"Too Fiddly"

[LibraryOgre]

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/33377.html

So, I've frequently referred to Pathfinder and Wizard's of the Coast's versions of D&D (WD&D) as "too fiddly" for me to ever want to run. I'll play in them, sure, but there's a couple meanings in "too fiddly" that I want to talk about.

1) Character creation as a winnable mini-game. In AD&D and C&C, you create a character of X race and Y class, at Z level. For the most part, that mechanically defines your character. Unless you're a human dual-class in AD&D, you're not going to significantly change beyond that from level to level... you'll learn new weapons, and new spells, and various numbers will improve, but you're essentially the same set of mechanics throughout. For me, this frees me to think about that story and interactions of the characters, both in character and out of character, and to make a mechanically ineffective character, you've more or less got to make a thief with a low dex, a wizard with a low int, or a cleric with a wisdom below 13. Beyond that, you're going to be at least moderately effective, unless played poorly. The chink in this part of the argument is, of course, Skills and Powers. However, it is not as bad as you might think. While it allowed each character vary quite a bit, the characters did not appreciably mechanically evolve from level to level. Fighter A may have a variety of abilities that Fighter B does not, but Fighter A's variant abilities will remain largely the same across levels. Aside from new spell levels, the only truly game-changing ability that happens in core AD&D is when the druid can finally shapechange (or the heirophant stuff, which I have never seen in play).
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, however, that's just the beginning. Once you've chosen X and Z, you have to choose multiples for Y, and a myriad of choices. What's your Y for Z1? For Z2? Are you going to change to something else at Z6, and if so, what choices do you have to make at Z 1-5? In these two games, it is very possible to make a character who, though they seem interesting, are mechanically unfeasible. If you mess up in one of your choices, you can screw yourself out of a prestige class, or even wind up preparing for one that doesn't really help you do what you want to do. There's a dizzying array of options, and some of them are simply mechanical traps... they work poorly or not as well as some other option that you overlooked (or was in some splatbook that you didn't have). The phrase "build" comes into play because that's what you do, level by level... mechanically put together your character, making changes with each level so that, for me at least, there's a space of 2-3 levels where the character is like I pictured him... and then he's changed to something else, because of mechanical choices that came up.
4e tries to fix this, and does, to some extent. While you usually have at least one choice at every level (feat, power, path or attribute), most of them are relatively balanced with each other, and it takes a little bit of work to make a mechanically unfeasible character (i.e. putting your highest stat as something other than your attack... or at least secondary... stat; maybe choosing feats that will be absolutely useless to you, or one of the powers that simply does not work well). While a new level in 4e seldom radically changes the capabilities of your character, it is still a game that places a fair amount of emphasis on your mechanical build.

2) Overall mechanics. In 3.x, Pathfinder, and 4e, you have a plethora of bonuses and situational modifiers. "I was bloodied this turn, so I get a +2 to damage, and I spent an action point so I get +2 to every die of damage... I can't stack Paragon Defenses and Iron Will because they're both feat bonuses, but I can stack these three because one's an armor bonus and the other's a natural armor bonus and the last one's an enhancement to my natural armor bonus... but I don't get that one on this attack because he has combat advantage until I save against it." In both my Pathfinder games and my 4e games, a frequent lament is "Crap, I forgot I had this bonus, I probably would have (saved/hit/killed him/not died). Round to round, even with combat cards and the like, this becomes a LOT to keep track of at once, especially if you're DMing. You have to trust that the players know their characters very well, because each is a special and unique snowflake that, despite using unified mechanics, has completely different sets of modifiers to keep track of... as do most of the monsters. This is still a mountain of information to juggle at any given moment.
Compare this to AD&D or C&C. Modifiers tend to be fewer, and they tend to be more standardized across classes. While this slightly narrows tactical options (and, IME, it is only a slight narrowing), it keeps game play much faster... with fewer tactical options, players dither shorter periods of time, and calculate effects MUCH faster when they don't have 4-5 different numbers and modifiers to keep track of. Especially with AD&D, you do have different mechanics being handled with different systems... but those systems, once learned, remain the same. There's not a point where you have to change how a surprise check is done because of a new class ability, or find yourself facing an ever-changing array of modifiers.

