RPG does not equal 'numbers'

[mutonizer]

The numbers are just gravy and it's actually the numbers that make the game more like Diablo and its unrelenting quest for the best items not the other way around.

Without numbers however, there is nothing defining your actor but the story itself, making it an adventure game (or interactive movie) and not a RPG in my book. Without numbers, you could potentially choose the most "intelligent", the most "physical" and the most "agile" paths, no matter your character. With numbers, these choices are coherent within the context of your actor: is he strong? agile? Intelligent? These are defined with numbers, to give them relative value when compared to something else (more intelligent than a kobold but less than a dragon, stronger than an ox, etc).

 

We are all, in real life, defined by these relative numbers as well, which is why I can't understand quantum physics right now, nor can I lift 200kgs, but I have better stats in other skills and stuff. Likewise, I go faster with a modern top notch bike than with a crappy 70 years old one (consider it a bike +2). It's also why swimmers with insanely technologically advanced suits go faster than when they wear a crappy one, etc. Numbers are part of the realism of a world and of actions within that world. They define what can be done, by who, and when.

 

I love games like King Quest or Police Quest or Phantasmagoria, don't get me wrong, but they are not RPGs.

 

ps: a lot of people in our world "quest" for the best item non stop. Best house, best car, best phone, best computer. Our own technological advancement is a result for this "quest". It's part of us really in a way though we don't all strive for it of course.

Edited November 21, 2011 by mutonizer

[Shantih]

In Pen and Paper you don't need numbers to roleplay. You don't even need paper or anything really. I'm not saying the game will be very elaborate but every kids play "let's pretend..." and that's a form of roleplaying. Consenting adults do some roleplaying as well even if these may require different settings and some accessories. Roleplaying is also used a lot in psychotherapy and in classes.

 

"Good" roleplayers don't need stats because as I said earlier, they will act within the boundaries of their actor. However, a lot of people nowadays (and that's why I don't really play tabletops anymore) cannot limit themselves properly and they need statistical boundaries and even then, they just try to abuse them (the rise of the min/maxers some would say).

In CRPGs, I feel statistical boundaries are very important and sadly they tend to be replaced by player skills lately (action games, etc).

If you take a wizard in BG2 or ToEE for example, and equip him with a sword and shield and use no magic, he will get totally wasted in seconds most of the time. That makes it a RPG because your actor is limited by it's boundaries.

If you take a mage in Skyrim, with no skill whatsoever in 1hd and block or armor, you (as the player), can kill the most powerful creatures without much problems (just takes some time) if you're fast with mouse and keyboard. That makes it an action RPG (or RPG light for me), because the actor is not limited by it's own boundaries, but your own physical abilities.

 

I think the market need a bit of everything for everyone, but I'm just sad that the "action" side is more represented while the "tactical" side is almost non existent today. As long as people use the proper terms and don't mix them however, I'm ok with it.

 

All RPGs are not class based. That's D&D and new iterations of the D&D system allow mixing different classes more freely. In BG or TOEE you could use a dual class or multi class character.

 

Many pen and paper games allow you to play a spellcaster who can wield a sword efficienty. Ever played Runequest? The game dates back to the late 70s and it's not strictly class based.

 

If a mage couldn't use a sword in Skyrim, Oblivion or Morrowind why are there any Bound Weapon spells?

 

The simple reason is that your character start with a certain level in combat and magic skills depending on your character's race, a Breton mage may not be as good as a Nord warrior when it comes to fighting it doesn't mean that the Breton mage is unable to lift a sword. In BG a pure class wizard couldn't even equip a sword...

 

The numbers are just gravy and it's actually the numbers that make the game more like Diablo and its unrelenting quest for the best items not the other way around.

Without numbers however, there is nothing defining your actor but the story itself, making it an adventure game (or interactive movie) and not a RPG in my book. Without numbers, you could potentially choose the most "intelligent", the most "physical" and the most "agile" paths, no matter your character. With numbers, these choices are coherent within the context of your actor: is he strong? agile? Intelligent? These are defined with numbers, to give them relative value when compared to something else (more intelligent than a kobold but less than a dragon, stronger than an ox, etc).

 

We are all, in real life, defined by these relative numbers as well, which is why I can't understand quantum physics right now, nor can I lift 200kgs, but I have better stats in other skills and stuff. Likewise, I go faster with a modern top notch bike than with a crappy 70 years old one (consider it a bike +2). It's also why swimmers with insanely technologically advanced suits go faster than when they wear a crappy one, etc. Numbers are part of the realism of a world and of actions within that world. They define what can be done, by who, and when.

 

I love games like King Quest or Police Quest or Phantasmagoria, don't get me wrong, but they are not RPGs.

 

ps: a lot of people in our world "quest" for the best item non stop. Best house, best car, best phone, best computer. Our own technological advancement is a result for this "quest". It's part of us really in a way though we don't all strive for it of course.

 

I agree that computer games need numbers but pen and paper games don't necessarily need them. In pen and paper you need to gather sensible players and a game master who is both subtle and open minded.

 

Scales is a French pen and paper RPG that didn't use much in the way of stats and numbers and in fact you could get rid of them altogether and it worked. Of course it wasn't a game that could be played by everyone, it was certainly not meant for powergamers or rule lawyers.

 

Consider Vampire the Masquerade and the World of Darkness RPGs for instance, it's ironic that these games are meant to stress roleplaying and even live action roleplaying but they can be abused by players who prefer throwing cartloads of ren sided dice to roleplaying.

 

With numbers, these choices are coherent within the context of your actor: is he strong? agile? Intelligent? These are defined with numbers, to give them relative value when compared to something else (more intelligent than a kobold but less than a dragon, stronger than an ox, etc).

 

Strength is easier to rate although it often fails in game to represent a comprehensive evaluation of stamina, muscular prowess and physical endurance and yet Intelligence is something that is far more elusive...

 

Contrary to what most people think IQ is not something that is meant to measure Intelligence, it's never that simple. Learning is not to be confused with intelligence either.

 

Also the intelligence of the player makes a difference. Playing a dumb character is frustrating but it can be fun if you go for it. That being said a smart player who can think quickly and is reactive will come up with more ideas than a player who needs more time to come up with a plan. It's always been difficult to discriminate between a character's intelligence and the player's intelligence and that's why in most games Intelligence represent the learning ability and general knowledge of a character.

