Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Campaign Help/Advice

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:31:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

We have recently restarted a campaign we put up a couple of years ago
and are at the beginning of an extended encounter. I am soliciting
advice on how to get started and what actions we might take.

Background, originally started in 2000 it took over two years to get to
level 8-9 players when we quit. We have a pretty standard group(wizard,
cleric, ranger, rogue, druid, arcane archer, and a couple of fighters)
Most of us are graduates of a military school and are members of a
black dragon platoon.

Basic old current adventure, Our company commander has been kidnapped
by Drow and we are trying to rescue him. After helping a dwarf town
fight off a gnome army they rearmed us and started us down the tunnels
& caverns to where we think the drow are. We have been underground for
about 2 months and killed lots of underground things the last encounter
being fighting through an umber hunk nation where dozens of large &
huge were dispatched. This is where we quit moments before our
perceived demise.

In January we started fighting out of last encounter and negotiated our
way through the rest of the uber hulk nation. We now find ourselves
pushed into a cavern that we think is the drow city or leads to it. The
only thing we know is the commander is being kept drugged in a cell
somewhere. What should we do now? We have no Drow experience and are
looking for ideas on things to expect and actions we might take.

Regards,
POCII

More about : campaign advice

Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:24:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Heck, if this group can carry two months of water and rations, fight
through an Umber Hunk nation, then negotiate with Uber Hulks, a quick
jaunt to the surface is no big shakes.

And they're studly (hunky and hulky) enough not to need our help :-)
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"POCII" <pfoconn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109172709.862312.197110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> only thing we know is the commander is being kept drugged in a cell
> somewhere. What should we do now? We have no Drow experience and are
> looking for ideas on things to expect and actions we might take.

Doesn't that take a lot of the fun out of the game? I'm reading this right,
right? You want in-game information about NPCtypes to use from a metagame
perspective to assist you, the players, in making decisions for your
characters?

Not fer nothin, but it sounds to me like you're missing the point entirely.
Personally, I would have made sure that our mage did a bit of research on
"underground stuff" before venturing into the caves and caverns of the
underworld. But, two months in, it's a little late for a jaunt to the
surface, eh?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:31:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "POCII" <pfoconn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109172709.862312.197110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> only thing we know is the commander is being kept drugged in a cell
>> somewhere. What should we do now? We have no Drow experience and are
>> looking for ideas on things to expect and actions we might take.
>
> Doesn't that take a lot of the fun out of the game? I'm reading this
> right, right? You want in-game information about NPCtypes to use
> from a metagame perspective to assist you, the players, in making
> decisions for your characters?
>
> Not fer nothin, but it sounds to me like you're missing the point
> entirely. Personally, I would have made sure that our mage did a bit
> of research on "underground stuff" before venturing into the caves
> and caverns of the underworld. But, two months in, it's a little
> late for a jaunt to the surface, eh?

At 8th-9th level? All they need is for the Wizard to have access to
Teleport.

Gotta agree, though, that seeking out-of-game knowledge as a basis for
in-character action seems a little cheap.

--
Mark.
February 24, 2005 12:06:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made POCII <pfoconn@gmail.com> write:
> only thing we know is the commander is being kept drugged in a cell
> somewhere. What should we do now? We have no Drow experience and are
> looking for ideas on things to expect and actions we might take.

kill things, take their stuff. i mean, duh.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/&gt;
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: More than enough rope
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:06:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"drow" <drow@bin.sh> wrote in message
news:421cf03e$0$13949$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Alien mind control rays made POCII <pfoconn@gmail.com> write:
> > only thing we know is the commander is being kept drugged in a cell
> > somewhere. What should we do now? We have no Drow experience and are
> > looking for ideas on things to expect and actions we might take.
>
> kill things, take their stuff. i mean, duh.
>
Sounds like good advice for you, especially since it came from an actual
drow.

DM
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:19:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).

That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're worried about
orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it will take
to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two! Sheesh, it's
not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what roleplaying is
all about! Talk about not having time to develop characters! You'd be
spending so much time adding skills and feats and improving your characters
as they level that it's a wonder you have time to do anything else!

Such a rate of advancement would be unheard of in our campaign. As a
general rule, each level takes 4-5 sessions of play to advance a level in
our campaign. We've been playing every other week for about 9 months now( =
4.5 months of weekly play), usually 8 hours a session, and our average level
is around 6th.

> Why did the characters advance so slowly?

Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would seem
that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics, spells,
feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level. By the time you've
gotten used to your character and his abilities, they change again! Plus
which, during that time, you have to find time to develop a persona for the
character itself, something that would not be easy to do if you're
continually trying to get used to the new abilities of your character. Of
course, from what I understand, that's no longer a requirement of
roleplaying under 3E, so I guess it wouldn't be a problem, since all
roleplaying has been replaced by skill rolls. Ah well. Have fun tinkering
with your paper tigers... I prefer to play characters, myself.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:32:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).

> Why did the characters advance so slowly?

Well, I don't know about him, but many of us old gamers are
used to campaigns that last longer, so we adjusted the exp
rate to slow things down (and the treasure similarly). My
old campaign started with 1st levels in 1996, and is still
going strong even after we converted to 3rd edition, then
3.5 ... The players are nearly 14th level now, and will
probably reach 15th by next year sometime. :) 
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"drow" <drow@bin.sh> wrote:
>> kill things, take their stuff. i mean, duh.

DM70 <dgmiller@sccoast.netspam> wrote:
> Sounds like good advice for you, especially since it came from an actual
> drow.

Actually, that makes me suspicious - the 'actual
drow' may be trying to get them to rush in blindly
and get killed by his kindred. Maybe he gets a
commission? :) 
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 8:54:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Create Food & Water feeds 3 humans per 3rd level spell, and an 8th
level cleric has 3+1 (+ a maybe few from Wis bonus) spells.

If their one cleric can use most of his 3rd level spells to meet the
party's nutritional needs, and still have no problem curing the other
seven party members FOR TWO MONTHs, they're pretty studly.

(OK, the druid can help with the cures, and they may have potions and
scrolls, but still....)

Anyway, you missed the point. I was razzing the OP about his typos
(Umber Hu_n_k nation, U_b_er Hulks). "Hunks" sound very muscle-y, and
"Uber" hulks are better than a regular mensch hulk, no?
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:19:25 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
>> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
>> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
>> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
>> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).
>
>That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're worried about
>orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it will take
>to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!

A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand new
adventurers.

> Sheesh, it's
>not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what roleplaying is
>all about!

Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.

>> Why did the characters advance so slowly?
>
>Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would seem
>that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics, spells,
>feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.

To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats, skills,
and so on, without ever actually playing.

> Of
>course, from what I understand, that's no longer a requirement of
>roleplaying under 3E, so I guess it wouldn't be a problem, since all
>roleplaying has been replaced by skill rolls.

As has been exceedingly well covered already, you have no inkling of
understanding. Please refrain from commenting on things that you know
absolutely nothing about, unless you are willing to actually have the open
mind you declared last time, and want to learn.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:39:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:1r0r111k27ghbrmsbgfob6p6qjv6um42dj@4ax.com...
> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're worried
about
> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it will
take
> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
>
> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand new
> adventurers.

Well, I guess I used dragon as an example because every DM I have every
played with has upped the difficulty of dragons to "extreme", given that
they are the namesake of the game. Our party found themselves in a
situation where an adult green dragon wasn't playing nicely with
others(surprise surprise). The mage did a bit of research to determine if
the party of (then) 5th level adventurers, 8 of them, could handle it. The
answer was very clear: Not a chance in hell. I have a feeling that the
dragon in question is going to have free reign for quite some time.

> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.

Except that in this game, as in life, "character building" is about
overcoming adversity, in a variety of ways. If characters are advancing too
quickly, they are obviously not EARNING their way, and they do not build
real "character". Call it "new toy syndrome". Quite simply, players have
too much giddy childish fun beating on things with their latest feat, skill,
spell or ability to worry about that pesky little role playing thing.

Anything not earned has it's value diminished. A campaign where experience
is given out like candy to begging children is a campaign where the value of
that experience is niether learned nor appreciated, and the lessons
supposedly learned by the characters are never employed by the players, so
it becomes pointless to even give the experience points out, except to
satisfy the incessant grubbing of the players to max out their characters.

There is a fine line between "just the right amount", and giving too little
or giving too much. Too much, and the reward is not appreciated in the
manner it is intended to represent. Too little and the risk is considered
unjustified in comparison to the reward, leaving a bitter taste in the
players mouths, left playing characters who never advance despite all their
efforts.

To advance a level EVERY SESSION steps way past "too much", right into
"abject insanity". Quite simply, the game itself might as well consist of
players writing out a character, and then simply upgrading that character,
without actually doing anything. While the exercise may be fun n all that
to the min/maxer and power gamer, such a lack of respect for the concepts of
game balance can only lead to disdain for the entire process in the end,
assuming the players grow beyond a hack n slash player.

This assumption is a huge leap, from what I understand, given that it would
appear that nobody at all is interested in what I would consider roleplaying
any longer, and instead concentrates on dice and stats. That's fine, I
guess, whatever floats yer boat, but let's just say that I prefer to play
roles when I roleplay, not just apply modifiers to dice rolls.

> >Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would seem
> >that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics,
spells,
> >feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.
>
> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats, skills,
> and so on, without ever actually playing.

To me, your statement above is indicative of the very problem I refer to.
Even in a skill based system like what is apparantly the backbone of 3E D&D,
it is the application of those skills to situations that makes them useful,
not the skills themselves. Even I, the lowly 2E idiot that I am, understand
the basics of the mechanics in question(they are quite elegantly simple,
actually), but still that does not even begin to address the application of
these skills in meaningful and game related ways. In other words, you can
have a list of skills as long as your arm, but without the play time put in
to apply those skills to game situations, they will be little more than
words on paper. This time is the time that one needs to "get used to" the
new abilities of your character, not the simple comprehension of the
mechanics.

By advancing so rapidly, you either pare yourself down to a few standard
actions based on those skills, or you ignore them altogether. You simply
don't have time to use ingenuity to apply those skills in appropriate ways
to overcome adversity in the game, because you are advancing so rapidly that
situations do not present themselves that are not solved by simple
application of your abilities, "apply sledgehammer here" mentality. By the
time you apply it once, you've already advanced to the next level, where you
must reconsider your entire character and the application of the skills and
feats he has.