Despite AD&D's convoluted mechanical eccentricities, I maintain that it was inherently simpler than Pathfinder, 3.x, or 4e. Once the mechanics of the system were learned, they could be subsumed; their few modifiers either learned or placed for reference. With WD&D and its successors, you are instead presented with mechanics that may revolve around a central, unifying die roll... but where each roll is subject to a unique set of modifiers, from many different sources (PCs, NPCs, environment) which are not so easily memorized because they frequently change with each roll. This does not say that AD&D is "better" than the other games... that is, in many ways, a subjective measurement... but it is simpler, especially on the DM side of the screen.

[Milskidasith]

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/33377.html

So, I've frequently referred to Pathfinder and Wizard's of the Coast's versions of D&D (WD&D) as "too fiddly" for me to ever want to run. I'll play in them, sure, but there's a couple meanings in "too fiddly" that I want to talk about.

1) Character creation as a winnable mini-game. In AD&D and C&C, you create a character of X race and Y class, at Z level. For the most part, that mechanically defines your character. Unless you're a human dual-class in AD&D, you're not going to significantly change beyond that from level to level... you'll learn new weapons, and new spells, and various numbers will improve, but you're essentially the same set of mechanics throughout. For me, this frees me to think about that story and interactions of the characters, both in character and out of character, and to make a mechanically ineffective character, you've more or less got to make a thief with a low dex, a wizard with a low int, or a cleric with a wisdom below 13. Beyond that, you're going to be at least moderately effective, unless played poorly. The chink in this part of the argument is, of course, Skills and Powers. However, it is not as bad as you might think. While it allowed each character vary quite a bit, the characters did not appreciably mechanically evolve from level to level. Fighter A may have a variety of abilities that Fighter B does not, but Fighter A's variant abilities will remain largely the same across levels. Aside from new spell levels, the only truly game-changing ability that happens in core AD&D is when the druid can finally shapechange (or the heirophant stuff, which I have never seen in play).
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, however, that's just the beginning. Once you've chosen X and Z, you have to choose multiples for Y, and a myriad of choices. What's your Y for Z1? For Z2? Are you going to change to something else at Z6, and if so, what choices do you have to make at Z 1-5? In these two games, it is very possible to make a character who, though they seem interesting, are mechanically unfeasible. If you mess up in one of your choices, you can screw yourself out of a prestige class, or even wind up preparing for one that doesn't really help you do what you want to do. There's a dizzying array of options, and some of them are simply mechanical traps... they work poorly or not as well as some other option that you overlooked (or was in some splatbook that you didn't have). The phrase "build" comes into play because that's what you do, level by level... mechanically put together your character, making changes with each level so that, for me at least, there's a space of 2-3 levels where the character is like I pictured him... and then he's changed to something else, because of mechanical choices that came up.
4e tries to fix this, and does, to some extent. While you usually have at least one choice at every level (feat, power, path or attribute), most of them are relatively balanced with each other, and it takes a little bit of work to make a mechanically unfeasible character (i.e. putting your highest stat as something other than your attack... or at least secondary... stat; maybe choosing feats that will be absolutely useless to you, or one of the powers that simply does not work well). While a new level in 4e seldom radically changes the capabilities of your character, it is still a game that places a fair amount of emphasis on your mechanical build.

2) Overall mechanics. In 3.x, Pathfinder, and 4e, you have a plethora of bonuses and situational modifiers. "I was bloodied this turn, so I get a +2 to damage, and I spent an action point so I get +2 to every die of damage... I can't stack Paragon Defenses and Iron Will because they're both feat bonuses, but I can stack these three because one's an armor bonus and the other's a natural armor bonus and the last one's an enhancement to my natural armor bonus... but I don't get that one on this attack because he has combat advantage until I save against it." In both my Pathfinder games and my 4e games, a frequent lament is "Crap, I forgot I had this bonus, I probably would have (saved/hit/killed him/not died). Round to round, even with combat cards and the like, this becomes a LOT to keep track of at once, especially if you're DMing. You have to trust that the players know their characters very well, because each is a special and unique snowflake that, despite using unified mechanics, has completely different sets of modifiers to keep track of... as do most of the monsters. This is still a mountain of information to juggle at any given moment.
Compare this to AD&D or C&C. Modifiers tend to be fewer, and they tend to be more standardized across classes. While this slightly narrows tactical options (and, IME, it is only a slight narrowing), it keeps game play much faster... with fewer tactical options, players dither shorter periods of time, and calculate effects MUCH faster when they don't have 4-5 different numbers and modifiers to keep track of. Especially with AD&D, you do have different mechanics being handled with different systems... but those systems, once learned, remain the same. There's not a point where you have to change how a surprise check is done because of a new class ability, or find yourself facing an ever-changing array of modifiers.