 

Try defining a character with words and sentences instead of simple numerical values and you may see how getting rid of numbers can enhance the roleplaying instead of hindering it.

[hymhym]

You guys remember when you could enter climb mode and get up pretty much any walls and stuff in Daggerfall? It sometimes seems insane to me that in today's game, with the current technology, this is not present.

I've been crying about it's loss since Morrowind. And was deeply reminded about it's absence when "running on the cliff faces of Skyrim." It just looks silly. Why can't I climb mountains in a game that has such a heavy emphasis on mountains?

 

Numbers are the best way to determine a characters various skills, after all an RPG should be about character skill, not player skill.

 

That is not 100% true as far as RPGs or CRPGs are concerned.

 

Actually it is. You don't have to call the numbers, but you need some sort of logical framework to designate quantifiable qualities to actors. If you don't, then you are just participating in a communal form of make believe.

 

Also I can't agree with the last part of your statement Jim as I'm convinced that a player's skill do matter a lot.

After all a player who can think out of the box and is quick can come up with great ideas that a less imaginative or less reactive player will never think about. That's what makes pen and paper roleplaying so rewarding. As long as the game master is good enough to adapt there is no limit to your imagination.

And what of those less talented in the imaginative arts? If you got them, then by all means use them, but do not condemn those who use numbers to do their creative thinking. What works for you, might not work for them and vice versa. Also, what if you want to play a character, that you yourself have absolutely no talent in. A shy timid person who wants to play a bard? Is it wrong to do so when one cannot act out the characters words and actions? If creating a character with really high persuasion stat, and then talking yourself out of a tight spot by succeeding in a fast-talk roll, gives you, as the player, the sense of having accomplished something by being a smooth talker, then should we deprive that person of such possibility, just because "good roleplayers don't need numbers"? I think not. The greatest joy of roleplaying is the ability to be anyone and do anything, no matter what your "player skills" might be.

 

In fact, the more you rely on player skills, the less you are playing a role, and the more you are playing yourself in a what if scenario. There's nothing wrong with that, and incidentally that is the way D&D came to be. Most players like a mix of the two - some amount of personal escapism and player skills, coupled with an equal part of trying to be and act like someone else. And for that to work, you need numbers.

 

 

All RPGs are not class based. That's D&D and new iterations of the D&D system allow mixing different classes more freely. In BG or TOEE you could use a dual class or multi class character.

 

D&D is not class based - it's based on archetypes. People who did not understand the concept of archetypes interpreted it as classes, and then that faulty premise was copied by other systems. If Gygax would have just called them archetypes instead of classes, the history of gaming would be lot less tumultuous. But, what can you do about it? Just shows how a poor choice of words can have far reaching consequences.

 

 

Also the intelligence of the player makes a difference. Playing a dumb character is frustrating but it can be fun if you go for it. That being said a smart player who can think quickly and is reactive will come up with more ideas than a player who needs more time to come up with a plan. It's always been difficult to discriminate between a character's intelligence and the player's intelligence and that's why in most games Intelligence represent the learning ability and general knowledge of a character.

 

Try defining a character with words and sentences instead of simple numerical values and you may see how getting rid of numbers can enhance the roleplaying instead of hindering it.

So what are you saying? Dumb people shouldn't play? The reason charisma is a dumb stat in most systems is because you can always use your player skills to cover for that. Why intelligence is not all that important (unless it gimps you on skill points) is because you can just use your own smarts.

 

Stats are not, never were, and newer should be used to model reality. They are arbitrary distinctions, made by the setting and theme of the game, as things most actors in its imaginative space consider as worthy qualities. Incidentally these are often qualities we tend to value and find important in real life too. Like Intelligence, Strength, Athletic Ability or Willpower. What they actually represent is mostly irrelevant and tied to what ever mechanical functions the system has. From a players perspective, however, there is something magical, in starting down at your character sheet, and realizing that your character is smarter than fricking Einstein. (Even if it only means, from a purely mechanical stand point, that you get 6 additional language slots and nothing else.)

 

As for using words and sentences, instead of simple numerical values: it's a matter of style. All those descriptive thingies are numbers by other names. Some like them, while others have difficulty grasping the concept, and prefer the clarity of numbers. Others thrive on the vagueness of words. So if you like them, then use them, but do not propose that it is a superior method, or delude yourself into thinking that they are not "numbers"

[Shantih]

You guys remember when you could enter climb mode and get up pretty much any walls and stuff in Daggerfall? It sometimes seems insane to me that in today's game, with the current technology, this is not present.

I've been crying about it's loss since Morrowind. And was deeply reminded about it's absence when "running on the cliff faces of Skyrim." It just looks silly. Why can't I climb mountains in a game that has such a heavy emphasis on mountains?

 

Numbers are the best way to determine a characters various skills, after all an RPG should be about character skill, not player skill.

 

That is not 100% true as far as RPGs or CRPGs are concerned.

 

Actually it is. You don't have to call the numbers, but you need some sort of logical framework to designate quantifiable qualities to actors. If you don't, then you are just participating in a communal form of make believe.

 

Also I can't agree with the last part of your statement Jim as I'm convinced that a player's skill do matter a lot.

After all a player who can think out of the box and is quick can come up with great ideas that a less imaginative or less reactive player will never think about. That's what makes pen and paper roleplaying so rewarding. As long as the game master is good enough to adapt there is no limit to your imagination.

And what of those less talented in the imaginative arts? If you got them, then by all means use them, but do not condemn those who use numbers to do their creative thinking. What works for you, might not work for them and vice versa. Also, what if you want to play a character, that you yourself have absolutely no talent in. A shy timid person who wants to play a bard? Is it wrong to do so when one cannot act out the characters words and actions? If creating a character with really high persuasion stat, and then talking yourself out of a tight spot by succeeding in a fast-talk roll, gives you, as the player, the sense of having accomplished something by being a smooth talker, then should we deprive that person of such possibility, just because "good roleplayers don't need numbers"? I think not. The greatest joy of roleplaying is the ability to be anyone and do anything, no matter what your "player skills" might be.

 

In fact, the more you rely on player skills, the less you are playing a role, and the more you are playing yourself in a what if scenario. There's nothing wrong with that, and incidentally that is the way D&D came to be. Most players like a mix of the two - some amount of personal escapism and player skills, coupled with an equal part of trying to be and act like someone else. And for that to work, you need numbers.