Not that a fine 3E roleplayer such as yourself would ever worry about such
things. You just can't wait til next week when you jump from being able to
cast magic missile for the first time to the point where you can teleport
across the continent!

> As has been exceedingly well covered already, you have no inkling of
> understanding. Please refrain from commenting on things that you know
> absolutely nothing about, unless you are willing to actually have the open
> mind you declared last time, and want to learn.

I have an open mind, I have evaluated the current accepted standard of D&D
roleplaying, and found it to be SICKENINGLY WANTING. That people who call
themselves role playing gamers would stoop to such shallow depths sickens my
very soul. It makes me want to vomit that it seems to be a clear concensus
that roleplaying not involve what has been the mainstay of roleplaying games
since their inception, the concept that a role must be played.

Frankly, you can consider my mind open or closed in this regard, and I have
no doubt what you would choose. But I don't even want to be associated with
3E D&D players if they roll dice to determine outcomes of roleplaying
interactions.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 23 Feb 2005 11:24:09 -0800, alordofchaos@yahoo.com carved upon a
tablet of ether:

> Heck, if this group can carry two months of water and rations, fight
> through an Umber Hunk nation, then negotiate with Uber Hulks, a quick
> jaunt to the surface is no big shakes.

Who said they carried all that food and water? Create Food & Water is
well within their grasp. If there's an umber hulk nation, there's food
for the hulks that they could well be able to eat.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:15:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <uYadnQuFWpms74DfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>course, from what I understand, that's no longer a requirement of
>roleplaying under 3E, so I guess it wouldn't be a problem, since all
>roleplaying has been replaced by skill rolls. Ah well. Have fun tinkering
>with your paper tigers... I prefer to play characters, myself.

Please, don't get us started on that again!

Oops, too late.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 2:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" wrote
> In article Jeff Goslin wrote:
> >course, from what I understand, that's no longer a requirement of
> >roleplaying under 3E, so I guess it wouldn't be a problem, since all
> >roleplaying has been replaced by skill rolls. Ah well. Have fun
tinkering
> >with your paper tigers... I prefer to play characters, myself.
>
> Please, don't get us started on that again!
>
> Oops, too late.

He cant stop now! I want to know if his Little Doggy ever managed to buy
Park Place before the Evil Top Hat did.


John
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:25:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <l5ednVD6jOH_MoDfRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> Well, I guess I used dragon as an example because every DM I have every
> played with has upped the difficulty of dragons to "extreme", given that
> they are the namesake of the game.

Reality is trying to tell you something Jeff. Reality is saying that
your pitifully impoverished and uniform roleplaying experience is not
representative of the hobby in general. Once you've grasped this, and
recognised that you don't actually know a lot about the hobby in
general, you can begin to learn.

> > Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
>
> Except that in this game, as in life, "character building" is about
> overcoming adversity, in a variety of ways. If characters are advancing too
> quickly, they are obviously not EARNING their way, and they do not build
> real "character". Call it "new toy syndrome". Quite simply, players have
> too much giddy childish fun beating on things with their latest feat, skill,
> spell or ability to worry about that pesky little role playing thing.

Whoops, my bad.

I think you might have to add another nugget of wisdom to your mental
menu. This one is "Reality does not conform to the predictions I, Jeff
Goslin, pull out of my arse based on no experience or knowledge
whatsoever".

> This assumption is a huge leap, from what I understand, given that it would
> appear that nobody at all is interested in what I would consider roleplaying
> any longer, and instead concentrates on dice and stats. That's fine, I
> guess, whatever floats yer boat, but let's just say that I prefer to play
> roles when I roleplay, not just apply modifiers to dice rolls.

This has been explained to you patiently and repeatedly.

Many groups play a role when they roleplay, almost all in fact. The
quirk that makes you unusual is that as well as playing a role when you
roleplay, you are fixated on resolving social conflicts with an improv
mini-game. This is compatible with but not remotely necessary to
playing a role.

Except that your players, as we have established, aren't playing a role
in the sense that they aren't putting fidelity to the in-game character
ahead of a metagame desire to "win". So there is an important sense in
which you guys are *not* roleplaying, and many other groups are.

> I have an open mind, I have evaluated the current accepted standard of D&D
> roleplaying, and found it to be SICKENINGLY WANTING. That people who call
> themselves role playing gamers would stoop to such shallow depths sickens my
> very soul. It makes me want to vomit that it seems to be a clear concensus
> that roleplaying not involve what has been the mainstay of roleplaying games
> since their inception, the concept that a role must be played.
>
> Frankly, you can consider my mind open or closed in this regard, and I have
> no doubt what you would choose. But I don't even want to be associated with
> 3E D&D players if they roll dice to determine outcomes of roleplaying
> interactions.

Myself, I don't get a lot of joy out of people who break character to
win. I'm far more interested in the story and interplay that develops
when people maintain fidelity to character than I am in gaming Jeff
Goslin to get a positive outcome for my character. So bear in mind that
your own failings as a roleplayer would likely make you unwelcome at a
lot of tables as well.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:40:30 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:1r0r111k27ghbrmsbgfob6p6qjv6um42dj@4ax.com...
>> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're worried
>about
>> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it will
>take
>> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
>>
>> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand new
>> adventurers.
>
>Well, I guess I used dragon as an example because every DM I have every
>played with has upped the difficulty of dragons to "extreme", given that
>they are the namesake of the game. Our party found themselves in a
>situation where an adult green dragon wasn't playing nicely with
>others(surprise surprise). The mage did a bit of research to determine if
>the party of (then) 5th level adventurers, 8 of them, could handle it. The
>answer was very clear: Not a chance in hell. I have a feeling that the
>dragon in question is going to have free reign for quite some time.

An adult green dragon is a CR12 opponent. That's a TPK every time vs 5th
level characters.

>> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
>
>Except that in this game, as in life, "character building" is about
>overcoming adversity, in a variety of ways. If characters are advancing too
>quickly, they are obviously not EARNING their way, and they do not build
>real "character".

Role playing is not about having your 10 year old wizard being forced to
rake the back yard because it "builds character".

This is why everyone in this newsgroup says you do not understand
roleplaying...because you don't. Every time you try to give examples of it,
you only cement this fact further. Overcoming adversity most certainly
*CAN* be roleplaying, but it does not define it. If I play a character that
is afraid of heights, it could be that this impediment never has any
bearing during the course of gameplay...or the character could be forced to
walk a tightrope to save his comrades. One is overcoming adversity, the
other is not, both are roleplaying. Roleplaying is what the character IS,
not what the character DOES.

>To advance a level EVERY SESSION steps way past "too much", right into
>"abject insanity".

13.3 equal-CR encounters in one play session is quite a lot. Consistantly
obtaining a level per play session is going to be pretty rare.

>> >Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would seem
>> >that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics,
>> >spells, feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.
>>
>> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats, skills,
>> and so on, without ever actually playing.
>
> In other words, you can
>have a list of skills as long as your arm, but without the play time put in
>to apply those skills to game situations, they will be little more than
>words on paper. This time is the time that one needs to "get used to" the
>new abilities of your character, not the simple comprehension of the
>mechanics.

And I reiterate that most people have little to no difficulty in
comprehending mechanics without playing them. I do not need to "get used
to" the improved critical feat after I take it. I completely and fully
understood exactly what it would do as soon as I finished reading the
relevant rules.

>Not that a fine 3E roleplayer such as yourself would ever worry about such
>things. You just can't wait til next week when you jump from being able to
>cast magic missile for the first time to the point where you can teleport
>across the continent!

Hyperbole is certainly the way to make a convincing arguement. I also like
how you again try to attach roleplaying ability to advancement speed when
there is absolutely no correlation. I can roleplay with no game mechanics
at all, the inclusion of game mechanics does not impair me in the
slightest.

>> As has been exceedingly well covered already, you have no inkling of
>> understanding. Please refrain from commenting on things that you know
>> absolutely nothing about, unless you are willing to actually have the open
>> mind you declared last time, and want to learn.
>
> That people who call
>themselves role playing gamers would stoop to such shallow depths sickens my
>very soul.

Maybe you need to step back and remember that this is a game.

> It makes me want to vomit that it seems to be a clear concensus
>that roleplaying not involve what has been the mainstay of roleplaying games
>since their inception, the concept that a role must be played.

That has not been the mainstay that I can ever recall. Since your
underlying premise is wrong, any assumptions you make on that basis will be
horribly flawed.

>Frankly, you can consider my mind open or closed in this regard, and I have
>no doubt what you would choose. But I don't even want to be associated with
>3E D&D players if they roll dice to determine outcomes of roleplaying
>interactions.

That's because you are a very bad roleplayer who does not understand what
it is about.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:12:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Jeff Goslin scribed into the ether:
> >
> > Our party found themselves in a situation where an adult green
> > dragon wasn't playing nicely with others(surprise surprise).
> > The mage did a bit of research to determine if the party of
> > (then) 5th level adventurers, 8 of them, could handle it. The
> > answer was very clear: Not a chance in hell.
>
> An adult green dragon is a CR12 opponent. That's a TPK every
> time vs 5th level characters.

And dragons are often slightly under-CR'ed. That said, where do you
get off bringing up *reasonable* explanations of a *math* problem in
D&D 3e to Goslin? That has *NOTHING* to do with roleplaying, and you
might as well be playing Monopoly!

> > To advance a level EVERY SESSION steps way past "too much",
> > right into "abject insanity".
>
> 13.3 equal-CR encounters in one play session is quite a lot.
> Consistantly obtaining a level per play session is going to
> be pretty rare.

My games generally advance once every 2 to 3 sessions. We use the
*exact* guidelines for wealth and XP, since both I and the other DM
are using published adventure paths (me: Shackled City from Dungeon;
him: the published Eberron adventure series).

> > In other words, you can have a list of skills as long as
> > your arm, but without the play time put in to apply those
> > skills to game situations, they will be little more than
> > words on paper. This time is the time that one needs to
> > "get used to" the new abilities of your character, not
> > the simple comprehension of the mechanics.
>
> And I reiterate that most people have little to no
> difficulty in comprehending mechanics without playing
> them. I do not need to "get used to" the improved
> critical feat after I take it. I completely and fully
> understood exactly what it would do as soon as I
> finished reading the relevant rules.