Despite AD&D's convoluted mechanical eccentricities, I maintain that it was inherently simpler than Pathfinder, 3.x, or 4e. Once the mechanics of the system were learned, they could be subsumed; their few modifiers either learned or placed for reference. With WD&D and its successors, you are instead presented with mechanics that may revolve around a central, unifying die roll... but where each roll is subject to a unique set of modifiers, from many different sources (PCs, NPCs, environment) which are not so easily memorized because they frequently change with each roll. This does not say that AD&D is "better" than the other games... that is, in many ways, a subjective measurement... but it is simpler, especially on the DM side of the screen.

So it's inherently superior because it is so simple that you have no mechanical choices, they don't change, and you're always doing the same thing? It's a matter of opinion, I suppose; I have no trouble keeping track of modifiers, and I'd prefer to have actual options after picking a race and a class.

[Seatbelt]

You seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the mechanics involved. Can't be that fiddly.

[Rixx]

I always considered this a flaw of the d20 system, but I've never been able to theoretically keep d20's level of character customization and earlier edition's speedy play.

The best I can think of is a set of pre-figured modifiers figured out during character creation instead of modifiers dynamically applied during play, but of course that would require a rewrite of the entire system.

[Gorgondantess]

Ah, but its fiddliness is its good side. You can't have everything, and because of its lack of fiddliness, AD&D "frees you to think about that story and interactions of the characters", whereas in D&D 3.5, making characters is half of the game- there are so many choices, and there's a beauty in that.
D&D 4e is an efficient battle simulator, D&D 3.5 is a limitless creation engine, and AD&D is the foundation on which to build an epic story. They're all good systems in their own right- it just comes down to preferences. So, you prefer storytelling and interaction over building cool characters.

[Inyssius Tor]

You seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the mechanics involved. Can't be that fiddly.

!

"You seem to have climbed Mount Everest successfully. Can't be that arduous."

"You seem to do pretty well without legs. Can't be that annoying."



(Not gonna participate in the larger discussion, I'm just saying.)

[Kylarra]

So it's inherently superior because it is so simple that you have no mechanical choices, they don't change, and you're always doing the same thing? It's a matter of opinion, I suppose; I have no trouble keeping track of modifiers, and I'd prefer to have actual options after picking a race and a class.

He said inherently simpler, not necessarily superior, although that caveat is only mentioned in the very last line.

[LibraryOgre]

So it's inherently superior because it is so simple that you have no mechanical choices, they don't change, and you're always doing the same thing? It's a matter of opinion, I suppose; I have no trouble keeping track of modifiers, and I'd prefer to have actual options after picking a race and a class.

I'm not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote. For one thing, I disclaimed "better"... "less fiddly" and "faster playing", perhaps, but not "better". For example, in one of the named games (Castles and Crusades), any race can be any class, without restriction; while some races are better at some classes (lower dexterity hurts dwarven rogues, for example), there's no restriction on playing them. In a game I consider to be AD&D descended (Hackmaster Basic), certain races pay more for certain classes, but anyone can, in theory, be anything.

You seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the mechanics involved. Can't be that fiddly.

"Solid grasp of the mechanics" does not equal "fast and easy to use in play" or even "enjoyable to run."

I always considered this a flaw of the d20 system, but I've never been able to theoretically keep d20's level of character customization and earlier edition's speedy play.

The closest I can come is actually Skills and Powers... at least in concept, since the execution was, in many ways, severely flawed (in many cases by not enough options, especially to fighters). It lets you customize your character to a very large degree, but once your character is created, things are pretty well pre-figured. It even included a system for drama-type dice (in the form of character points... though that, too, had some flaws in execution).