 

 

All RPGs are not class based. That's D&D and new iterations of the D&D system allow mixing different classes more freely. In BG or TOEE you could use a dual class or multi class character.

 

D&D is not class based - it's based on archetypes. People who did not understand the concept of archetypes interpreted it as classes, and then that faulty premise was copied by other systems. If Gygax would have just called them archetypes instead of classes, the history of gaming would be lot less tumultuous. But, what can you do about it? Just shows how a poor choice of words can have far reaching consequences.

 

 

Also the intelligence of the player makes a difference. Playing a dumb character is frustrating but it can be fun if you go for it. That being said a smart player who can think quickly and is reactive will come up with more ideas than a player who needs more time to come up with a plan. It's always been difficult to discriminate between a character's intelligence and the player's intelligence and that's why in most games Intelligence represent the learning ability and general knowledge of a character.

 

Try defining a character with words and sentences instead of simple numerical values and you may see how getting rid of numbers can enhance the roleplaying instead of hindering it.

So what are you saying? Dumb people shouldn't play? The reason charisma is a dumb stat in most systems is because you can always use your player skills to cover for that. Why intelligence is not all that important (unless it gimps you on skill points) is because you can just use your own smarts.

 

Stats are not, never were, and newer should be used to model reality. They are arbitrary distinctions, made by the setting and theme of the game, as things most actors in its imaginative space consider as worthy qualities. Incidentally these are often qualities we tend to value and find important in real life too. Like Intelligence, Strength, Athletic Ability or Willpower. What they actually represent is mostly irrelevant and tied to what ever mechanical functions the system has. From a players perspective, however, there is something magical, in starting down at your character sheet, and realizing that your character is smarter than fricking Einstein. (Even if it only means, from a purely mechanical stand point, that you get 6 additional language slots and nothing else.)

 

As for using words and sentences, instead of simple numerical values: it's a matter of style. All those descriptive thingies are numbers by other names. Some like them, while others have difficulty grasping the concept, and prefer the clarity of numbers. Others thrive on the vagueness of words. So if you like them, then use them, but do not propose that it is a superior method, or delude yourself into thinking that they are not "numbers"

 

Sorry hymhym but our views are radically opposed and I'm not sure you're seeing the fundamental difference between our perspectives. No offense but you seem to put the "game" element before the roleplay. To me it's not about numbers because numbers aren't meaningful in the end.

 

Numbers don't make a character -unless you're playing a computer game or playing D&D and love to roll the dice. Random characters are not better than carefully devised ones and removing numbers doesn't mean that you're playing yourself... That is simply an instance of oversimplification. Characters in literature are not created by throwing dice around and yet literary figures are more fleshed out and more elaborate than your average D&D character. What will tell you more about Drizzt Do'Urden, the character sheet for D&D or the entire Icewind Dale Trilogy by R. A. Salvatore?

 

Roleplaying is indeed what you called "a communal form of make believe" there are rules but it is indeed make believe. You may be sitting in a chair drinking fizzy drinks but that is still make believe. In fact roleplaying is a form of virtual reality with your imagination acting as an interface. Make believe doesn't mean there are no rules either.

 

Also I hate to burst your bubble but convincingly playing an outgoing and charismatic character requires the ability to talk like one. Or at least to pretend to. If a player is shy and repressed and can't pretend not to be for a few minutes then it is unlikely that this player will be able to roleplay an outgoing fast talking bard convincingly. This can be helped with friendly fellow players and practice. If a shy player feels comfortable enough then it may work in the end. This player won't find speaking in public less embarrassing but it's likely that speaking in character will be easier.

 

I'm not saying RPGs are reserved to an elite of would be actors nor am I saying that you need to act. It's all about talking. If you can't talk (at least a little) I don't see how you can RP a talkative/highly charismatic character.

 

Silent (or even mute) characters can be charismatic by the way. Playing a character that can't talk is a challenge.

 

Most pen and paper rulesets will tell you that a good roleplaying performance takes precedence over technical stuff. That being said if your character can bluff like nobody else and you can barely put two words together, the game master may let you get away with it but that will not be an instance of great roleplaying...

 

D&D is not class based - it's based on archetypes. People who did not understand the concept of archetypes interpreted it as classes, and then that faulty premise was copied by other systems. If Gygax would have just called them archetypes instead of classes, the history of gaming would be lot less tumultuous. But, what can you do about it? Just shows how a poor choice of words can have far reaching consequences.

 

Calling D&D classes "archetypes" sounds a bit pretentious, it's not entirely wrong but I would rather use the term template as it is more neutral and doesn't bring Jungian psychology into the discussion (one can't really talk about archetypes without getting into that). Whatever you call them to say that the D&D system is not based on classes seems rather misguided. Anyway we could play on words and argue semantics for two hours I don't see how one can possibly argue that classes aren't at the core of the D&D system. In fact if you consider the original D&D game (first edition) you may remember that originally classes and races weren't separated.

 

So what are you saying? Dumb people shouldn't play? The reason charisma is a dumb stat in most systems is because you can always use your player skills to cover for that. Why intelligence is not all that important (unless it gimps you on skill points) is because you can just use your own smarts.

 

Treating Charisma as a dump stat is the opposite of roleplaying... A good DM will give a hard time to a player whose character has such a low charisma that the character shouldn't be able to interact with anyone without being ridiculed or scoffed at. Only a bad or forgiving game master would let anyone get away with such nonsense.

 

If you indulge into stat dumping then in my books you're a gamer, you're not a roleplayer. There is nothing wrong with that but don't expect me to value anything you may have to say on the subject of roleplaying. I could go on all day on the reasons why dumping stats and ignoring them to "use your own smarts" as you put it is misguided but I'm pretty sure it would be easier (and more rewarding) to explain watercolour painting to a blind person.

 

Stats are not, never were, and newer should be used to model reality. They are arbitrary distinctions, made by the setting and theme of the game, as things most actors in its imaginative space consider as worthy qualities. Incidentally these are often qualities we tend to value and find important in real life too. Like Intelligence, Strength, Athletic Ability or Willpower. What they actually represent is mostly irrelevant and tied to what ever mechanical functions the system has. From a players perspective, however, there is something magical, in starting down at your character sheet, and realizing that your character is smarter than fricking Einstein. (Even if it only means, from a purely mechanical stand point, that you get 6 additional language slots and nothing else.)

