Conan 321

[Hervé]

kintire wrote:

Part of the point of a roleplaying game is to play characters unlike yourself

.

If it was so, I'll guess I'd be stuck to low int characters...

 

[kintire]

If it was so, I'll guess I'd be stuck to low int characters...

And arrogant ones, since you are so humble in reality

 

[Supplement Four]

Also, having read your encounter report, for someone who doesn't believe in "Roll playing" you roll for the darndest things. Whether an inn has a back door? We DO have different styles.

Yep. When I have a strong feeling for things, or I know about whatever-it-is because of the story, I just describe it that way.

But, there's a lot of things that come up in a game that I'll dice for. We find it quite fun.

This is an extreme example, but a few years ago, we were playing a Traveller game. The PCs were in a bar. This was a total ad-lib situation. I think the players made planetfall and hit startown. So, I was going with the flow--whatever came to my mind.

They came in. I described the bar. And, the crew got some drinks.

I was thinking that it might be neat to have an encounter where the PCs weren't the focus....where the PCs were the bystanders, changing roles with the NPCs.

So, I had the place robbed.

I wanted to see what the PCs would do.

Masked men, with weapons, came in the front door and held up the bartender. Then, they started going around to the patrons, shaking them down, taking their wallets and valuables.

This is where the dicing started. We random rolled where the PCs sat. Luckily, they were to be some of the last patrons approached by the baddies.

Wham, one PC flipped over a table for cover. None fo the PCs had weapons because of the law level of the planet we were on. Then, the another PC made a run for it. I had the bad guys start blasting away at him. Bullets started chewing up the furniture. One unlucky bystander got drilled and went down.

The PC jumped up and slid across the bar, ducking down behind it (a DEX roll....he made it). As he's crouched there, bullets flying over his head, the player asked me, "This is a bar, right? Do I see a shotgun anywhere?"

Nice idea, I thought.

So, I sectioned the bar off into six sections and rolled a d6. The PC was in section 4. I rolled a 4.

"As soon as you duck behind the bar, you look up and see a shotgun clipped right there in front of your nose."

Now, the PC had a weapon. He unclipped it, used the bar for half cover and started blasting back at the bad guys.

It was just "fun" that the dice rolled what the player needed. Yeah, we do that type of thing a lot in my game.

We're back and forth. Role playing. Then, rolling dice when the unexpected is about us.

It keeps things very interesting--especially for me, the GM. I like it when I don't know what's going to happen either.

 

[Supplement Four]

But I wonder if your players are having a better time than if they had those solid stats?

I think they'd have a good time whether they were playing powerhouses or uber frail characters.

It's all about finding who that character "is" and playing him--living in his shoes.

That's what we like about role playing. Playing the uber hero is fun, but playing the sidekick can sometimes be more fun (or just as fun).

When we get around the table, shooting the shite about the past memories of gaming, it seems its the flawed characters that we remember most--not the uber ones who were more than able to deal with the challenges thrown at them.

Don't get me wrong. We've had our share of heroes, especially when we play games that have point-buy systems (James Bond) or balanced PCs (D6 Star Wars).

But, I find it's our random rolled weak characters who overcame the odds and became something to talk about.

These characters we have in our game now may very well die next session. I don't know. We'll see.

If so, we'll make some more characters and keep on playing.

 

[kintire]

That's good!

But I bet its not the ones who were outclassed in their chosen field by a teammate, and never got to shine...

 

[Supplement Four]

But I bet its not the ones who were outclassed in their chosen field by a teammate, and never got to shine...

What you don't seem to be understanding is that playing a weaker character doesn't preclude one from "shining".

 

[Vortigern]

Very well.

I concede only that I am apparently unable to interface my logic with yours sufficiently to have a worthwhile discussion on this topic.

You seem to be approaching your statements with a manner that says 'If they really were getting what I'm saying, they would have to agree with me.'

Whereas to me your statements seem to be explicit confirmation of my own POV. So... I think it may be best if we leave it at that.

 

[kintire]

What you don't seem to be understanding is that playing a weaker character doesn't preclude one from "shining".

What you don't seem to be understanding is that playing a character who is outclassed in everything they do by another character in the group does, in fact, prevent them from shining.

Because whenever an opportunity to shine comes along, it will go to the person who can handle it better, and never to the weak PC.

 

[Hervé]

I wrote:

If it was so, I'll guess I'd be stuck to low int characters...

kintire wrote:

And arrogant ones, since you are so humble in reality

Ooops. Seems like I blew my joke. I was meaning stuck with HIGH int characters.

 

[Supplement Four]

What you don't seem to be understanding is that playing a character who is outclassed in everything they do by another character in the group does, in fact, prevent them from shining.

Just because that's true in your game, why do you insist that its true in mine?

 

[Supplement Four]

You seem to be approaching your statements with a manner that says 'If they really were getting what I'm saying, they would have to agree with me.'

I don't quite see where the disconnect is, so maybe you're correct, here.

Whereas to me your statements seem to be explicit confirmation of my own POV. So... I think it may be best if we leave it at that.

OK, then. I mean, you have an example of how I play. I answered your question about the thief at the well. And, I showed you how I both role play and use CHA throws.

I'm not sure what else I can do to give you an idea of how my game goes.

 

[Vortigern]

That was basically my point S4. Someone holding a different opinion doesn't necessarily have to have a disconnect. It doesn't automatically mean a failure to understand. Same facts, different opinion.