D&D 4e is an efficient battle simulator, D&D 3.5 is a limitless creation engine, and AD&D is the foundation on which to build an epic story. They're all good systems in their own right- it just comes down to preferences. So, you prefer storytelling and interaction over building cool characters.

Don't get me wrong, I like building cool characters... I think one of 4e's strengths is that you can sit and look at your character sheet, thinking "look at all the cool stuff I can do!"; and if you look at some of my other threads, I enjoy the heck out of playing it. I just find that the mechanics tend to make it a game that is mechanically harder to handle than one with fewer, and less variable, modifiers.

He said inherently simpler, not necessarily superior, although that caveat is only mentioned in the very last line.

I figured he saw that since, ya know, he quoted the whole thing.

[Tavar]

If you say it only once, at the end of a rather large piece of text, I wouldn't be surprised if someone missed it. And for the quote, well, that just means that he hit the quote button, not that he necessarily carefully read the whole thing.

[ApatheticDespot]

In AD&D and C&C, you create a character of X race and Y class, at Z level. For the most part, that mechanically defines your character. Unless you're a human dual-class in AD&D, you're not going to significantly change beyond that from level to level... you'll learn new weapons, and new spells, and various numbers will improve, but you're essentially the same set of mechanics throughout.

To each their own I suppose, but I honestly can't fathom how this could be a good thing. I've never played AD&D, but in 3.5 I once designed an awakened squirrel mad scientist who rode around in an armoured wand turret mounted on the head of his flesh golem creation. The way you describe it, in AD&D I could play a wizard. Whee . Even if you don't mind giving up the ability to implement a character concept in a variety of qualitatively different ways (and I for one absolutely would), there doesn't seem to be much point in freeing your attention character interactions at the expense of being able to create your character in the first place.

[Seatbelt]

!

"You seem to have climbed Mount Everest successfully. Can't be that arduous."

"You seem to do pretty well without legs. Can't be that annoying."



(Not gonna participate in the larger discussion, I'm just saying.)

Exactly! You understand 100%. I climbed Mt Everest in my wheel chair this weekend and it was no big deal. :D

[LibraryOgre]

To each their own I suppose, but I honestly can't fathom how this could be a good thing. I've never played AD&D, but in 3.5 I once designed an awakened squirrel mad scientist who rode around in an armoured wand turret mounted on the head of his flesh golem creation. The way you describe it, in AD&D I could play a wizard. Whee . Even if you don't mind giving up the ability to implement a character concept in a variety of qualitatively different ways (and I for one absolutely would), there doesn't seem to be much point in freeing your attention character interactions at the expense of being able to create your character in the first place.

Tell me, though... did you come up with that concept independently (coming fresh to D&D with the idea of a squirrel mad scientist who rode the wand-turret of his flesh golem, and really wanting to implement it), or did you see that it was possible from the options presented, and it came to you that way.

If you were to come to me with an awakened squirrel wizard who rode his flesh golem from the wand turrent, the main question is "What do you want to accomplish with this?" Is it because you like the idea of having a mini-me run around from time to time? Do you just like the visual (the easiest to solve)? Or are you looking for an excuse to dump strength and con and still have a good strength and con? Was it the concept or the build that was foremost?

I had a similar argument with a friend of mine, you see, regarding a kit in the Complete Elves. Her assertion was that, without Complete Elves being allowed, she couldn't be a blade singer. My contention was that she certainly could... make a fighter/mage and call him a bladesinger, and he's a bladesinger. A lack of mechanical (i.e. build) options doesn't prevent a character from being played... it just means that there may not be a tremendous advantage to playing that particular concept.

[Seatbelt]

Except that a certain package of abilities makes certain concepts more viable than they would otherwise be. Yes, I can be a perfectly viable War Wizard by taking levels of wizard and fighter. But I can't wear fullplate without levels in Spellsword, and my ideal of a war wizard is a mage decked out in heavy armor.

[ApatheticDespot]

Tell me, though... did you come up with that concept independently (coming fresh to D&D with the idea of a squirrel mad scientist who rode the wand-turret of his flesh golem, and really wanting to implement it), or did you see that it was possible from the options presented, and it came to you that way.