 

Rules are meant to simulate reality. If they are disconnected from reality and can't be used as a working model then they are worse than useless. They need to have some inner coherence, they need to make sense but they need to reflect a believable world. If not then these rules become arbitrary and nonsensical.

 

As for using words and sentences, instead of simple numerical values: it's a matter of style. All those descriptive thingies are numbers by other names. Some like them, while others have difficulty grasping the concept, and prefer the clarity of numbers. Others thrive on the vagueness of words. So if you like them, then use them, but do not propose that it is a superior method, or delude yourself into thinking that they are not "numbers"

 

I find it funny that someone can pretend with a straight face that it's possible to replace an entire description by a simple number... Also there is nothing remotely "vague" about words... Saying so only means that you don't realize the sheer power of words to change reality and shape entire worlds into existence.

 

Numbers are crude and lead to oversimplification just like computers. When you rely on numbers alone your paradigm is limited to 1s and 0s whereas words are infinite and intrinsically meaningful.

[hymhym]

Sorry hymhym but our views are radically opposed and I'm not sure you're seeing the fundamental difference between our perspectives. No offense but you seem to put the "game" element before the roleplay. To me it's not about numbers because numbers aren't meaningful in the end.

No we are not radically opposed. I get what you are striving for, I really do. It's, however, a very common viewpoint among people who prefer the kinda gaming you talk about. I do not put the game before roleplaying, but you do put the roleplaying before the game. To me they are of equal value. Of course there are people who put the game before roleplaying, and I defend teh otehr side of the specturm to them jsut as much I defend their side to you.

 

Numbers don't make a character -unless you're playing a computer game or playing D&D and love to roll the dice. Random characters are not better than carefully devised ones and removing numbers doesn't mean that you're playing yourself... That is simply an instance of oversimplification. Characters in literature are not created by throwing dice around and yet literary figures are more fleshed out and more elaborate than your average D&D character. What will tell you more about Drizzt Do'Urden, the character sheet for D&D or the entire Icewind Dale Trilogy by R. A. Salvatore?

 

You are making several wrong assumptions here. I never claimed that numbers make characters. What I said, is that they are what makes the game. You can have roleplay sessions and story telling time fine without numbers, but for the game to exist, it needs those numbers. And there is a reason why many prefer to do their roleplaying in a game environment instead of a fully blown story session. Key among these being mechanical repercussions to bad choices, the ability to gamble your character fate and having to deal with rogue and unwanted elements that are produce d by the rules.

 

Nor did I ever claim that random characters are better, but you do seem to say that they are bad. Random characters is one way to play, and something I have enjoyed on several occasion, just as I enjoy writing 15 pages worth of character background before the first session.(And I am sorely disappointed if the system does not have any way to represent all that work as meaningful mechanics in the game) Neither is "better" they are just different approaches to take. What irks me is when people keep thinking that their way is better or more advanced.

 

Also, a character sheet will not tell you the same things as a pile of books, but that character sheet will also tell you things that the books will not. Or it will, if you have the players skills and rules mastery to see such things.

 

Also I hate to burst your bubble but convincingly playing an outgoing and charismatic character requires the ability to talk like one. Or at least to pretend to. If a player is shy and repressed and can't pretend not to be for a few minutes then it is unlikely that this player will be able to roleplay an outgoing fast talking bard convincingly. This can be helped with friendly fellow players and practice. If a shy player feels comfortable enough then it may work in the end. This player won't find speaking in public less embarrassing but it's likely that speaking in character will be easier.

 

Consider it unburst -for it is perfectly possible. It might not satiate your needs, nor offer you, in the role of the spectator of anotehr fellows gaming, the same enjoyment as watching some other fellow act everything out in tiny detail. But that's you, and those people who are not verbally talented may very well find it sufficient. It's the same as saying that you can't play a hulking barbarian if you are in real life small and scrawny looking fellow with a tiny voice. It's called make believe, and it takes mostly place inside your head. And there are several methods to achieve this. Calling one approach good and other bad is just elitist thinking.

 

Most pen and paper rulesets will tell you that a good roleplaying performance takes precedence over technical stuff. That being said if your character can bluff like nobody else and you can barely put two words together, the game master may let you get away with it but that will not be an instance of great roleplaying...

Yes, and they also mention that the action takes place inside the players head. Everyones experience is therefore different and subjective. And some find evocative words the right tool to achieve these things, while others turn precise numbers. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time seeing that.

 

Calling D&D classes "archetypes" sounds a bit pretentious, it's not entirely wrong but I would rather use the term template as it is more neutral and doesn't bring Jungian psychology into the discussion (one can't really talk about archetypes without getting into that). Whatever you call them to say that the D&D system is not based on classes seems rather misguided. Anyway we could play on words and argue semantics for two hours I don't see how one can possibly argue that classes aren't at the core of the D&D system. In fact if you consider the original D&D game (first edition) you may remember that originally classes and races weren't separated.

Well Gary was a bit pretentious fellow, and he did include all sort of weird stuff int othe game. Calling them templates or something else is indeed pointless semantics at this point. The real point, is that, in the original D&D game, you did not play characters. You played roles, more specifically the roles of fighters, and mages and thieves and so on. That is the reason why the original game had races as "classes." You did not play a character who was an elf, you literally played the role of the elf. The roles definitions were what Gary and Dave though they should be, And not every one agrees on that vision as to what the quintessential fighter or barbarian or ranger should look and act. And from a very early time people started adding new "roles" for people to choose. (Like the Monk) Of course it didn't take long for us gamers to realize better and deeper ways to create these roles to play, and thus we started to play "characters."

 

The class system was, however, by that time embedded itself into the collective psyche of gamerdom. Those trying to be more "advanced" started talking about career paths and jobs and upbringing models and what not, and the concept of showing up to a game table and telling everyone that you were going to play the role of the fighter was lost in the midst of all that. Gary tried to present his vision in several Dragon articles, but.. well people missed the point back then, and the y still do.