I think I have a fairly decent idea about the flow of your game since you have taken such pains to explain it to us. You just seem to think that I naturally 'should' agree with you that it is the RAW method or that it is just the right blend of X with Y... when I've made it rather clear that I play with a different method/style, which to me means of course I'm going to disagree with you on some points. Your repetitive assertion that I just don't understand, or I would agree with you, I find rather insulting.

I've however arrived at the point where I don't think you are very receptive to my opinions, given the above reception they have received ( including simply being labelled 'wrong'. ). Which is why I don't think there is much point to further discussion.

I shouldn't need to spell out that this doesn't mean I don't understand what you have been trying to say. Instead I've come to think this means you either don't understand, or take offense at, what I've been telling you.

 

[Supplement Four]

That was basically my point S4. Someone holding a different opinion doesn't necessarily have to have a disconnect. It doesn't automatically mean a failure to understand. Same facts, different opinion.

I am not arguing with you, if that's how you are reading me. I've been trying to have a civil discussion.

I think I have a fairly decent idea about the flow of your game since you have taken such pains to explain it to us. You just seem to think that I naturally 'should' agree with you that it is the RAW method or that it is just the right blend of X with Y... when I've made it rather clear that I play with a different method/style, which to me means of course I'm going to disagree with you on some points. Your repetitive assertion that I just don't understand, or I would agree with you, I find rather insulting.

I am not trying to insult you. Sheesh! In fact, I feel I've been taking strides to let you know that we are discussing this.

I do find it hard to believe that you don't think my game style is RAW when that's the way I am playing it---which is why I keep saying you don't understand.

To me, my play style is black & white RAW, no question about it. Then, you say it isn't. And, I scratch my head at your comment.

I've however arrived at the point where I don't think you are very receptive to my opinions, given the above reception they have received ( including simply being labelled 'wrong'. ). Which is why I don't think there is much point to further discussion.

Holy Bel's balls, man! I'm not labeling you as "wrong" in the sense that your opinions are not something I respect. I'm saying I don't understand how you can see Y when I know its X.

I shouldn't need to spell out that this doesn't mean I don't understand what you have been trying to say. Instead I've come to think this means you either don't understand, or take offense at, what I've been telling you.

FWIW, I'm just answering your questions here, and you seem to be getting hot under the collar. I'm not sure what I did to cause that, but it seems to happening a lot in this forum.

I'm just making it clear that I had no intentions of upsetting you in this discussion.

 

[kintire]

I don't quite see where the disconnect is, so maybe you're correct, here.

He is saying that it would help if you accepted the possibility that people might have legitimate reasons to disagree, even after understanding what you are saying. Assuming that all disagreements are due to poor comprehension by the other person, which it LOOKS as if you are assuming, is a little annoying.

OK, then. I mean, you have an example of how I play. I answered your question about the thief at the well. And, I showed you how I both role play and use CHA throws.

I'm not sure what else I can do to give you an idea of how my game goes.

Nothing. You've done an excellent job. Your game is roleplay-it-out heavy and very system light in social situations, which is exactly what we suspected. That'll be why Charisma is a dump stat.

Just because that's true in your game, why do you insist that its true in mine?

...

...

Just before I answer that question, would you answer exactly the same question about these:

In this game, it's CHR that is usually the dump stat (the stat that gets the lowest throw, making it likely that most player characters have low Charisma).

It's not their fault CHR is not as useful as other stats for most types of characters in this game.

Point buy is definitely not the answer. They will put enough points into all stats to avoid penalties. Random roll provides more varied, and therefore more realistic, results.

I'll use CHR based rolls in my game as needed. But, let's face it. You can roll CHR based throws in a game all day long, and a Soldier character is never going to put his highest stat into CHR.

See...point-buy leads to "ideal" character types. You have the stronger than strong fighter. You have the incredibly intelligent mage. You have the awesomely deft thief. You have the holier-than-holy cleric.

And, again, point buy tends to deliver generic characters--those perfect for thier chosen line of work (character class)

I've mentioned this before, but it's been my experience in my 20+ years of gaming with several different gamers over the years that self designed characters--where the player has total control--actually turn out less interesting characters than if there are some constraints on the creation.

CHA can be important, no doubt. My point is that CHA, in this game, especially with the Soldier class, is usually not as important as the other stats.

S4, I have to confess I'm having similar trouble to Vortigern.

You don't like heroic chargen because it produces high stats. If you roll high stats, that's great!

You don't like having a dump stat. But you don't like design systems because people always design their character so they have no stat with a penalty.

You don't believe that my experience has any bearing on your games. But points design systems always produce bland characters, as your twenty years of experience attest.

I'm seeing a few inconsistancies here.

As far as I can determine, it actually boils down to this: You prefer random generation systems because you are in the habit of deriving the character concept from the stats. The resulting imbalance problems, you are prepared to accept as the price for that. Well, that's fine.

I would just like to point out that random roll systems are not more realistic, and they are not the hall mark of superior roleplayers. We tend to produce our characters by developing a concept before anything else, then creating the character to that. This produces designed characters just as interesting as anything a random roll can produce.

I remain convinced, however, that you will resolve the Cha as a dump stat problem you are facing far more effectively by making Charisma more important than by 321.

 

[kintire]

Ooops. Seems like I blew my joke. I was meaning stuck with HIGH int characters.

I don't think you blew the joke. i think its funnier this way round!

 

[Supplement Four]

No offense, kintire, Vortigern, but I am threw explaining myself. This is tiring, and we're going round-n-round.

Think what you want to think.

Hopefully we can have better discussions on different topics.