If you were to come to me with an awakened squirrel wizard who rode his flesh golem from the wand turrent, the main question is "What do you want to accomplish with this?" Is it because you like the idea of having a mini-me run around from time to time? Do you just like the visual (the easiest to solve)? Or are you looking for an excuse to dump strength and con and still have a good strength and con? Was it the concept or the build that was foremost?

I had a similar argument with a friend of mine, you see, regarding a kit in the Complete Elves. Her assertion was that, without Complete Elves being allowed, she couldn't be a blade singer. My contention was that she certainly could... make a fighter/mage and call him a bladesinger, and he's a bladesinger. A lack of mechanical (i.e. build) options doesn't prevent a character from being played... it just means that there may not be a tremendous advantage to playing that particular concept.

The concept came first (how exactly could one look at the 3.5 rules and say "this just screams squirrel bent on world domination"?), and the rules allowed me to create that character in such a way that the concept and the build were in perfect concert. I can't say that the fact that you immediately thought I just wanted better stats and nothing else comes as a complete surprise, it seems to come up every time I have this conversation. I'll tell you what I've told everyone else who's gone that route, it's rude and frankly casts your position in a bad light.

I can make a commoner who throws knives and call him a wizard casting magic missiles, but should I? Why is the number of "spells" he can "cast" determined by his carrying capacity rather than his level or intelligence? Why does he have to prepare his "spells" at a weapons store rather than from his spell book? Why can he "cast" when in front of a beholder's central eye but not in a strong wind? Shoehorning concepts into unsuitable mechanics detracts from both.

As for your question, here's what I would want to accomplish: I want, at a minimum, to be able to use the game's mechanics to create the character I described in such a way that the mechanics accurately model my character in every situation. I can do that in 3.5, and I can do it with virtually no divergence from the standard character creation rules (a single d% rolled 100 in my backstory and I'm good to go); can you say the same about AD&D?

[Draz74]

4e tries to fix this, and does, to some extent. While you usually have at least one choice at every level (feat, power, path or attribute), most of them are relatively balanced with each other, and it takes a little bit of work to make a mechanically unfeasible character (i.e. putting your highest stat as something other than your attack... or at least secondary... stat; maybe choosing feats that will be absolutely useless to you, or one of the powers that simply does not work well). While a new level in 4e seldom radically changes the capabilities of your character, it is still a game that places a fair amount of emphasis on your mechanical build.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from with the whole first half of your complaint, even if I don't quite agree. 3e does have so many options it's ridiculous. Sometimes even when I'm bored, I have to skip this Forum just because I don't want the headache of digging into yet another optimization puzzle over something random that I've never heard of before.

That said, I do really like having to make meaningful choices often, and not only in the roleplaying aspects of the game. It makes me feel like my characters are progressing, becoming more powerful, and that's addictive. So I don't really want to go back to the amount of progress that my 2e characters had.

I guess, in this specific aspect of the game, that 4e is more or less my target. But it's still just a little bit less customizable than I would like (when played RAW; with a DM who's willing to do a bit of creative homebrewing it's ok).

2) Overall mechanics. In 3.x, Pathfinder, and 4e, you have a plethora of bonuses and situational modifiers. "I was bloodied this turn, so I get a +2 to damage, and I spent an action point so I get +2 to every die of damage... I can't stack Paragon Defenses and Iron Will because they're both feat bonuses, but I can stack these three because one's an armor bonus and the other's a natural armor bonus and the last one's an enhancement to my natural armor bonus... but I don't get that one on this attack because he has combat advantage until I save against it." In both my Pathfinder games and my 4e games, a frequent lament is "Crap, I forgot I had this bonus, I probably would have (saved/hit/killed him/not died). Round to round, even with combat cards and the like, this becomes a LOT to keep track of at once, especially if you're DMing.

Ugh, yeah. Tell me about it. This is probably my #1 complaint with 4e.

Getting rid of this effect is one of my primary goals in my homebrew system ...

So yeah, in short, I guess I agree with you about these editions being more "fiddly" than I would like. I just think there's enough good things about 3e, too, too make it my favorite (so far) in spite of its fiddliness.