 

Anyway, archetypes are very useful tools, especially when introducing the game to prospective players. Just think about it for a moment: A young kid is told of this game, what is he going to say he wants to play? Will he give you a detailed character concept with loads of history and stuff, or talk about in build conflicts of his dramatic persona? Or will he say "I wanna play a knight!" If you then say" to make a knight your needs to be of noble birth, and you need to pick this and that skill package, an you need to do blaa blaa blaa" you will lose him right there and then. If, on the other hand, you say: okay flip to page 27 and roll up a knight, things will progress somewhere.

 

I do not use archetypes all that often for making my characters. Besides I serve mostly as the GM and get to play quite rarely. But occasionally I do like to just pick an archetype - or class as it's grown to be known - roll up the basics stats and see where it leads me. Kinda like the way you do characters in Skyrim. A lot of people like to to just roll up a character make few basic decision as to what kind of a fellow he is, and then let the character evolve during gameplay.

 

Treating Charisma as a dump stat is the opposite of roleplaying... A good DM will give a hard time to a player whose character has such a low charisma that the character shouldn't be able to interact with anyone without being ridiculed or scoffed at. Only a bad or forgiving game master would let anyone get away with such nonsense.

Well, of course it is - but so is not having the stat at all and using your own charisma. Charisma is there for exactly that reason (supposing of course that it is actually important for the topic and theme of the game) It tells you how charismatic your character really is. If you, the player, are more charismatic then use your skills to set up situations were the characters lower charisma gets represented in game events. And if you have lower charisma than your character, then use the mechanics of the game to patch up your performance. That's the whole idea of using any sort of descriptive qualities, whether they be numerical or not.

 

If you indulge into stat dumping then in my books you're a gamer, you're not a roleplayer. There is nothing wrong with that but don't expect me to value anything you may have to say on the subject of roleplaying. I could go on all day on the reasons why dumping stats and ignoring them to "use your own smarts" as you put it is misguided but I'm pretty sure it would be easier (and more rewarding) to explain watercolour painting to a blind person.

Now now, don't get all riled up here. I never said that it was proper behavior, but it's pointless to try to deny that it is a very common phenomena. And there are clear reasons for it, and one of them is the heavy reliance and admiration of player skills. You wont get away with that in my table, just as you do not have to be verbally talented to play the role of the master bard. Naturally, I and everyone else at the table, will encourage a timid players to be more confident in social situation, but that has nothing to do with how charismatic their characters are and how good they can act out such characters action (or even whether or not thay want to act them out at all), that's just about being a nice person.

 

I don't remember whether it was you or someone else on this thread, but it has been pointed out that "good" roleplayers know how to stay within the confines of your character. And I agree, but whether those confines are presented in numerical value or some other is meaningless. They still are the confines that define your character. However, from game mechanical point of view, the domain of the game designer, it's all math and it's all numbers. The point I am driving at, is that calling numberless gaming somehow better or more rewarding is an empty supposition. It might work for you, but to others it is frustratingly vague. Just as you most likely find numbers irritatingly confining. The real trick is to try to find the middleground, so that more people could enjoy general gaming with each other. As things have been progressing, the field of roleplaying keeps splinterign into smaller and smaller subgroups that snub at each other and do not consider anyone but themselves to be "good roleplayers"

 

Rules are meant to simulate reality. If they are disconnected from reality and can't be used as a working model then they are worse than useless. They need to have some inner coherence, they need to make sense but they need to reflect a believable world. If not then these rules become arbitrary and nonsensical.

No they are not. Or if they are they are bad rules. Rules are there to negotiate perceptual conflict in the shared imaginative space between different expectations. Yes it's a posh way of putting it, but sometimes fancy words are necessary. I want to be absolutely specific about this: Rules are tools. You use the ones that fit the situation. The longer a group stays together the fewer rulers they tend to need. But introduce a new player into the mix, and out go the shared set of assumptions on what "reflect a believable world"

 

I find it funny that someone can pretend with a straight face that it's possible to replace an entire description by a simple number...

Well, I'm glad to report I said no such thing. The power of a word based system comes from a words multifunctionality . But it is also lot harder system to use, and can cause conflict when peoples interpretations on the words differ. Numbers are clear and simple and mostly unmutable, that's why they enjoy greater general support than word based systems. There are also loads of system that blend the two to some extend or the other. But from the point of view of the game system, all those words are still numbers - or maybe I should describe them as integers with floating values?

 

Also there is nothing remotely "vague" about words... Saying so only means that you don't realize the sheer power of words to change reality and shape entire worlds into existence. Numbers are crude and lead to oversimplification just like computers. When you rely on numbersalone your paradigm is limited to 1s and 0s whereas words are infinite and intrinsically meaningful.

And why would I limit myself to 1 and 0:s? When I can have 1 and 0, or neither 1 nor 0, or slightly 1 but definitely not 0 and nigh infinite of other possibilities. But seriously though, you yourself first claim that there is nothing vague about word, but few sentences later extol their their infinite and intrinsicant meaningfulness.

 

Think about this example: Let's say my characters is "a mountain of a man" in other words, he is big and strong. Another players character is described as "a brawny mass of muscles." No let's say these to fellows decide to have a bout of arm wrestling - who is going to win? You can try to come to a mutual understanding on the issue, and this might work if you know each other well and have been gaming together for a while. If not, you need a referee to settle the issue, which usually means the GM. And he has three choices: Leave it to chance (i.e. toss a coin, make an educated guess (i.e. consult the rules) or let you present your case. (Which may lead to an argument) If you leave it to chance, then all those descriptive moniker have no impact on the game - you might've just as well described your character as a "sickly thin kid with frail bones" for all it mattered. If you consult the rules then you need some way of making a distinction between which is better "mountain of a man", or "brawny mass of muscles", and once you have done that, you might as well replace those descriptive traits with numbers.

 

And what happens when you meet an npc who has "muscles like wiry knots of steel?" You either simplify the engine, and consider they all count as having the "Strong Attribute" and thus cancel each other out, or you deepen the mechanical dimension of your system and rank them. But in that case you could replace all of those descriptive titles with Strength +1, +2 and +3.

 

Of course, leaving them as words instead of numbers, gives you the opportunity to use different numerical value in different situations. Like they give +1, +2 and +3 in combat situations. But being a mountain of a man also gives yo +1 to HP, while having wiry knots of steel for muscles makes you quick on your feet and you get +1 initiative. But, you now you are just codifying perks oar advantages or feats. Also, if you later decide to use the same character under some other GM their interpretation on the impacts of your characters qualities may differ form what you were used to. Numbers are again unmutable that way, a + 1 +s +1 no matter with whom you game.