In Goslin's "defense", he's never seen cleanly understandable rules.
He plays 2nd ed, remember? He clearly can't conceive of a ruleset
where reading the rules actually gives you enough knowledge of them to
easily think of tactics, strategy, utility and so on.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:42:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b3tTd.276060$w62.71388@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> He cant stop now! I want to know if his Little Doggy ever managed to buy
> Park Place before the Evil Top Hat did.

The end is nigh for that little bastard, I tell ya! Today, the "Jail to
Free Parking" side, tomorrow, the world!

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:09:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:40:17 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:qj1t119gifteaturmg7habv5fjjdiai9d8@4ax.com...
>> >Well, I guess I used dragon as an example because every DM I have every
>> >played with has upped the difficulty of dragons to "extreme", given that
>> >they are the namesake of the game. Our party found themselves in a
>> >situation where an adult green dragon wasn't playing nicely with
>> >others(surprise surprise). The mage did a bit of research to determine
>if
>> >the party of (then) 5th level adventurers, 8 of them, could handle it.
>The
>> >answer was very clear: Not a chance in hell. I have a feeling that the
>> >dragon in question is going to have free reign for quite some time.
>>
>> An adult green dragon is a CR12 opponent. That's a TPK every time vs 5th
>> level characters.
>
>Yes, if there were 4 of them. I have been under the impression that CR
>ratings are based on the assumption of 4 party members. With 8 party
>members, theoretically, they should be able to survive an encounter with a
>CR10 monster, at least that's how I understand the CR ratings. Agreed with
>the TPK analysis, but still, it was closer than you originally thought.

Not really. The CR system gets really blown out of the water when you have
significantly different values. This is especially true of dragons. The
game makes a special point of telling the DM that giving characters a 4+ CR
opponent is asking for big problems.

An adult green dragon's fear aura requires a DC23 check, and 5th level
characters would be lucky to have a +6 will save bonus (and that would only
apply to high wisdom clerics and monks). A vast army of level 5s would
spend the entire fight cowering in terror while the dragon pelts them with
a DC25 reflex save acid cones, which will inflict ~42 points of unsaved
damage. That level of damage will reduce any non-fighter to a puddle of
goo, and most fighter classes as well. No level 5 could possibly survive 2
such applications, which with a good die roll on the dragon's part can come
within the space of 3 rounds. Not that it really needs such overkill. Its
27 AC means that only 16+ strength fighting classes could hit it on less
than a natural 20. It's 5/magic damage resistance means that the few blows
that land at all will inflict minimal damage. It could melee them with near
impunity.

An adult green dragon would inflict mass slaughter on level 5s in mind
boggling quantities and with incredible ease. Even if they brought enough
people to beat it, their casualty rate would be pyrrhic at best.

>This is personal opinion, of course, but dragons have always represented a
>special category of monsters in any campaign I've ever been involved in.
>They aren't simply "tough monsters to beat", they are the stuff that legends
>are made of. Defeating them is meant to cap an adventuring career, not
>simply be a milestone within it. I have always found that increasing the
>toughness of dragons and decreasing their frequency makes for an absolutely
>fabulous way to heighten the drama of the encounter, instead of making it
>just another run of the mill battle.

There is room for a lot of things. The ability to put in really *really*
powerful dragons is well within the rules. Great Wyrm Reds are a supreme
challenge even to a group of level 20s. Encountering weaker dragons can be
one heck of an adventure hook for later in the game. Dragons have possibly
the greatest potential of any standard monster to be influential in the
game world.

Check: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/wn for some really
fleshed out dragons. They are FR based, but the personalities are the
important part, and those are pretty independant of the setting.

>> >Except that in this game, as in life, "character building" is about
>> >overcoming adversity, in a variety of ways. If characters are advancing
>too
>> >quickly, they are obviously not EARNING their way, and they do not build
>> >real "character".
>>
>> Role playing is not about having your 10 year old wizard being forced to
>> rake the back yard because it "builds character".
>
>Yes, that's true. I'm not suggesting that people role play defeating that
>insidious pile of leaves in the yard(FIREBALL! *foof*! *yells* "ALL DONE
>DAD!"). What I am suggesting is that advancing too quickly does not allow
>the character to truly value his own mortality.

You haven't seen the casualty rate in a 3.x game...

>quite simply, they never get a chance to really know what the
>character is all about.

Hogwash. I know what my character is all about before the game even starts.

> They find it difficult to give depth to a character
>who finds that proper application of a sledgehammer neatly, if bloodily,
>fixes 99% of their problems. Without ever experiencing setbacks, it is
>almost impossible for a player to lend depth to a character.

The players you play with are bad role players.

>Characters that fight orcs at tenth level would receive pretty much the same
>experience reward for ogres, despite a fourfold increase in toughness,
>because the combat is similar, an asswhipping meted out by the party on
>whomever might cross their path. If the encounter does not garner the
>characters any new experiences from which to grow, the characters don't get
>much XP for the fight.

Characters in 3.x that fight orcs at tenth level recieve no experience
whatsoever. Unless there are a *lot* of said orcs (hundreds...and even then
the xp gain would be meager).

>These are just examples of the overriding concern which is that PC
>advancement that happens to quickly leads to a necessarily shallow
>character, because the player ends up focussing on the stats over the
>substance.

Your players, maybe.

>> 13.3 equal-CR encounters in one play session is quite a lot. Consistantly
>> obtaining a level per play session is going to be pretty rare.
>
>It's funny, that's just what I thought, but according to a previous poster,
>a campaign from 1st to 20th levels for a party of 4 is supposed to last 6
>months of weekly gaming for 6 hours. 6 months is 26 weeks, 6 hours a week,
>that's 156 hours, divided by 20 levels, that's 7.8 hours per level.

I don't know where that 6 month figure is derived from. There is no
reference to it in the manuals that I can recall. 13 significant battles in
a game session is, in my experience, a lot.

>Now, knowing that one campaign is resting at around 8 hours per level and
>one campaign is running for 32 hours per level, you tell me, which campaign
>do YOU think will have characters with more depth, more "character"?

Since, as I've previously stated, advancement speed has no correlation to
roleplaying, my answer is: Insufficient information. You could *start* at
level 40 and have tremendous depth of character, and you could take 10 play
sessions to gain a level playing 3 times a week for 2 years and end up with
shallow munchkins.

It all depends on the quality of the players.

>> And I reiterate that most people have little to no difficulty in
>> comprehending mechanics without playing them. I do not need to "get used
>> to" the improved critical feat after I take it. I completely and fully
>> understood exactly what it would do as soon as I finished reading the
>> relevant rules.
>
>Mechanics of combat are fairly simple to get used to, but if the first thing
>you choose to use as an example is a combat mechanic, that tells me all I
>need to know about what you consider "role playing". It's sad, really.

Combat is by far the most complex mechanical aspect of the game. The
ability to understand *that* means that the simpler mechanisms are even
easier.

You are being nonsensical. As usual.

>Obviously you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I refer to the use of
>non-combat skills in interesting and unique ways to overcome obstacles that
>are not combat related.

What sort of gibbering moron would require gameplay time to come up with
such things?

The only system within the game where practical use in the game can provide
real insight would be with spells. Like a wizard figuring out to use cone
of cold to freeze casks of water and make a ton of money selling ice to
nobles. Some spells carry a great deal of flexibility which isn't always
immediately obvious.

> Using skills in situations where "apply
>sledgehammer here" simply won't work is what really shows the grasp a player
>has of the application of the mechanics, not of the mechanics itself.

Ironic, since you don't even USE mechanics for these situations if the
players come up with a good enough story. Why would people bother to even
try understanding mechanics that won't even be used? Your players just make
up a good story, and you allow it, whether their characters would be
capable of such a task or not. Bad roleplaying.

>> Hyperbole is certainly the way to make a convincing arguement. I also like
>> how you again try to attach roleplaying ability to advancement speed when
>> there is absolutely no correlation. I can roleplay with no game mechanics
>> at all, the inclusion of game mechanics does not impair me in the
>> slightest.
>
>Let's say you make a character at the beginning of session1, and play that
>character right away, and until lvl20. Unless you make some VERY rapid
>decisions about this characters motivations and backround, decisions so
>rapid that you would not be able to make all the necessary decisions to
>create a truly deep character in the seconds you would have, the character
>would start off as a very shallow characters, about as deep as the paper
>it's written on.

Since unlike you I know how to roleplay; all of those decisions are made
BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS. The character guides the stats, not the other
way around. Events in the game can have an effect on how my character
develops, but nobody I know (except I guess you and your players) bases
their character on the most recent level-up bennie they've received.

>Next, you're advancing at almost a level a session if you follow the
>advancement as a previous poster laid out. This means that in order to
>accomplish this, you have to be "resolving mechanics", be it combat, skill
>rolls, ability checks, whatever, near constantly. In other words, you would
>not have time to actually do any *REAL* character development, as you would
>be tied up in character mechanics the entire time.

Kindly do not project your mental limitations onto me.

>> > It makes me want to vomit that it seems to be a clear concensus
>> >that roleplaying not involve what has been the mainstay of roleplaying
>games
>> >since their inception, the concept that a role must be played.
>>
>> That has not been the mainstay that I can ever recall. Since your
>> underlying premise is wrong, any assumptions you make on that basis will
>be
>> horribly flawed.
>
>Since I started in '83, I have played in numerous campaigns with a variety
>of folks, at all times since then. Never once have I played in a campaign
>where playing roles was not considered intrinsic to the game.

Roleplaying is intrinsic to the game. Playing a role (which to you means
play-acting a role) is not. It's a distinction which despite our sincerest
efforts, you have been unable to grasp.

> I have to
>wonder how long you have been playing,

I got the D&D basic box with the knight and wizard on the cover (back when
Elf was a character class) in 1979. I picked up the 3 AD&D "core" books
shortly thereafter. Nice try though.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Jeff Goslin said...
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:qj1t119gifteaturmg7habv5fjjdiai9d8@4ax.com...
> > >Well, I guess I used dragon as an example because every DM I have every
> > >played with has upped the difficulty of dragons to "extreme", given that
> > >they are the namesake of the game. Our party found themselves in a
> > >situation where an adult green dragon wasn't playing nicely with
> > >others(surprise surprise). The mage did a bit of research to determine
> if
> > >the party of (then) 5th level adventurers, 8 of them, could handle it.
> The
> > >answer was very clear: Not a chance in hell. I have a feeling that the
> > >dragon in question is going to have free reign for quite some time.
> >
> > An adult green dragon is a CR12 opponent. That's a TPK every time vs 5th
> > level characters.

The most interesting part of this message is that you responded to Matt
but not Kevin. You did the same thing in the roleplaying thread -
utterly failed to respond to the reasoned, patient posts explaining the
views on roleplaying that are dominant in this group (after you yet
again hurled ridiculous strawmen at them), completely refusing to
contribute any of the reasoned discussion you claimed to want.

In that instance you responded only to the flames, then tried to pretend
they were the entirety of the responses. Just one problem, Jeff. I know
you think the world revolves around you and everything, but actually,
people are capable of reading posts other than yours, and most of them
are also capable of *understanding* them.

Having said that, I'll also correct a few points about the CR system.

> Yes, if there were 4 of them. I have been under the impression that CR
> ratings are based on the assumption of 4 party members.

Correct so far.

> With 8 party
> members, theoretically, they should be able to survive an encounter with a
> CR10 monster, at least that's how I understand the CR ratings.

Actually, no - CR 7 is more like it. CR is not linear, it's exponential.
Doubling the number of creatures adds 2 to CR.

Having said that, because of this exponential increase in power, once
the difference between CR and average party level hits 4 or 5, you're
treading in dangerous waters no matter how many PCs there are; Matt's
reply went into a bit more detail on this so I won't repeat it here.

As an aside, if you were right and the difference between the "right"
level and the CR was only two, this would *not* be begging for a TPK. It
would be a tough encounter, but well within the realm of what the PCs
are expected to tackle head-on at least once per adventure.

> That said, dragons in our campaign are supposed to be the epitome of
> encounters. If you can take on a full grown dragon and limp away
> victorious, you will have defeated what represents the ultimate threat in
> our campaign, deities not included, of course. They are both extremely rare
> and extremely tough, much tougher than the monster manual dictates them to
> be.

This is fine so long as it's clear to the players. Just don't take for
granted that it is.

> > 13.3 equal-CR encounters in one play session is quite a lot. Consistantly
> > obtaining a level per play session is going to be pretty rare.
>
> It's funny, that's just what I thought, but according to a previous poster,
> a campaign from 1st to 20th levels for a party of 4 is supposed to last 6
> months of weekly gaming for 6 hours. 6 months is 26 weeks, 6 hours a week,
> that's 156 hours, divided by 20 levels, that's 7.8 hours per level.

That was specific to one campaign, not the general rule. If you replace "6 months" with "24 months" you're closer to the standard rule.

<Snip bit where you confuse your opinions with objective facts, in the
process contradicting much of what you said in the earlier roleplaying
thread, because I don't feel like responding to it>

> > And I reiterate that most people have little to no difficulty in
> > comprehending mechanics without playing them. I do not need to "get used
> > to" the improved critical feat after I take it. I completely and fully
> > understood exactly what it would do as soon as I finished reading the
> > relevant rules.
>
> Mechanics of combat are fairly simple to get used to, but if the first thing
> you choose to use as an example is a combat mechanic, that tells me all I
> need to know about what you consider "role playing". It's sad, really.

I thought I agreed with your point when I first read it, but in light of
this response maybe I don't. It *does* take players a while to get used
to the full implications of new abilities, especially when everyone else
is sprouting new ones all the time too. I've had players complain about
this. 3E advancement *is* pretty fast, though nowhere near as much so as
you make out above.

> Obviously you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I refer to the use of
> non-combat skills in interesting and unique ways to overcome obstacles that
> are not combat related.

If that's what you meant, my suggestion would be to say that next time,
not something completely different.

Why only outside of combat, especially given your stated loathing for
about half the mechanics that fit that description in 3E?

<snip repeat of exactly the same stuff I dismissed above, not even
worded significantly differently in some cases>

> > > It makes me want to vomit that it seems to be a clear concensus
> > >that roleplaying not involve what has been the mainstay of roleplaying
> games
> > >since their inception, the concept that a role must be played.
> >
> > That has not been the mainstay that I can ever recall. Since your
> > underlying premise is wrong, any assumptions you make on that basis will
> be
> > horribly flawed.
>
> Since I started in '83, I have played in numerous campaigns with a variety
> of folks, at all times since then. Never once have I played in a campaign
> where playing roles was not considered intrinsic to the game.

As Kevin explained quite patiently, that's not the problem. The problem
is that what you mean by "playing a role" is NOT "making the decisions
the character would", it is (to judge by the previous thread) "resolving
social situations by real-time acting". You can do either one of these
things without doing the other at all, and it sounds like that's exactly
what your players do (you admitted they will happily break character to
better achieve in-game goals, which is the *opposite* of role-playing in
the above sense).

And of course, the fact that you've been at this for a long time doesn't
mean your experience has been *broad* enough to take seriously. Indeed,
the fact that you only know of the one style (and seem downright proud
of that fact) suggests that it's been narrow indeed.

> > That's because you are a very bad roleplayer who does not understand what
> > it is about.
>
> I guess so. And here I thought role playing was about playing roles, silly
> me.

It is, the problem is that you have a quirky definition of "playing
roles".

Will you PLEASE respond to one of the posts, such as Kevin's in this
thread, that lays out in a non-insulting way the definitions you have
repeatedly claimed to want and the reasons your views seem benighted to
most of us? That way your claims to be interested in reasoned discussion
might, someday, come across as something other than a pathetic joke.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:01:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:p 19u11ldf94lg86vhjcf7m0o7i7vdhq7ib@4ax.com...
> >Yes, if there were 4 of them. I have been under the impression that CR
> >ratings are based on the assumption of 4 party members. With 8 party
> >members, theoretically, they should be able to survive an encounter with
a
> >CR10 monster, at least that's how I understand the CR ratings. Agreed
with
> >the TPK analysis, but still, it was closer than you originally thought.
>
> Not really. The CR system gets really blown out of the water when you have
> significantly different values. This is especially true of dragons. The
[analysis of dragon combat snipped]
> An adult green dragon would inflict mass slaughter on level 5s in mind
> boggling quantities and with incredible ease. Even if they brought enough
> people to beat it, their casualty rate would be pyrrhic at best.

Oh don't worry, I agree wholeheartedly, a party of 5th level adventurers
would get toasted rather handily, regardless of their size, when facing a
dragon.

> Check: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/wn for some really
> fleshed out dragons. They are FR based, but the personalities are the
> important part, and those are pretty independant of the setting.

Will do, thanks.

> >DAD!"). What I am suggesting is that advancing too quickly does not
allow
> >the character to truly value his own mortality.
>
> You haven't seen the casualty rate in a 3.x game...

That's exactly the point. If death is too frequent and too easily overcome,
the value of a single death is nullified. In a high-death,
high-resurrection campaign, death is hiccup in the path of an adventurer.
In our campaign, death is a MAJOR event.

Our campaign of (currently) 6th-ish level adventurers have had precisely 4
deaths take place. Of course, we use a variety of things to ensure that
people REALLY care about keeping their characters alive. Most specifically,
if you die, you lose a level or 1/3 of your experience point total,
whichever is less(this is an "our campaign house rule"). It helps to ensure
that players do everything possible to use their character's brains rather
than their brawn, to ensure their character's survival.

> Hogwash. I know what my character is all about before the game even
starts.

To this I say you haven't fully thought thru what you are saying. You know
a brand new character from front to back when you start playing him? To
quote someone else... "Hogwash".

> Characters in 3.x that fight orcs at tenth level recieve no experience
> whatsoever. Unless there are a *lot* of said orcs (hundreds...and even
then
> the xp gain would be meager).

So how, then, does one advance so rapidly as to gain a level a session? If
a party ALWAYS runs into creatures that are "of appropriate challenge", one
has to wonder how "lucky" those characters are to run into things that are
so deadly so frequently.

> I don't know where that 6 month figure is derived from. There is no
> reference to it in the manuals that I can recall. 13 significant battles
in
> a game session is, in my experience, a lot.

Yes. Our campaign tends to have TWO significant battles per 8 hour session,
as an average.

> Since, as I've previously stated, advancement speed has no correlation to
> roleplaying, my answer is: Insufficient information. You could *start* at
[snip]
> It all depends on the quality of the players.

This is true, but still, even high-caliber players who are burdened with
upgrading mechanics that would take up a chunk of each session, they would
spend an inordinate amount of time simply modifying their character's stats.
This would necessarily take away from the time spent developing character.

When I say "developing character" it is the overt traits that are most
important. How a character interacts with others in his world is ultimately
what will define what that character is "like", no matter what the
motivations and underlying reasons are for those interaction styles. In
other words, you can have all the backstory you like, but if it never comes
up in the game or affects the character's interactions with others, it's
hardly relevant, now is it?

The thing I'm trying to show is that rapid advancement takes up a chunk of
time that would otherwise be spent actually playing the character, rather
than improving it mechanically. The relative size of that chunk is what is
at issue. If a player takes 30 mins per level advanced to modify a
character appropriately and correctly, that's a total time of 10 hours time
spent in advancement for 20 levels. 10 hours out of 150 is a MUCH larger
chunk than 10 hours out of 600.

> Combat is by far the most complex mechanical aspect of the game. The
> ability to understand *that* means that the simpler mechanisms are even
> easier.

Again, it's not the mechanics that add depth to the character, so
understanding of the mechanics, complex or simple, is a moot point when it
comes to roleplaying. What matters is how the character applies his skills
to game situations, not the mechanics to resolve them. Yes, combat is the
most complicated mechanical procedure in the game, and yes, skill checks are
quite simple, but that doesn't mean that a player will be used to
application of a new skill as soon as he gets it. Without time to get used
to a character skill, feat, what have you, application of that skill is
going to remain simplistic and shallow, in other words, the character will
be played as shallow and simple.

> >Obviously you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I refer to the use
of
> >non-combat skills in interesting and unique ways to overcome obstacles
that
> >are not combat related.
>
> What sort of gibbering moron would require gameplay time to come up with
> such things?