[Satyr]

Its probably a matter of perspective, but I find any edition of D&D very restrictive and strongly limited in character options, either because there aren't just many, or because the system has the tendency to punish players for playing interesting, but not powerful characters (e.g. melee fighters). While there are many options, the system still shoehorns you into one roll, which leads to a number of mechanically complex yet flat characters.
That is even worse in AD&D, where you are shoehorned into a role and have no chance whatsoever to adapt (unless you are a human, of course, and don't mind the issues of changing you class) or actually develop your character - you just get bigger numbers.

[Zen Master]

Tell me, though... did you come up with that concept independently (coming fresh to D&D with the idea of a squirrel mad scientist who rode the wand-turret of his flesh golem, and really wanting to implement it), or did you see that it was possible from the options presented, and it came to you that way.

If you were to come to me with an awakened squirrel wizard who rode his flesh golem from the wand turrent, the main question is "What do you want to accomplish with this?" Is it because you like the idea of having a mini-me run around from time to time? Do you just like the visual (the easiest to solve)? Or are you looking for an excuse to dump strength and con and still have a good strength and con? Was it the concept or the build that was foremost?

I had a similar argument with a friend of mine, you see, regarding a kit in the Complete Elves. Her assertion was that, without Complete Elves being allowed, she couldn't be a blade singer. My contention was that she certainly could... make a fighter/mage and call him a bladesinger, and he's a bladesinger. A lack of mechanical (i.e. build) options doesn't prevent a character from being played... it just means that there may not be a tremendous advantage to playing that particular concept.

This is something I've wondered at many times on these forums: The mindset that in order to play an idea - you need to back it up with mechanics.

When someone states that they want to play a necromancer, people will recommend a wide array of feats, prestige classes and spells from obscure sources - where I'd say: How about a wizard specialized in necromancy. The rest you can just as easily roleplay.

It winds up feeling as if people are really challenged roleplaying something they cannot back up with mechanics.

Of course I'm aware that necromancy specialization makes for a weak necromancer compared to a druid - but that in itself doesn't change the point.

[Tavar]

Okay, so, using the warwizard example, Roleplay having a wizard in Platemail, but he actually isn't because you lack the option.

Not quite the same thing at all. Sure, I can roleplay that my character is the strongest man in the world, but if he has a Str of 3, it's not going to seem very truthful in the game world.

[Weimann]

The fiddlyness is why I have problems with too complicated systems as a whole. I think the best solution is to just not have so damn much die rolls around :D

[olentu]

Ah this thread returns my appointment that I was never able to play my awakened cat psion. And I even went through all the trouble of rolling an 18 for int.

[Kurald Galain]

This is something I've wondered at many times on these forums: The mindset that in order to play an idea - you need to back it up with mechanics.

Not entirely. The reason people get annoyed is when they're given mechanics to back it up that do not actually do that.

For instance, if you want to play a necromancer for the ability to animate skeletons, and you are given a class that is renamed to "necromancer" but cannot actually do anything with skeletons. Essentially, the game does have rules for animate skeletons, but you're not allowed to used them for some reason.

[pasko77]

The question is what do you want to sacrifice for simplicity's sake.
I personally find unbearable the concept that you CANNOT change. Life IS change!
So I welcomed 3rd edition as the best invention since sliced bread. (and i don't like 4th for the same reason, multiclassing is too narrow).

[Hawriel]

One of the things Ive noticed about 3rd ed (and other games just as fiddly) is that the players focus is on michanics and not the enviornment. Search, and spot rolls replacess actualy looking behind book cases, under rugs and behind picture frames. DMs are less likly to make a room based on how a person living in it would think and how a search skill effectes it.

Another example is deplomacy. A michanic does all the work so the player is less likely to engage in a conversation.

Some times I wonder off all of the rules and expantion of them by splat books confine players more than they give opptions.

[pasko77]

One of the things Ive noticed about 3rd ed (and other games just as fiddly) is that the players focus is on michanics and not the enviornment. Search, and spot rolls replacess actualy looking behind book cases, under rugs and behind picture frames. DMs are less likly to make a room based on how a person living in it would think and how a search skill effectes it.

Another example is deplomacy. A michanic does all the work so the player is less likely to engage in a conversation.