[Goliath978]

Numbers ruin games . For example: I don't even know what level I am or any of my skills...that's how it's meant to be played: fully immersed.

[natelovesyou]

I wholeheartedly agree with the original post, very much so. Those that cannot let go of the numbers and quantitative attributes that Skyrim lacks have, perhaps, never learned the core of what an RPG is, or, should be. While Skyrim has its flaws, I still think it's the most "role-playing" game I've ever been IMMERSED in.

[Shantih]

Sorry hymhym but our views are radically opposed and I'm not sure you're seeing the fundamental difference between our perspectives. No offense but you seem to put the "game" element before the roleplay. To me it's not about numbers because numbers aren't meaningful in the end.

No we are not radically opposed. I get what you are striving for, I really do. It's, however, a very common viewpoint among people who prefer the kinda gaming you talk about. I do not put the game before roleplaying, but you do put the roleplaying before the game. To me they are of equal value. Of course there are people who put the game before roleplaying, and I defend teh otehr side of the specturm to them jsut as much I defend their side to you.

 

Numbers don't make a character -unless you're playing a computer game or playing D&D and love to roll the dice. Random characters are not better than carefully devised ones and removing numbers doesn't mean that you're playing yourself... That is simply an instance of oversimplification. Characters in literature are not created by throwing dice around and yet literary figures are more fleshed out and more elaborate than your average D&D character. What will tell you more about Drizzt Do'Urden, the character sheet for D&D or the entire Icewind Dale Trilogy by R. A. Salvatore?

 

You are making several wrong assumptions here. I never claimed that numbers make characters. What I said, is that they are what makes the game. You can have roleplay sessions and story telling time fine without numbers, but for the game to exist, it needs those numbers. And there is a reason why many prefer to do their roleplaying in a game environment instead of a fully blown story session. Key among these being mechanical repercussions to bad choices, the ability to gamble your character fate and having to deal with rogue and unwanted elements that are produce d by the rules.

 

Nor did I ever claim that random characters are better, but you do seem to say that they are bad. Random characters is one way to play, and something I have enjoyed on several occasion, just as I enjoy writing 15 pages worth of character background before the first session.(And I am sorely disappointed if the system does not have any way to represent all that work as meaningful mechanics in the game) Neither is "better" they are just different approaches to take. What irks me is when people keep thinking that their way is better or more advanced.

 

Also, a character sheet will not tell you the same things as a pile of books, but that character sheet will also tell you things that the books will not. Or it will, if you have the players skills and rules mastery to see such things.

 

Also I hate to burst your bubble but convincingly playing an outgoing and charismatic character requires the ability to talk like one. Or at least to pretend to. If a player is shy and repressed and can't pretend not to be for a few minutes then it is unlikely that this player will be able to roleplay an outgoing fast talking bard convincingly. This can be helped with friendly fellow players and practice. If a shy player feels comfortable enough then it may work in the end. This player won't find speaking in public less embarrassing but it's likely that speaking in character will be easier.

 

Consider it unburst -for it is perfectly possible. It might not satiate your needs, nor offer you, in the role of the spectator of anotehr fellows gaming, the same enjoyment as watching some other fellow act everything out in tiny detail. But that's you, and those people who are not verbally talented may very well find it sufficient. It's the same as saying that you can't play a hulking barbarian if you are in real life small and scrawny looking fellow with a tiny voice. It's called make believe, and it takes mostly place inside your head. And there are several methods to achieve this. Calling one approach good and other bad is just elitist thinking.

 

Most pen and paper rulesets will tell you that a good roleplaying performance takes precedence over technical stuff. That being said if your character can bluff like nobody else and you can barely put two words together, the game master may let you get away with it but that will not be an instance of great roleplaying...

Yes, and they also mention that the action takes place inside the players head. Everyones experience is therefore different and subjective. And some find evocative words the right tool to achieve these things, while others turn precise numbers. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time seeing that.

 

Calling D&D classes "archetypes" sounds a bit pretentious, it's not entirely wrong but I would rather use the term template as it is more neutral and doesn't bring Jungian psychology into the discussion (one can't really talk about archetypes without getting into that). Whatever you call them to say that the D&D system is not based on classes seems rather misguided. Anyway we could play on words and argue semantics for two hours I don't see how one can possibly argue that classes aren't at the core of the D&D system. In fact if you consider the original D&D game (first edition) you may remember that originally classes and races weren't separated.

Well Gary was a bit pretentious fellow, and he did include all sort of weird stuff int othe game. Calling them templates or something else is indeed pointless semantics at this point. The real point, is that, in the original D&D game, you did not play characters. You played roles, more specifically the roles of fighters, and mages and thieves and so on. That is the reason why the original game had races as "classes." You did not play a character who was an elf, you literally played the role of the elf. The roles definitions were what Gary and Dave though they should be, And not every one agrees on that vision as to what the quintessential fighter or barbarian or ranger should look and act. And from a very early time people started adding new "roles" for people to choose. (Like the Monk) Of course it didn't take long for us gamers to realize better and deeper ways to create these roles to play, and thus we started to play "characters."

 

The class system was, however, by that time embedded itself into the collective psyche of gamerdom. Those trying to be more "advanced" started talking about career paths and jobs and upbringing models and what not, and the concept of showing up to a game table and telling everyone that you were going to play the role of the fighter was lost in the midst of all that. Gary tried to present his vision in several Dragon articles, but.. well people missed the point back then, and the y still do.

 

Anyway, archetypes are very useful tools, especially when introducing the game to prospective players. Just think about it for a moment: A young kid is told of this game, what is he going to say he wants to play? Will he give you a detailed character concept with loads of history and stuff, or talk about in build conflicts of his dramatic persona? Or will he say "I wanna play a knight!" If you then say" to make a knight your needs to be of noble birth, and you need to pick this and that skill package, an you need to do blaa blaa blaa" you will lose him right there and then. If, on the other hand, you say: okay flip to page 27 and roll up a knight, things will progress somewhere.

