff. If the charismatic PC talks nonsense, the party strikes me as justified in ignoring them. Even if the former can persuade many NPCs, the same doesn't apply to other heroes.

One thing I've often seen happen at the table is that the savvy player with a PC lacking in social skills makes suggestions to the diplomancer, who then uses the former's logic and arguments on the NPC(s). This works well, and actually mirrors how many charming politicians rely on creepy/awkward/quiet advisers.

Aiding one another and discussing the game OOC is quite a different kettle of fish from actively undermining one another IC in attempting to circumvent a problem which exists in the metagame.

[Knaight]

I get where people are coming from, with wanting things like social interactions to be purely based on character abilities, not player ones. There's always going to be a trade-off between making something part of the challenge (potentially fun) and allowing everyone to participate equally, despite their OOC skills. So it's certainly a valid stance to take.

However, I don't agree that it's anything more than a preference, or that wanting certain things to be player-fueled is an objectively wrong decision. Because if that were the case, then D&D has already failed. D&D already has a number of things that are based on player skill, and aren't "fair" by the definition some people have been using.

On the other hand, if you're going to be using a system where social interactions are entirely based on the players, why are you using one with those stats even in it? I mean, really, having the Diplomacy skill under those circumstances is just ridiculous.

I have no issue with games that have this operate off of player ability, putting it entirely in the realm of role playing. I've deliberately built, modified, and built-modified* those systems. When I do that, I tend to do things like just not having mental or social attributes and social skills. It's when they are codified in the system and just ignored that it gets irritating.

*Fudge is a bit weird here, and exists in a grey area. The short version is that it has attributes and skills by default, but it doesn't actually have a default list, and you choose which you want on a per game basis. I generally worked off of Strength, Agility, Toughness, and Perception for the attributes, which notably has nothing directly connected to social interactions.

[NichG]

On the other hand, if you're going to be using a system where social interactions are entirely based on the players, why are you using one with those stats even in it? I mean, really, having the Diplomacy skill under those circumstances is just ridiculous.

I have no issue with games that have this operate off of player ability, putting it entirely in the realm of role playing. I've deliberately built, modified, and built-modified* those systems. When I do that, I tend to do things like just not having mental or social attributes and social skills. It's when they are codified in the system and just ignored that it gets irritating.

*Fudge is a bit weird here, and exists in a grey area. The short version is that it has attributes and skills by default, but it doesn't actually have a default list, and you choose which you want on a per game basis. I generally worked off of Strength, Agility, Toughness, and Perception for the attributes, which notably has nothing directly connected to social interactions.

Modifying the system does make sense, even if its just explicitly saying 'hey, don't bother with skills X,Y,Z'. But going to a completely different system would be an overreaction - D&D is much larger than those three skills, and if you like the rest of it it makes a lot more sense to just (explicitly) turn off the skills than to throw up your hands and play GURPS or something.

Its also a good opportunity for figuring out a way to make the skills actually do something without replacing player ability. If high enough Diplomacy lets you run things by the GM before you actually say them in character, for example, then that assists player ability without replacing it.

[Knaight]

Modifying the system does make sense, even if its just explicitly saying 'hey, don't bother with skills X,Y,Z'. But going to a completely different system would be an overreaction - D&D is much larger than those three skills, and if you like the rest of it it makes a lot more sense to just (explicitly) turn off the skills than to throw up your hands and play GURPS or something.

I'd consider "These three skills are gone" to be enough to cover things, really. It's a bare minimum - I'd consider going to a different system under these circumstances, because the whole philosophy of minimizing rules and rolling strongly suggests not using a rules heavy system, but that's a different point.

I also don't consider going to a different system a big deal. I know that there are various ways to consider it, and that the paradigm of a group having System A as their one and only system for game after game until they switch to System B and abandon system A forever is a pretty common paradigm, but it's hardly necessary.