Some times I wonder off all of the rules and expantion of them by splat books confine players more than they give opptions.

You have a point, but why some actions should have mechanics, while others don't?
If I want to roleplay, say, a wizard, the game provides me the mechanics for doing things I cannot actually do (magic).
But, if I want to roleplay a cunning diplomat... I'm suddenly expected to be able to talk my way around NPCs. But you know... I'm not a diplomat, in the same way I'm not a wizard, so I'd like to have a mechanics that proves that my Character can actually do diplomacy.
In your example, you expect the player to say: "I search under the rug" instead of "search check, please".
But maybe I don't imagine that the "rug" is a good place to hide something, while my Character, who is a skilled rogue, knows it is an obvious place.

[Premier]

Just a note:

The whole side argument about the system allowing or disallowing extravagant squirrel characters is sort of irrelevant. Some of the statements in it are also incorrect.

The very first, original edition of D&D already mentions its possible to play balrogs and other monsters as characters if the DM is willing to write up their abilities, and IIRC 1E AD&D also has a line or two to that effect. Therefore, the whole "old D&D doesn't allow for my weird PC concept" argument is invalid.

Having said that, it's true you generally don't see such characters, but that's for a completely different reson: genre emulation. Most pre-WotC systems just happen to assume (and/or publish) settings where golem-riding squirrels would be a jarring stylistic incongruity. If people were sitting down specifically to play a Lord of the Rings game, you surely wouldn't insist to play a Vietnam veteran with a machine gun. A Hundred-Years-War English longbowmen is not a suitable PC for a 21st century cyberpunk game. Same thing here: the vast majority of settings are just not compatible with outlandish, genre-alien character concepts. Doesn't mean you couldn't play a squirrel wizard in someone's homebrew Druginducedland setting using AD&D rules.

[Killer Angel]

Exactly! You understand 100%. I climbed Mt Everest in my wheel chair this weekend and it was no big deal. :D

ahah! but you weren't discussing D&D rules and builds, while you were climbing, don't you?

[Zen Master]

Okay, so, using the warwizard example, Roleplay having a wizard in Platemail, but he actually isn't because you lack the option.

Not quite the same thing at all. Sure, I can roleplay that my character is the strongest man in the world, but if he has a Str of 3, it's not going to seem very truthful in the game world.

Why does wizard+platemail=roleplaying?

To me, a wizard in plate armor feels like a build, possibly with a backstory to fit. But primarily a build. If you want to roleplay a wizard, why not wear a robe? Or why not make it work with something besides a build? It is most certainly doable in core.

[pasko77]

Why does wizard+platemail=roleplaying?

To me, a wizard in plate armor feels like a build, possibly with a backstory to fit. But primarily a build. If you want to roleplay a wizard, why not wear a robe?

Because he does not want a cookie cutter PC.

[Zen Master]

Not entirely. The reason people get annoyed is when they're given mechanics to back it up that do not actually do that.

For instance, if you want to play a necromancer for the ability to animate skeletons, and you are given a class that is renamed to "necromancer" but cannot actually do anything with skeletons. Essentially, the game does have rules for animate skeletons, but you're not allowed to used them for some reason.

I'm by no means denying the rules make us leap through some strange loops from time to time. It's not either or, sometimes it just looks like a lot of people are unwilling to go the straight road.

Actually, let me rephrase that. Yes, people are unwilling to go the straight road. I am that way too. But what it sometimes looks like is: The reason to not go the straight road is the pursuit of powerbuilds - with some rp justification strapped on with duct tape and sticky-tack.

Which by the way is also fine, if somewhat dishonest. Just call it powerplay, it's ok. No one minds, really.

[Zen Master]

Because he does not want a cookie cutter PC.

That's fine, neither do I. But there really is no reason for 'non-cookie cutter' to specically equal 'wearing plate armor'. And even if, for some reason, that is exactly what you want to play - you don't need to go outside core to do it.

And I must admit, I do consider the very vast majority of non-core to be utter crap. I read complete psionics, and it truly made me want to bash my brains in with a brick, it's that bad. Uninventive, retarded, unbalanced, obviously not playtested. At all. Gah.

*mumbles incoherently*

*goes away to sulk*

[/rant]

=)