 

I do not use archetypes all that often for making my characters. Besides I serve mostly as the GM and get to play quite rarely. But occasionally I do like to just pick an archetype - or class as it's grown to be known - roll up the basics stats and see where it leads me. Kinda like the way you do characters in Skyrim. A lot of people like to to just roll up a character make few basic decision as to what kind of a fellow he is, and then let the character evolve during gameplay.

 

Treating Charisma as a dump stat is the opposite of roleplaying... A good DM will give a hard time to a player whose character has such a low charisma that the character shouldn't be able to interact with anyone without being ridiculed or scoffed at. Only a bad or forgiving game master would let anyone get away with such nonsense.

Well, of course it is - but so is not having the stat at all and using your own charisma. Charisma is there for exactly that reason (supposing of course that it is actually important for the topic and theme of the game) It tells you how charismatic your character really is. If you, the player, are more charismatic then use your skills to set up situations were the characters lower charisma gets represented in game events. And if you have lower charisma than your character, then use the mechanics of the game to patch up your performance. That's the whole idea of using any sort of descriptive qualities, whether they be numerical or not.

 

If you indulge into stat dumping then in my books you're a gamer, you're not a roleplayer. There is nothing wrong with that but don't expect me to value anything you may have to say on the subject of roleplaying. I could go on all day on the reasons why dumping stats and ignoring them to "use your own smarts" as you put it is misguided but I'm pretty sure it would be easier (and more rewarding) to explain watercolour painting to a blind person.

Now now, don't get all riled up here. I never said that it was proper behavior, but it's pointless to try to deny that it is a very common phenomena. And there are clear reasons for it, and one of them is the heavy reliance and admiration of player skills. You wont get away with that in my table, just as you do not have to be verbally talented to play the role of the master bard. Naturally, I and everyone else at the table, will encourage a timid players to be more confident in social situation, but that has nothing to do with how charismatic their characters are and how good they can act out such characters action (or even whether or not thay want to act them out at all), that's just about being a nice person.

 

I don't remember whether it was you or someone else on this thread, but it has been pointed out that "good" roleplayers know how to stay within the confines of your character. And I agree, but whether those confines are presented in numerical value or some other is meaningless. They still are the confines that define your character. However, from game mechanical point of view, the domain of the game designer, it's all math and it's all numbers. The point I am driving at, is that calling numberless gaming somehow better or more rewarding is an empty supposition. It might work for you, but to others it is frustratingly vague. Just as you most likely find numbers irritatingly confining. The real trick is to try to find the middleground, so that more people could enjoy general gaming with each other. As things have been progressing, the field of roleplaying keeps splinterign into smaller and smaller subgroups that snub at each other and do not consider anyone but themselves to be "good roleplayers"

 

Rules are meant to simulate reality. If they are disconnected from reality and can't be used as a working model then they are worse than useless. They need to have some inner coherence, they need to make sense but they need to reflect a believable world. If not then these rules become arbitrary and nonsensical.

No they are not. Or if they are they are bad rules. Rules are there to negotiate perceptual conflict in the shared imaginative space between different expectations. Yes it's a posh way of putting it, but sometimes fancy words are necessary. I want to be absolutely specific about this: Rules are tools. You use the ones that fit the situation. The longer a group stays together the fewer rulers they tend to need. But introduce a new player into the mix, and out go the shared set of assumptions on what "reflect a believable world"

 

I find it funny that someone can pretend with a straight face that it's possible to replace an entire description by a simple number...

Well, I'm glad to report I said no such thing. The power of a word based system comes from a words multifunctionality . But it is also lot harder system to use, and can cause conflict when peoples interpretations on the words differ. Numbers are clear and simple and mostly unmutable, that's why they enjoy greater general support than word based systems. There are also loads of system that blend the two to some extend or the other. But from the point of view of the game system, all those words are still numbers - or maybe I should describe them as integers with floating values?

 

Also there is nothing remotely "vague" about words... Saying so only means that you don't realize the sheer power of words to change reality and shape entire worlds into existence. Numbers are crude and lead to oversimplification just like computers. When you rely on numbersalone your paradigm is limited to 1s and 0s whereas words are infinite and intrinsically meaningful.

And why would I limit myself to 1 and 0:s? When I can have 1 and 0, or neither 1 nor 0, or slightly 1 but definitely not 0 and nigh infinite of other possibilities. But seriously though, you yourself first claim that there is nothing vague about word, but few sentences later extol their their infinite and intrinsicant meaningfulness.

 

Think about this example: Let's say my characters is "a mountain of a man" in other words, he is big and strong. Another players character is described as "a brawny mass of muscles." No let's say these to fellows decide to have a bout of arm wrestling - who is going to win? You can try to come to a mutual understanding on the issue, and this might work if you know each other well and have been gaming together for a while. If not, you need a referee to settle the issue, which usually means the GM. And he has three choices: Leave it to chance (i.e. toss a coin, make an educated guess (i.e. consult the rules) or let you present your case. (Which may lead to an argument) If you leave it to chance, then all those descriptive moniker have no impact on the game - you might've just as well described your character as a "sickly thin kid with frail bones" for all it mattered. If you consult the rules then you need some way of making a distinction between which is better "mountain of a man", or "brawny mass of muscles", and once you have done that, you might as well replace those descriptive traits with numbers.

 

And what happens when you meet an npc who has "muscles like wiry knots of steel?" You either simplify the engine, and consider they all count as having the "Strong Attribute" and thus cancel each other out, or you deepen the mechanical dimension of your system and rank them. But in that case you could replace all of those descriptive titles with Strength +1, +2 and +3.

 

Of course, leaving them as words instead of numbers, gives you the opportunity to use different numerical value in different situations. Like they give +1, +2 and +3 in combat situations. But being a mountain of a man also gives yo +1 to HP, while having wiry knots of steel for muscles makes you quick on your feet and you get +1 initiative. But, you now you are just codifying perks oar advantages or feats. Also, if you later decide to use the same character under some other GM their interpretation on the impacts of your characters qualities may differ form what you were used to. Numbers are again unmutable that way, a + 1 +s +1 no matter with whom you game.

 

I didn't mean to sound "all riled up" if that's the case I apologize. I have the flu so I may not be as patient as usual. Besides it's a subject that I find very interesting and important.

