My play style
Callan S.:
Quote
I guess since in real life people don't "combat optimize," I have this goal of creating "real," characters and so when I make a twinkish character I don't feel like I am role-playing, but instead feel like I am, if not cheating, at least not playing well.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
It staggers me how gamers not only think they have a philosophy that encompases all, but they think so enough that they will actually place social sanction (and perhaps even sever friendships) on people because they know "what's right". It probably aught to be called fiction lawering - I wonder if that pivotal 1983 point in the hard look at D&D article was actually fiction lawyers suddenly becoming aware of and homing in on en masse on the activity called roleplay.
dugfromthearth:
Quote from: contracycle on June 30, 2010, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: Aaron Baker on June 30, 2010, 04:31:55 AM
I guess since in real life people don't "combat optimize," I have this goal of creating "real," characters and so when I make a twinkish character I don't feel like I am role-playing, but instead feel like I am, if not cheating, at least not playing well.
That's because, in real life, more happens than just combat. Whereas often in RPG, combat is the only thing that really happens. And if that's the case, you'd be mad NOT to combat optimise; any sub-optimal decision is just an affectation.
I would quibble with that reply.
In games often lots of things really happen, but only combat can kill you or determine the final outcome.
You go to a town and have to investigate. The GM makes sure that you find the clues you need to get to the final encounter. Failing a persuasion check causes some slight delay but isn't fatal.
But when you fight the big boss, failing in combat is fatal.
I have been gaming for 20+ years and almost never have I seen a scenario where it was not resolved through combat. The absolute worst was in GURPS Vampires which spend endless time talking about how it wasn't just combat but roleplaying and such - then their scenario literally said that there was nothing the PC's could do to avoid it coming down to a big final battle.
contracycle:
Quote from: dugfromthearth on July 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
In games often lots of things really happen, but only combat can kill you or determine the final outcome.
You go to a town and have to investigate. The GM makes sure that you find the clues you need to get to the final encounter. Failing a persuasion check causes some slight delay but isn't fatal.
Well, there you go. If a "persuasion check" is so nominal and unimportant, then I'm not sure it "really" happened. It was just a bit of showbiz razzmataz along the way.
Contrast this with a situation in which, say, social actions can get you thrown in jail for life or executed, or ordered to commit seppuku. In these conditions social skills become just as vital as any combat skill.
Point is: a lot of games are indeed built the way you describe, with the primary action being combat, and everything else being trivial. As I said, that's rather different to real life, and it causes people to optimise for it, not because they have a desire to be "unrealistic" or to create "unbalanced" characters, but becuase it is the only thing which matters and the only thing that will be rewarded.
The broader question then is: SHOULD games be built to work that way?
dugfromthearth:
I think the issue in game design is that all combat is important and not all other interactions are. So combat rules are made detailed and other rules are not. And since other interactions are not detailed they aren't seen as important.
A character enters a city and asks for directions. If the GM requires a roll, it is a simple roll and you get information or you do not. It isn't a 5 minute interaction with choices (do I compliment him first, does he hesitate and I try again, etc). I doubt many players would want every such interaction to be complex.
Then the character meets the judge and asks for a pardon or they will be hanged. This is a life and death situation. But since the rules just have you make a single die roll, the GM is loathe to have the character just be able to get out of trouble with one die roll - they require a combat or chase to get away.
What would be needed would be a system to allow for simplistic social interactions (or climbing, or whatever) generally, but then a more detailed system for critical times.
contracycle:
But this is a circular argument. If you construct an RPG so that there is only one thing that is important, then sure that is the only thing that is important. I mean, failing to grow enough crops to survive the winter can get you killed; getting lost in the wilderness can get you killed; saying the wrong thing in the wrong place can get you killed. RPG's, as a rule, fail to address issues of these sorts, and exist primarily as combat systems. That's a problem, not an automatic or necessary property of RPG's. Take a look a more widely based designs like HeroWars conflict resolution system that, sure, concentrates a fair bit on derring do and whatnot, but as a system is easily translatable to dealing all of the issues I mentioned in just as much detail, if you wish, as is applied to combat.
My point remains that if the only thing that matters is combat then you are providing a heavy incentive for players to build characters that are exclusively based on combat. Almost all "orthodox" RPG systems do this, and consequently also produce a fairly narrow experience of play, one that moves from combat encounter to combat encounter. If you want more rounded, human-like characters, you need a more rounded game. One way to get a more rounded game is to start from building a resolution system rather than a combat system.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page