The kind of gibbering moron who expects that people come up with ideas to
solve their problems, rather than rolling to see if a wizard makes an
intelligence check and handing them the solution. Where's the fun in that?

> > Using skills in situations where "apply
> >sledgehammer here" simply won't work is what really shows the grasp a
player
> >has of the application of the mechanics, not of the mechanics itself.
>
> Ironic, since you don't even USE mechanics for these situations if the
> players come up with a good enough story. Why would people bother to even
> try understanding mechanics that won't even be used? Your players just
make
> up a good story, and you allow it, whether their characters would be
> capable of such a task or not. Bad roleplaying.

I am trying to view this from your perspective. In 3E, as I understand it,
mechanics are used to resolve the outcome of activities. Despite that, I
assume that the players have to declare their intent, beyond a simple, "I
make a 'solve problem' roll, YES! A TWENTY! I SOLVE THE PROBLEM! How did
I solve it?" It is the application of skills to overcome problems that can
never be captured by dice rolls.

Obviously, the determining of resolutions can be captured by dice(even if I
disagree with such a system), but determining what to do should fall to the
players. If you take THAT out of the players hands as well, you've just
removed the decision making from them as well as the role playing.

> Since unlike you I know how to roleplay; all of those decisions are made
> BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS.

*ALL* of them? A character NEVER grows when you play it? Given the choice
between the lesser of evils, I would rather have a paper thin character to
start and grow from there, rather than having a fixed character for it's
entire lifespan!

Careful with the inclusive statements. Word like "all" lend a statement a
level of certainty that is rarely present in reality.

> >rolls, ability checks, whatever, near constantly. In other words, you
would
> >not have time to actually do any *REAL* character development, as you
would
> >be tied up in character mechanics the entire time.
>
> Kindly do not project your mental limitations onto me.

Do tell how you would role play if you were constantly required to roll
dice, which would necessarily be the case to gather enough experience to
level almost every session. Simply said, you wouldn't.

> >Since I started in '83, I have played in numerous campaigns with a
variety
> >of folks, at all times since then. Never once have I played in a
campaign
> >where playing roles was not considered intrinsic to the game.
>
> Roleplaying is intrinsic to the game. Playing a role (which to you means
> play-acting a role) is not. It's a distinction which despite our sincerest
> efforts, you have been unable to grasp.

That is because the difference has only appeared, it would seem, in 3E D&D.
If you so desired, you could "role play" in 3E by making decisions and
rolling dice. That concept is decidedly foreign to me.

> > I have to
> >wonder how long you have been playing,
>
> I got the D&D basic box with the knight and wizard on the cover (back when
> Elf was a character class) in 1979. I picked up the 3 AD&D "core" books
> shortly thereafter. Nice try though.

"Nice try"? You were the one who snipped my responses in both cases(short
time vs long time). There was no hidden agenda or implication there.

Ok, you've been playing a while, so it seems. Why then, would you NOT see a
problem with players spending almost 10% of their play time involved in
character upgrade mechanics?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:24:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Heikkinen" <no.way@jose.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c892135dcfcbc1998a09f@news.easynews.com...
> The most interesting part of this message is that you responded to Matt
> but not Kevin. You did the same thing in the roleplaying thread -

I responded to the original poster, and to any post that interested me
enough to respond to it. You *seriously* expect me to waste my time
responding to EVERY poster, despite the fact that, from my perspective, they
said nothing worthy of being responded to? I don't have unlimited time to
prattle on with dolts, you know.

> Having said that, I'll also correct a few points about the CR system.

Excellent!

> > With 8 party
> > members, theoretically, they should be able to survive an encounter with
a
> > CR10 monster, at least that's how I understand the CR ratings.
>
> Actually, no - CR 7 is more like it. CR is not linear, it's exponential.
> Doubling the number of creatures adds 2 to CR.

Is there a formula? I assume it's not (average party level) * (number of
party members/4), because THAT was the formula I was more or less using.

> As an aside, if you were right and the difference between the "right"
> level and the CR was only two, this would *not* be begging for a TPK. It
> would be a tough encounter, but well within the realm of what the PCs
> are expected to tackle head-on at least once per adventure.

Well, I was just using the knowledge of dragons to fill in the missing
parts. Two breath weapon usages and the party is cooked, at 5th level,
pretty much without exception. So, if they don't kill it in two rounds,
game over.

> > our campaign, deities not included, of course. They are both extremely
rare
> > and extremely tough, much tougher than the monster manual dictates them
to
> > be.
>
> This is fine so long as it's clear to the players. Just don't take for
> granted that it is.

Oh yes, absolutely. I have made it crystal clear that fighting a dragon is
both rare and EXTREMELY hazardous, and specifically stated that dragons are
far more powerful than their stats say in the monster manual.

> That was specific to one campaign, not the general rule. If you replace "6
months" with "24 months" you're closer to the standard rule.

Honestly, that sounds pretty much EXACTLY what I was thinking. Two years of
constant playing to reach 20th level sounds about right to me.

This "argument" stems from my disagreement that characters should advance
thru 20th level in 6 months, nothing more. As you will note, our rate of
increase is approximately 4 times as slow as what was described previously.
If we agree that 24 months of play should get a character to 20th level, we
are in TOTAL agreement, and we can shake hands and part ways.

> is sprouting new ones all the time too. I've had players complain about
> this. 3E advancement *is* pretty fast, though nowhere near as much so as
> you make out above.

Well, they might not complain because they view it as an improvement. The
complaints you get are probably coming from the most advanced of players who
actually WANT to play characters who have to overcome adversity the hard way
rather than just having a victory handed to them basically on a silver
platter.

> Why only outside of combat, especially given your stated loathing for
> about half the mechanics that fit that description in 3E?

Again, I was simply trying to see things from your perspective. You use
mechanics to resolve things inside the game, fine by me, I'll speak in terms
you understand.

> And of course, the fact that you've been at this for a long time doesn't
> mean your experience has been *broad* enough to take seriously. Indeed,
> the fact that you only know of the one style (and seem downright proud
> of that fact) suggests that it's been narrow indeed.

I've played with a variety of people, in a variety of gaming systems, in a
variety of locations, at a variety of times, with a variety of skill levels
of participants. Without exception, the style of play OTHERS had mirrored
my own. I have *NEVER* experienced a game where role playing in the sense I
describe was not commonplace.

> > I guess so. And here I thought role playing was about playing roles,
silly
> > me.
>
> It is, the problem is that you have a quirky definition of "playing
> roles".

Guess so.

> Will you PLEASE respond to one of the posts, such as Kevin's in this
> thread, that lays out in a non-insulting way the definitions you have
> repeatedly claimed to want and the reasons your views seem benighted to
> most of us? That way your claims to be interested in reasoned discussion
> might, someday, come across as something other than a pathetic joke.

Lemme see... Well, I just re-read his lone post, and do not see anything
worthy of being responded to.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:31:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Jeff Goslin said...
> I responded to the original poster, and to any post that interested me
> enough to respond to it. You *seriously* expect me to waste my time
> responding to EVERY poster, despite the fact that, from my perspective, they
> said nothing worthy of being responded to?

Not every poster, only the ones you NEED to respond to to not look like
a narrow-minded, deeply hypocritical, raving lunatic. But I see trying
to reason with you on this point has been a complete waste of my time,
Kevin's, Sea Wasp's and that of numerous others. So to hell with it.

*plonk*
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:31:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <6LudndIOkt3tM4LfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:p 19u11ldf94lg86vhjcf7m0o7i7vdhq7ib@4ax.com...
>> >Obviously you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I refer to the use
>of
>> >non-combat skills in interesting and unique ways to overcome obstacles
>that
>> >are not combat related.
>>
>> What sort of gibbering moron would require gameplay time to come up with
>> such things?
>
>The kind of gibbering moron who expects that people come up with ideas to
>solve their problems, rather than rolling to see if a wizard makes an
>intelligence check and handing them the solution. Where's the fun in that?

I just assumed Matt meant one thinks these things through between sessions.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 5:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Jeff Goslin, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
and exclaimed:

> Ok, make it 5 mins, the ratio between time spent advancing in one
> campaign is going to be 4 times as great as in the other campaign, no
> matter how long it takes.
>

If I know I'm going to level up next session, I'll have the paperwork done
before I come to the table.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:38:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:19:25 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
> >> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
> >> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
> >> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
> >> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).
> >
> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're
worried about
> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it
will take
> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
>
> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand
new
> adventurers.

Irrelevant.

> > Sheesh, it's
> >not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what
roleplaying is
> >all about!
>
> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.

Actually, it does.

> >> Why did the characters advance so slowly?
> >
> >Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would
seem
> >that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics,
spells,
> >feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.
>
> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats,
skills,
> and so on, without ever actually playing.

He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.

Brandon
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:48:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> Matt Frisch wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:19:25 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>
> <autockr@comcast.net>
>
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>
>>>"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
>>>>the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
>>>>sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
>>>>talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).
>>>
>>>That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're
>
> worried about
>
>>>orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it
>
> will take
>
>>>to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
>>
>>A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand
>
> new
>
>>adventurers.
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
>>>Sheesh, it's
>>>not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what
>
> roleplaying is
>
>>>all about!
>>
>>Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
>
>
> Actually, it does.
>
>
>>>>Why did the characters advance so slowly?
>>>
>>>Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would
>
> seem
>
>>>that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics,
>
> spells,
>
>>>feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.
>>
>>To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats,
>
> skills,
>
>>and so on, without ever actually playing.
>
>
> He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.
>
> Brandon
>

Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy Duck
calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:21:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Kevin Lowe said...
> For starters, I notice you cherry-picked one thing to disagree with and
> ignored everything else. Hats off.

That would be exactly why I plonked him. He never argues any other way;
worse, he has been known to claim that the stuff he snipped didn't even
exist. The recent expression "Google is not your friend" was made for
Goslin.

But I really should STFU, it's bad form to shoot from behind a killfile
(though not as bad as Goslin's intellectually dishonest approach to
argumentation).
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:54:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 26 Feb 2005 15:38:55 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:19:25 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
><autockr@comcast.net>
>> scribed into the ether:
>>
>> >"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
>> >> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
>> >> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
>> >> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
>> >> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).
>> >
>> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're
>worried about
>> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it
>will take
>> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
>>
>> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand
>new
>> adventurers.
>
>Irrelevant.

Ooh, cope is here for his regular whipping.

It's not relevant, but thanks for playing.

>> > Sheesh, it's
>> >not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what
>> >roleplaying is all about!
>>
>> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
>
>Actually, it does.

Prove it.

>> >> Why did the characters advance so slowly?
>> >
>> >Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It would
>> >seem that one would need at least a session to get used to new mechanics,
>> >spells, feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.
>>
>> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats,
>>skills, and so on, without ever actually playing.
>
>He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.

If you understand something, it is not necesary to get used to it.

Well, maybe for you, because you often feel that you understand something
when you flagrantly do not.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:27:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:

> Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy Duck
> calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"

No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 6:36:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 15:38:55 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >Matt Frisch wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:19:25 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> ><autockr@comcast.net>
> >> scribed into the ether:
> >>
> >> >"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
> >> >> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
> >> >> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
> >> >> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
> >> >> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).
> >> >
> >> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're
> >worried about
> >> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it
> >will take
> >> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
> >>
> >> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand
> >new
> >> adventurers.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Ooh, cope is here for his regular whipping.

Which you then prove incapable of giving.

> It's not relevant, but thanks for playing.

You just agreed with me ...

> >> > Sheesh, it's
> >> >not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what
> >> >roleplaying is all about!
> >>
> >> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
> >
> >Actually, it does.
>
> Prove it.

You are the one who made the assertion that roleplaying has nothing to
do with advancement speed. It's up to you to prove your statement.

> >> >> Why did the characters advance so slowly?
> >> >
> >> >Why do characters advance so quickly under the new system? It
would
> >> >seem that one would need at least a session to get used to new
mechanics,
> >> >spells, feats, skills and so on, that accompany a new level.
> >>
> >> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats,
> >>skills, and so on, without ever actually playing.
> >
> >He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.
>
> If you understand something, it is not necesary to get used to it.

Actually, yes, it is. You may read books all you want about replacing a
hard drive, but you have to physically do it several times to actually
get used to replacing a hard drive.

Likewise, with RPG mechanics, you can read the rules all you want, but
you actually have to use the rules in play before you can get used to
them. This is frequently not a matter of not understanding new rules,
but of simply forgetting some of them until you have used them enough
that their use becomes automatic.

Brandon
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 6:38:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
> > Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy Duck
> > calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
>
> No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.

What the hell did I do to you?

Brandon
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:45:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>>Some Guy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy Duck
>>>calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
>>
>>No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.
>
>
> What the hell did I do to you?
>
> Brandon
>

Can I have the court reporter please read back the defendent's numerous
statements revealing his incompetence, please, Your Honor? Thank you.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:36:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2005 15:36:42 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >Matt Frisch wrote:
> >> On 26 Feb 2005 15:38:55 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com"
<copeab@yahoo.com>
> >> scribed into the ether:
> >> >> >"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
> >> >> >> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
> >> >> >> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
> >> >> >> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
> >> >> >> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little
more).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're
> >> >worried about
> >> >> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds
it
> >> >will take
> >> >> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
> >> >>
> >> >> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for
brand
> >> >new
> >> >> adventurers.
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Ooh, cope is here for his regular whipping.
> >
> >Which you then prove incapable of giving.
>
> Cope existing = Cope whipped.

Then you give really wussy whippings 'cause I never noticed.

> >> >> > Sheesh, it's
> >> >> >not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what
> >> >> >roleplaying is all about!
> >> >>
> >> >> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, it does.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> >You are the one who made the assertion that roleplaying has nothing
to
> >do with advancement speed. It's up to you to prove your statement
>
> Roleplaying effortlessly exists without any advancement, therefore
> advancement has no effect on roleplaying.

See, you have started out with an incorrect premise. No wonder you are
wrong.

> The rate at which advancement
> occurs has no effect on roleplaying, since the entire concept of
> advancement has no effect on roleplaying.

Another wrong premise. You are on a roll, Scooter.

> >> >> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells,
feats,
> >> >>skills, and so on, without ever actually playing.
> >> >
> >> >He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.
> >>
> >> If you understand something, it is not necesary to get used to it.
> >
> >Actually, yes, it is. You may read books all you want about
replacing a
> >hard drive, but you have to physically do it several times to
actually
> >get used to replacing a hard drive.
>
> Odd, I figured out how to replace a hard drive just by opening the
case and
> looking inside.

Good for you. Because this is your one area of ability as an idiot
savant doesn't invalidate the example.

If you don't like that example, then use surgery.

Brandon
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:37:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:
> copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Mark Blunden wrote:
> >
> >>Some Guy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy
Duck
> >>>calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
> >>
> >>No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.
> >
> > What the hell did I do to you?
>
> Can I have the court reporter please read back the defendent's
numerous
> statements revealing his incompetence, please, Your Honor? Thank
you.

Then ignore my posts if you don't like what I have to say.

Brandon
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:38:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109547484.284324.297770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Mark Blunden wrote:
> > > Some Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy
Duck
> > > > calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
> > >
> > > No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.
> >
> > What the hell did I do to you?
>
> The same thing you've done to all of us. Offended us with your
incompetent
> flailing on a huge number of occassions.

Translation: I refuse to kiss your ass.

Brandon
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 1:47:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 15:36:42 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2005 15:38:55 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
>> scribed into the ether:
>> >> >"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> >news:384n8bF5jqs07U1@individual.net...
>> >> >> That's long. A D&D 3rd Edition campaign is supposed to take
>> >> >> the PCs from 1st to 20th level in 6 months, assuming weekly
>> >> >> sessions (if we assume 6 hours per session, when we're
>> >> >> talking 150 hours of total play time, or maybe a little more).
>> >> >
>> >> >That's ALMOST one full level per session. One session you're
>> >worried about
>> >> >orcs killing you, next month you're wondering how many rounds it
>> >will take
>> >> >to kill a dragon, whether it's going to be one round or two!
>> >>
>> >> A baby white dragon is a CR1 monster. Perfectly suitable for brand
>> >new
>> >> adventurers.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> Ooh, cope is here for his regular whipping.
>
>Which you then prove incapable of giving.

Cope existing = Cope whipped.

>> It's not relevant, but thanks for playing.
>
>You just agreed with me ...

Hi, welcome to a subthread. The dragon issue took a seperate path. Try and
keep up.

>> >> > Sheesh, it's
>> >> >not a wonder that people here seem to have no concept of what
>> >> >roleplaying is all about!
>> >>
>> >> Roleplaying has nothing to do with advancement speed.
>> >
>> >Actually, it does.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>You are the one who made the assertion that roleplaying has nothing to
>do with advancement speed. It's up to you to prove your statement

Roleplaying effortlessly exists without any advancement, therefore
advancement has no effect on roleplaying. The rate at which advancement
occurs has no effect on roleplaying, since the entire concept of
advancement has no effect on roleplaying.

It's really not that difficult a concept for
people-who-are-not-incredibly-stupid-like-you-and-jeff to understand.

>> >> To you maybe. Most people can understand mechanics, spells, feats,
>> >>skills, and so on, without ever actually playing.
>> >
>> >He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.
>>
>> If you understand something, it is not necesary to get used to it.
>
>Actually, yes, it is. You may read books all you want about replacing a
>hard drive, but you have to physically do it several times to actually
>get used to replacing a hard drive.

Odd, I figured out how to replace a hard drive just by opening the case and
looking inside. I understood it, and then I did it. I guess it is just
different with dumb people...which explains you.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109547402.652412.309840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Matt Frisch wrote:

> > >He said "get used to," not "understand," you dimwit.
> >
> > If you understand something, it is not necesary to get used to it.
>
> Actually, yes, it is. You may read books all you want about replacing a
> hard drive, but you have to physically do it several times to actually
> get used to replacing a hard drive.

<Falls on the floor laughing>

You have to physically replace several hard drives after reading extensive
documentation in order to "get used to it"! See Matt's comment about you
being incompetent.

Fish munching, dribbling idiot that you are.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:26:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109547484.284324.297770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> > Some Guy wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy Duck
> > > calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
> >
> > No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.
>
> What the hell did I do to you?

The same thing you've done to all of us. Offended us with your incompetent
flailing on a huge number of occassions.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:04:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109601525.995358.257560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Symbol wrote:
> > <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1109547484.284324.297770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Mark Blunden wrote:
> > > > Some Guy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy
> Duck
> > > > > calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
> > > >
> > > > No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.
> > >
> > > What the hell did I do to you?
> >
> > The same thing you've done to all of us. Offended us with your
> incompetent
> > flailing on a huge number of occassions.
>
> Translation: I refuse to kiss your ass.

QED
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:11:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Matt Frisch wrote:
> >
> > Even given the ability to sub in a new character, that does
> > not make the death of the original a minor thing.
>
> Actually, it DOES make it a minor thing. If there is no
> appreciable penalty for death(ie waiting until you're
> ressurected, loss of XP, *something*),

As usual, you know *nothing*. *BOTH* of these apply to raising
characters from the dead in 3.x. As for new characters: IMC, and in
most campaigns I know of, new characters *also* start at lower level
than the previous character was.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:21:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Blunden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some Guy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Isn't Brandon Cope calling someone a dimwit sort of like Daffy
>
> Duck
>
>>>>>calling Bugs Bunny "despicable?"
>>>>
>>>>No, there's more spraying spittle in the first case.
>>>
>>>What the hell did I do to you?
>>
>>Can I have the court reporter please read back the defendent's
>
> numerous
>
>>statements revealing his incompetence, please, Your Honor? Thank
>
> you.
>
> Then ignore my posts if you don't like what I have to say.
>
> Brandon
>

Where's the fun in that?
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:46:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 28 Feb 2005 06:36:06 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>
>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2005 15:36:42 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
>> scribed into the ether:

>> >Which you then prove incapable of giving.
>>
>> Cope existing = Cope whipped.
>
>Then you give really wussy whippings 'cause I never noticed.

I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I'm even trying to. You
handle that job marvelously all by yourself.

>> >You are the one who made the assertion that roleplaying has nothing
>> >to do with advancement speed. It's up to you to prove your statement
>>
>> Roleplaying effortlessly exists without any advancement, therefore
>> advancement has no effect on roleplaying.
>
>See, you have started out with an incorrect premise. No wonder you are
>wrong.

Ooh, there's a convincing arguement. So far you've come up with two
instances of "You are wrong" with nothing to back it up.

Personally, I think that's all you can say because you don't have anything
more.


>> >Actually, yes, it is. You may read books all you want about
>replacing a
>> >hard drive, but you have to physically do it several times to
>actually
>> >get used to replacing a hard drive.
>>
>> Odd, I figured out how to replace a hard drive just by opening the
>>case and looking inside.
>
>Good for you. Because this is your one area of ability as an idiot
>savant doesn't invalidate the example.

I can make a long list of things that I understand without having to
experience them multiple times. You, for example. I understood that you
were a gibbering idiot the first time I read one of your posts. All the
ones after that have just been amusement.

I do understand that you find it hard to believe that other people can
understand things the first time around, because you have never been able
to accomplish that feat in the entirety of your life. But it really does
happen.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:0mj7219lrko4or1hrnepdqg4udfhl1uqu9@4ax.com...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > Matt Frisch wrote:
> > >
> > > Even given the ability to sub in a new character, that does
> > > not make the death of the original a minor thing.
> >
> > Actually, it DOES make it a minor thing. If there is no
> > appreciable penalty for death(ie waiting until you're
> > ressurected, loss of XP, *something*),
>
> As usual, you know *nothing*. *BOTH* of these apply to raising
> characters from the dead in 3.x. As for new characters: IMC, and in
> most campaigns I know of, new characters *also* start at lower level
> than the previous character was.

It's a house rule, it's not an official rule.

Unless I'm mistaken, of course. Have they enacted some rule that says a
newly created character must be of lower experience point totals than the
character it replaces? I can't imagine that they did.

Yes, in my campaign, new characters start at the low end, just like in yours
and most others. But there's nothing to say, except the good judgement of
the DM in question, that a character can't simply start at the previous
character's XP total.

Furthermore, there is no necessary waiting period for raising as stipulated
by the rules, it can be done within seconds of the death in question. In a
campaign where death is commonplace, either raising is very
prevalent(there's a 9th level cleric in every town, for instance), or
characters are rarely raised, but rather are simply replaced. If not, there
would be a LOT of sitting around, something which doesn't even happen in MY
campaign.

If a character dies in our campaign, the other PC's take great pain and
effort to raise that character as soon as humanly possible, but even that
doesn't happen right away. Often, they have to travel for a LONG time to
find a cleric of appropriate ability, usually in a direction totally out of
the way, and it costs a SHITLOAD of money. Plus which, the character loses
a LOT of experience points. But characters are pretty much NEVER just
abjectly tossed.

So, since I "know nothing", what is the official rule when it comes to
raising? The only penalty *I* know of is a loss of a constitution point.
Tell me what I'm missing from the OFFICIAL rules.

You know, it's one thing to actually have a gripe, but it's completely
another to just simply jump on the "he's an idiot" bandwagon. You might
want to actually have a point before you call someone else an idiot.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:49:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kevin Lowe wrote:

[snip]

<applause>

-Will
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:44:18 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:5h5721p1tcimjq1on4abft5p80dkouhdaa@4ax.com...
>> Even given the ability to sub in a new character, that does not make the
>> death of the original a minor thing.
>
>Actually, it DOES make it a minor thing. If there is no appreciable penalty
>for death(ie waiting until you're ressurected, loss of XP, *something*),
>then it makes any death necessarily minor. It's simply an inconvenience,
>not a hurdle to be surpassed.

Different strokes. Character death, even with replacement is a major issue
in every game I've played (again with the previously noted exceptions).

>> Make your adventures more varied. If the party's spellcasters are so
>> predictable, then an intelligent opponent will prey on that weakness.
>
> Our wizard player picks a broad array of
>spells, mostly offensive and a few detection type spells, knowing that if we
>get into a situation where we need a specific spell, odds are good that we,
>as a party, will decide to hole up until he can memorize the appropriate
>spell if he hasn't got it memorized already.

Change those odds. Make it so that the players cannot retreat because they
pigeonholed themselves, and suffer the consequences of it.

>I'm open to suggestions, of course, as to how to force the characters down a
>path that would require specific spells to be cast, but honestly, I would
>think that such tactics would be tantamount to railroading, something most
>players frown upon. Yes, they've been in situations where a given spell
>would be useful, but they rarely get into situations where a given spell is
>REQUIRED.

There is a wild difference between an intelligent opponent who preys on the
tendencies of the party and railroading. A single wizard can TPK the party
with humiliating ease if he plans it right. If the party does not typically
prepare for Hazard X, then someone who wants to kill them will bring
copious quantities of X. Have that happen a couple of times, and your
players are forced to adapt. Adds challenge, makes for creativity, and when
(if) they finally beat him, the satisfaction factor is way up there.

>> It does matter what the motivations are, even if they are never vocalized.
>> That's the whole cornerstone of roleplaying. If I feel the need to discuss
>> my character's feelings, I do it on a metagame level. The results of what
>> my character is thinking are borne out by his actions. This is a game, not
>> an alternate personality psychology exam.
>
>"The results of what my character is thinking are borne out by his actions."
>You said it yourself. I agree with that statement. The key to that, of
>course, is that if he has moral objections to killing prisoners, but does
>nothing to stop the fighters from lopping off the heads of prisoners, his
>(in)actions have just spoken louder than any inner motivations. In other
>words, he can have all the depth in the world as far as motivations go, but
>if he doesn't DO anything about his motivations, nobody will ever know, and
>as such, it simply will not matter.

It matters to the player who is inhabiting the role of this conflicted
character. If that sort of character is not something you get enjoyment out
of, then don't play it.

You don't need the rest of the gaming table to see inner turmoil in order
to have it and enjoy it.

>> If the character doesn't object to something he perceives as wrong, then
>> that too is the character. Happens in real life all the time. The thing
>> about internal strife is that it needs a resolution, else you are
>> roleplaying a basket case. Just because a character has strife doesn't
>>mean they don't *do* something about it.
>
>But ONLY when they DO something about it does their inner strife matter!
>Don't you get it yet?

Reread what I just wrote, since you clearly didn't the first time.

>You're preaching about knowing the entire depth and breadth of a character
>before he's even created, but at the same time you're not recognizing that
>you can have this extraordinarily deep character, but if he doesn't do
>anything with those motivations, they just don't matter!

Then those are not real motivations. A real motivation will...and here's
where it gets tricky: MOTIVATE. If the character takes no actions, then the
character doesn't have any motivation. Either that or is so conflicted as
to be incapable of anything. People like that belong in an asylum, not an
adventuring party.

>> On the other hand, the character being played could be a coward, and lacks
>> the courage to stand up for his own convictions. In that case, not
>stepping
>
>It's possible to play a character suffering from apathy, I suppose, but then
>you would not need any kind of further motivational backround, except to say
>that he goes with the flow, regardless of his other feelings.

So in your 2-dimensional world of character creation, people either act on
everything with no filter, or take no action and are apathetic?

>> >In other words, if a player can't figure out a puzzle, he makes his
>wizard's
>> >intelligence roll, or some other mechanic based on problem solving, rolls
>> >successfully, and is given the solution to the problem.
>>
>> The character is a lot more intelligent than the player, what is your
>> justification for penalizing the character for the player's limitations?
>
>Oh, I don't know, the fun of the game?

As pointed out elsewhere, game problems which require metagame thinking are
bad design, and not terribly fun.

Anyway, you answered the question: You have no justification for penalizing
characters because they are better at something than their player. Why do
you even have character statistics at all, when they are irrelevant?

>Quite frankly, I have, in a non-leading way, asked them what they would
>think about rolling to resolve social interactions. Without exception, all
>of them came back with "why would you want to do that? Isn't the whole
>point of the game to play that stuff out?" I have a feeling their reactions
>to rolling for problem solving would fall along the same lines.

And as has been mentioned repeatedly, you and your players are poor
roleplayers. Nothing you have ever said in my memory about the way you play
has come close to dispelling that statement.

>> >As has been granted multiple, many, almost incomprehensibly large numbers
>of
>> >times before, physical actions require mechanical resolutions.
>>
>> And has been mentioned nearly as many times: Why do you draw arbitrary
>> distinctions between two types of skills?
>
>Because one MUST be simulated,

As LARPers everywhere cease to exist....

>the other can be either simulated or played
>out. If you simulate the mental stuff, you take away much of the point of
>playing a role playing game, and revert instead to what is little more than
>a wargame without miniatures.

Mental stuff lives happily with skill rolls. Switching from 1E to 3E, the
quality of roleplaying has actually gone UP, since a superb mechanism is in
place to adjudicate the disparity between player and character.

> You've just taken every puzzle in your game and made it
>completely pointless.

Thank god for that.

> Furthermore, by removing all social interactions as
>well, you're left with little more than combat to keep you occupied.

Skill rolls do not eliminate social interaction, they determine the
outcome.

Your system: No skill rolls, stats don't matter, characters don't matter.
All is decided by the subjective DM.

Good system: Skills are relevant. Stats are important. Character is
paramount. Objective system with a dose of the die roll determines outcome.

>> >He should be allowed to roll his intelligence and if he makes it, you
>should
>> >just GIVE him the solution!!
>> ><sarcasm OFF>
>>
>> Unless you know of a way to make the player smarter, this is easily the
>> best solution. Maybe you could just keep feeding the player more
>> information until he gets it, but how is that better?
>
>It's better because it provides the PLAYERS with a sense of real
>accomplishment.

The players are not accomplishing anything if all they have to do is sit
around and say "Duh" a lot until you feed them enough hints to solve the
puzzle.

>This game is about the players and the fun THEY have, not
>the characters.

In most game situations, the characters are not having fun, they are
involved in some aspect of the struggle between good&evil and life and
death. No sane person has fun while locked in mortal combat with a sword.

> But if I just plain old GAVE them the
>answer, what would have been the point of bringing it up in the first place
>as a puzzle to solve?

Yes, why indeed? Get rid of metagame puzzles.

>By binding the hands of players simply because their characters are stupid
>means that you are removing them from the game for any portion that involves
>using your noggin.

By not holding characters to the limitations they possess, you remove any
purpose for having those limitations in the first place. I don't know how
you determine stats, but in a point buy system, any fighter in your games
who puts even a single point into his int/wis/cha is a complete moron.
18/18/18/8/8/8...combat god with absolutely no drawbacks. And you really
consider this roleplaying?

> but I'm not about to tell his PLAYER that he can't
>take part in what he would consider one of the best parts of the game, just
>for the sake of consistency.

If your players were good roleplayers, you wouldn't have to. They would
stay out of it on their own, because their character is not up to the task.
Or they would deliberately do something stupid (because the character is
stupid), like smash the puzzle mechanism with an axe.

>> If players want to solve riddles, they give their characters high
>> intelligence. That was tough.
>
>Actually, intelligence is often a stat that the players put lots of points
>into, and wisdom is often ignored. It goes along with the way many players
>run their characters. Lots of smarts, just not a whole lot of good
>judgment.

For which they are not the least bit penalized. Unwise characters should be
extremely inept in many facets of social interaction. Are they?
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:15:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message


> > I think the problem here is that *your* game has nothing but
puzzles,
> > improv mini-games and combat. So you don't have the faintest clue
what
> > we might do with ourselves other than combat, since we aren't doing
the
> > other two things that constitute roleplaying in your impoverished
mind.
>
> I'm open to your suggestions...? What constitutes role playing in
your
> world? What is there beyond social interactions, problem solving,
and
> combat? I'm curious to hear the answer to this one, because
honestly,
> everything we do in our game falls into one of those three general
> categories.
>

Not that anyone cares by now, but I think it's important to
differentiate between "puzzle solving" and "problem solving." IMO, how
to move the pieces on a giant chessboard to open the hidden chamber is
a puzzle. How to unite two feuding barbarian clans before the Dark Army
wipes them both out is a problem. Down to brass tacks, I suppose a
puzzle has a single solution, while a problem is open to a variety of
solutions with similar variety of results or consequences. Admittedly,
I pulled these distinctions out of my ass, but they work well for me.

As far as the "mechanics vs. creative thought" argument, I think the
mechanics are there to supplement creative thinking, not replace it.
Personally, I give players a chance to figure things out by themselves
first, and then give them skill checks to nudge them toward the correct
answer or social response (or lead them away if they fail), not to give
or deny them the answer outright. These skill checks are not "one size
fits all" solutions, but are usually couched in terms of the PC's
personality, intelligence/wisdom, alignment, or background; thereby
encouraging roleplaying.

Finally, I'll suggest that the rules in 3.x are designed to give you
the game you want to play. If you just want to kill things, the rules
oblige. If you want to figure things out, then you can use skill checks
to reinforce creative thinking.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:59:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:waqdnfRp4p-djbnfRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-2D4F3D.14355801032005@individual.net...
> > Again, the fact that you find a game of DnD that does not include
> > regular doses of puzzlebook action nigh inconceivable says a lot more
> > about you than about what is actually possible or fun. I don't think
> > I've included a puzzle as such in any game since I ran Dream Park
years
> > and years ago.
>
> This explains a lot. Don't worry, I think we all get the picture of
your
> games.

Maybe you should wait until somebody in the thread agrees with your crack
addled reasoning before you go making claims on behalf of other people.

> Combat, skill roll, combat, skill roll, combat, skill roll... I don't
think I need to continue.

Why are you lying about Kevin's games? Why not address his point instead?
Solving puzzles out of character isn't roleplaying.

> First you remove role playing, and replace it with skill rolls,

Why are you lying about Kevin's games? Why not address his point instead?
Representing your character is roleplaying.

> then you
> remove riddles and puzzles, and replace them with skill rolls. You're
left
> doing nothing more than deciding what to do, and how hard to hit what
you
> run into. Thumbs up on that highly imaginative game, chief.

Why are you lying about Kevin's games? Why not address his point instead?
The only person lacking imagination is you.

> > Puzzles and strange devices are boring as hell anyway in my not so
> > humble opinion. I can crack open a puzzle book any time I want that
> > sort of mental challenge. When I'm playing a roleplaying game I want
a
> > cooperative narrative game, and puzzles and other such rubbish tend to
> > bring the story to a screeching halt.
>
> You couldn't have painted a clearer picture if you had a paint roller in
> your hand. Your campaigns are all painted in one color, blood red, no
> doubt.

Why are you lying about Kevin's games? Why not address his point instead?

> Look, maybe you can enlighten me, because I *honestly* can't envision
what
> you would call roleplaying as being depicted in ANY way except the one
> above, with combats and skill rolls being LITERALLY all that happens.

See, no imagination.

> Could
> you encapsulate what, say, your last gaming session consisted of? I
just
> want to get a true and unadulterated picture of what you would consider
role
> playing, because HONESTLY I can't see how you guys play the game with a
> level of sophistication higher than that of 8 year olds running into
trolls
> and bapping them on the head and taking the loot. PLEASE tell me
there's
> more to your games than that, because honestly, since you stripped out
all
> the role playing interactions AND the problem solving, replacing both
with
> mechanics, there quite simply is not much left.

If I were him I wouldn't bother. Then again, if I were him I would have
stopped providing meaningful content in replies to you a while ago. Only
in Jeff world is putting on a funny voice the difference between
roleplaying and roll playing. What a tool you are.

Only in Jeff world can you bitterly insist on *MAXIMIZING* roleplaying
when the smart player of the Int 6 Half Orc solves half the adventure's
pointless CRPG style dungeon puzzles completely out of character.

> > Every time I think you've demonstrated your ignorance about as
> > thoroughly as a human being can, you top yourself. This is just
> > ridiculous. I haven't used any puzzles whatsoever in years, and
neither
> > have any of the people I game with. I'm trying to think back to the
> > last puzzle per se I have encountered as a player, and having real
> > difficulty remembering one.
>
> There have been puzzles and riddles in EVERY published module that I
have
> ever seen. What is widely considered to be the quintessential role
playing
> module produced for *D&D? While there may be some argument, I've always
> heard that T1-4, Temple of Elemental Evil, is pretty widely recognized
as at
> least NEAR the top of the list, if not topping the list. Arguments
about
> the quality of that module aside, even THAT module has multiple puzzles
and
> riddles in it(even though most of it involves applying sledgehammers
> liberally to noggins of baddies).

Published modules aren't designed for quintessential role playing
opportunities. Just like CRPGs.

> That YOU haven't used puzzles or riddles in years is merely a reflection
of
> your personal preference, your disdain for the slowdown in play that
these
> riddles and puzzles bring about in your game, which is, I hate to say
it,
> both a reflection on your ability to present a problem in a clear and
> concise manner, and on your player's ability to solve riddles, which
would
> appear to be horrific at best.

Why are you lying about Kevin's games? He already told you why he doesn't
like them puzzles designed to be solved out of character.

> Puzzles and riddles make up a rather significant portion of most
modules,

Irrelevant.

> > Have fun. Enjoying that kind of thing as part of a DnD session is not
> > universal however.
>
> Let's just say it's only universal amongst mature gamers.

<Falls on the floor laughing>

Yeah right, CRPG style gaming is what is universal among mature players.

> There is a
> progression of gaming, if you will, and it starts with hack n slash take
the
> loot repeat ad infinitum. From there, you progress to higher and higher
> aspects of gaming, until hack n slash is little more than sideplay in
your
> game. Obviously, you haven't hit a level where you can get by without
> fighting.

Why are you lying about Kevin's games?

> Yes, I admit, our game would suffer if there was no combat, but that's
only
> because one of our players is brand new, and another prefers liberal
> application of force as his character style. But make no mistake, our
game
> would be considered "combat lite" by most gaming standards.

Given your quite staggering displays of ignorance when it comes to the
gaming standards of others you're in no position to judge.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:40:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1109693731.471623.22610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Not that anyone cares by now, but I think it's important to
> differentiate between "puzzle solving" and "problem solving." IMO, how
> to move the pieces on a giant chessboard to open the hidden chamber is
> a puzzle. How to unite two feuding barbarian clans before the Dark Army
> wipes them both out is a problem. Down to brass tacks, I suppose a
> puzzle has a single solution, while a problem is open to a variety of
> solutions with similar variety of results or consequences. Admittedly,
> I pulled these distinctions out of my ass, but they work well for me.

Well, they sound good to me, from a fairly broad perspective, but even
"puzzle solving" is simply a structured subset of problem solving. My
players tend to be inside the box thinkers until they force themselves
outside of the box. They'll try, out of simple desire to "play along" to
solve a puzzle in the manner that one would expect, at least for a while,
until they reach a point where their puzzle solving isn't working, at which
point they turn to the more broad scope of problem solving. The chessboard
in your above example is then examined for ways to reach the hidden chamber
without actually solving the puzzle, turning the exercise from strict puzzle
solving into a problem solving situation. Everything from proper
application of force(which rarely deviates from "as hard as possible"), to
combinations of spells, along with a variety of ingenious, out of the box
solutions, will be used to achieve goals if the puzzle can't be solved.

> Personally, I give players a chance to figure things out by themselves
> first, and then give them skill checks to nudge them toward the correct
> answer or social response (or lead them away if they fail), not to give
> or deny them the answer outright. These skill checks are not "one size
> fits all" solutions, but are usually couched in terms of the PC's
> personality, intelligence/wisdom, alignment, or background; thereby
> encouraging roleplaying.

I would honestly say that such an approach would be a valid one. You use
mechanics to nudge players, I use intelligent response to do the same thing.
The position of many folks though is to use mechanics in their entirety.
There is a puzzle, I don't care what the puzzle is, I roll my skill roll and
solve it, bottom line. They do not see a problem with that.

> Finally, I'll suggest that the rules in 3.x are designed to give you
> the game you want to play. If you just want to kill things, the rules
> oblige. If you want to figure things out, then you can use skill checks
> to reinforce creative thinking.

I would say that it definitely DOESN'T reinforce creative thinking. If the
players simply refuse to attempt to "play along", you're left with little
choice but to simply roll to see if they solve the problem. If players
simply refuse to play along in my game, they don't solve the problem. I
don't just let them slide like that, that's not how we play the game.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
!