 

Regarding assumptions I may have reached some conclusions based on your previous post but I'm glad you've cleared some things out (especially the stat dumping which is anathema to me -unless it is justified in the character concept/RP of course).

 

Also I may have given you the impression that I am all about roleplay and that I frown upon the gaming elements and that is simply not true. Playing styles matter. I said before that numbers are like "gravy" and I mean it. Gravy is nice because it adds flavour to the dish but gravy alone is not filling and it's not very pleasing if you have gravy but don't have any meat and veggies. The two go well together but if I want to appreciate the dish I need to keep a moderate amount of gravy, drowning everything in gravy will ruin my meal.

 

I don't know how far I can take the metaphor but it is rather apt IMO. One thing that I've learned in my years as a game master is that you should never be afraid to drop a rule if it broke the pace of the game or if it proved to be too much hassle. Having a frame is good but sacrificing the story and the roleplaying to abide by the rules of the game is not good.

 

Don't get me wrong I love rules a lot and the more complicated the rules are the more I get my rocks off. I love intricate systems which require you to spend hours delving into the numbers and every little details BUT I see this as something that should never replace the most important part of character creation and that's finding the right concept and fleshing it out. All the numbers can help when you lack experience or when you don't have many ideas (it happens) but in the end it's what you make with these numbers that matter and not the numbers themselves.

 

The numbers, the rules are meant to help you roleplay not the other way around:

 

"A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make."

-Gary Gygax.

 

If you can't ignore the dice or feel obligated to take into consideration random elements when they are irrelevant then in my books you're a gamer, you're not a roleplayer.

 

In other words, if a rule doesn't help with the roleplaying then it serves no purpose because RPGs are not wargames or boardgames and numbers are tools, means to an end, not an end by themselves.

 

If we go back to the subject of videogames and consider Oblivion then it's obvious to me that the way skills and levels worked was at odds with the roleplaying. Either you ignored how stat mulitpliers worked and you crippled your character build or you focused on making it work by selecting skills that you didn't want to use as class skills and then you kept track of skill increases to make sure to get that +5 while focusing on Endurance in order not to miss some extra hit points along the way. Not only did all this powergaming didn't make any sense from a roleplaying perspective but it also ruined the enjoyment of the games for players who a) didn't necessarily care about the bean counting or b) didn't want to keep track of each and every skill to make sure they wouldn't miss out on a stat increase but felt they had to anyway. That's a perfect example of what I meant by rules that stand in the way of the roleplaying. The way things worked in Oblivion made things really hardcore for players who didn't pay attention to these things -the level scaling only made it worse. The only alternative was to use a mod that changed that or gave maxed out stat bonuses regardless of skill increase.

 

I think that the changes that were introduced with Skyrim make a huge difference in the sense that players are now free from all these concerns that plagued us when we were playing Oblivion. Removing stats wasn't about dumbing down the game as much as making it more RP friendly.

 

IMO only hardcore (power)gamers and number crunchers complain about this modification.

 

What I find extremely annoying (to say the least) is that these players pretend that the lack of numbers make Skyrim less of an RPG when in fact it's the other way round (and what this thread is all about).

 

That's why I've been so adamant about the fact that numbers aren't everything even in computer games. You can't do away with numbers in a computer RPG but if you choose to you can get rid of them (to a certain extent) in a pen and paper RPG.

 

Pen and paper RPing is all about language skills, your physique is not important. There is no problem whatsoever for a scrawny guy who wants to roleplay a huge barbarian that would make Conan look like a wimp. But in all fairness an introvert will have a hard time playing a charismatic leader or a talkative bard unless the game master and the other players are helpful and patient. It's not a question of being elitist or not, it's simply a fact.

 

A character's Charisma will be used by the game master to determine how well NPCs are going to react, their first impressions or even if they will even consider listening to the character. The player's own charisma will play a major part out of character because a more charismatic player will often become a sort of spokesperson for the group.

 

One way to deal with this sort of situation is to give the shy player the role of the leader and make sure that other players stay in character. This will be taxing for the shy player so you have to make sure that this is not something that will be uncomfortable. Also if other players play along this can be fun as playing a gruff introvert is definitely a challenge for a talkative extrovert.

 

I've tried it before and while it doesn't turn a shy player into a natural leader it can be fun and it can bolster a player's confidence. Furthermore it changes the routine since it forces players who are more self assertive have to take a step back and let less assertive players express themselves.

 

The interesting thing about roleplaying is that it's a different experience depending on the people you play with. No game masters play by the same rules. You simply have to accept that. Numbers are relative, when you say a +1 is a +1 no matter what it's not true because some game masters will tweak rules, add house rules or remove some rules and in the end your +1 may end up as something else entirely.

 

Your character concept however will stay the same because the way you're playing a character has more to do with how you've defined that character and all the little details you've put into developing this character as a believable entity rather than in the numbers you have jotted down on the character sheet. These numbers may be like a body for your character but your roleplaying is the soul, the true spirit of your character.

 

What makes a character truly memorable? Is it the numbers and the stats or the concept, the roleplaying and the experience of actually playing this character's role?

 

IMO numbers are interchangeable. What makes a character unique is what you bring to this character, the little things that turn a basic construct into an identifiable entity. It's all about character development and there is more to that than levelling up.

[Rennn]

This short follow-up will sound silly after such a long chain of debate-style responses, but Skyrim is certainly a role playing game. Once again 'role play'. Look at the name. Stats are quanitifiable and are used for defining a character clearly, but have no impact on defining whether something is an RPG since words and actions are at least as functional (and more immersive) for defining a character.

 

Big agreement with Shantih and company.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Rennn

[Shantih]

This short follow-up will sound silly after such a long chain of debate-style responses, but Skyrim is certainly a role playing game. Once again 'role play'. Look at the name. Stats are quanitifiable and are used for defining a character clearly, but have no impact on defining whether something is an RPG since words and actions are at least as functional (and more immersive) for defining a character.

 

Big agreement with Shantih and company.

 

There is nothing silly about making a concise post. I think we got carried away a little (I blame the flu in my case arf). :happy:

 

Frankly I was rather annoyed by the numerous posts in this forum claiming that Skyrim is not an RPG because stats are no longer in the game (at least not the way they used to be in previous Elder Scrolls games) and it's nice to see that some of us here don't agree with that.

 

So thank you Rennn for starting this thread. :thumbsup: