Well, Let's play pretend is the best system for playing...
The problem is when adjudication and "God-Moding" comes along :o.
---
Don't worry, I'm certainly not a white wolf fanboy. I've played many times but still can't figure out the whole dice pool rigaramole.
---
I think I found what you explained:
"Instead, we could use something like:
Save by 6+: no damage
Save: 3d6+13 damage
Failure: 1d6/lvl +13 damage (for example)
Failure by 6+: Death"
This is very Call of Cthulu like (at least the way I play it)
I like this solution.
Then again, it's also very White-Wolf like- it's basically their "successes system" converted into easier understandable DnD dice terms.
Was that what you were trying to point out?
I like this solution.
Could we keep discussion of my ranged save-DC idea in the proper thread?
But anyways, to end the tangent, the foundation must be fixed before the upper floors. Just as the system fails to support all values of X in d20+X for attack rolls and saves, it fails to support all values of X for skill checks, as well.
-Matt
So sorry right back at you, but what you are talking about has everything to do with individuals, and little to nothing to do with game system.
I used to believe this. I did, and I argued for it, wholeheartedly, promoted it, wore it as a badge...
But the core of a system suggests a way of play. It suggests a mindset, a way of doing things or a way of thinking, and that's one more reason we get "cults" of people around certain games: they're drawn to style.
DnD tends to attract quite a few programmers, engineers (and I like both. I work with them daily). The core of the system is based on balancing numerics, and shifting numbers around. It's something that, if you play the game, it's very tempting to get caught up in because it's built into the system itself, and that mindset is promoted.
A system like Deadlands uses poker chips for casting--its very system supports its mindset and way of play.
A system like WW's are built to "not have players worry about the mechanics." In other words, it de-emphasizes the numerics, and so we get a different crowd, with a different intent, and a different mindset.
If we want DnD to have more emphasis on roleplaying, then, of course, we need to look at:
How can we adjust the system to support roleplay?
This isn't to say DnD doesn't support it, but lately, alot of "video game-ism" has crept into the genre, seen most profoundly in 4e, which is basically a tabletop version of MMORPG.
Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?
...
A few ideas:
A. Part of the method would be to increase the fighter's style options. The fighter is "generic" for a reason: it should be more customizable for the type of combat-PC someone wants to play. For instance, if the fighter could successfully, and with flavor, be that light-sabre fencer-dex fighter, instead of the rogue, we wouldn't rely so heavily on the rogue class to be the same.
In other words, by letting one class do more of its job, we open the possibilities up for noncombat options in other classes.
B. 4 minimal skill points. ...alright, so this isn't happening. What about:
C. A "background" option, offered at 1st level to every PC. A character may choose a background in something such as: blacksmithing, scribe, and so on. This option offers a +2/+2 bonus to specific skills. This option could end up replacing the traditional +2/+2 feats. Roll them into character backgrounds, instead.
Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?
Let me jump in:
One of my favorite gaming sessions ever was a Living Greyhawk module entitled The Weight of Words. Six hours, zero combat. Absolute blast.
Point being: it's certainly possible, and it can be a whole lot of fun, too.
The d20 mechanic doesn't have a disclaimer on it that says it's only good for combat. d20 noncombat conflicts can be done. There just isn't a lot of support for it in the printed rules.
-Matt
What you all seem to overlook is that Roleplaying is it's OWN reward.
It makes me sad that most of what I have read here boils down to players wanting A) More Skills B) All characters to be somehow equal and C)rules to dictate their imagination. I would cry, but's it's too close to Christmas.
Sorry you have all had these bad experiences with DMs or Players who steal your thunder to the point you want rules to regulate them. Take back your power friends! Rise up and make your case, or find other players who share your personal view of roleplaying. I am certain in my game you would find more fun (and pizza) than derailed games based on character builds. Stay alive wherever you are, we WILL find you!
Merry Christmas n stuff...
P.S. The rules are pretty clear that you garner experience for overcoming the encounter...not necassarily killing it. Some things NEED to be killed! (like the Kobold King). "Sometimes, dead's better." - Pet Cemetary
Godsdog, while wearing your rose-colored glasses, you completely missed the point.
1. DnD is not conducive toward roleplaying
2. DnD puts players in niches- which isn't bad BUT- At some point the other players are window-dressing. Non-combat based characters are useless for combat and if they use their skills to avoid combat they make the combat characters useless. The players are in competition in infringing on each others' fun. Rather than play collaboratively and come up with "team-based" solutions, their very skills encourage them to damage each others' play-styles
Disclaimer. Of course a Good DM can work to overcome these problems, but players are still encouraged to max/min their characters by the system itself and if even one character in a group does this, it ruins things for everyone else. And it doesn't have to be this way, systems like Cthulu, White Wolf Games, and even Castle Falkenstein don't encourage max-minning; they encourage people to play the game rather than to game the system. DnD is less an RPG than a TG (Tactical Game) of mixing and matching numbers and statistics to construct a "build" rather than a "character".
- Things were better said earlier, but I need to run soon so can't summarize it any better than this right now. Much of what Squirrelly Ogre said was good, and Matt pointed out important problems.
PS: And frankly the encounter reward system set out in the DMG is strongly skewed toward combat awards. The non-combat awards for roleplaying are miniscule- suggested 300 points, etc. - HA. I hope most people give more appropriate awards than that.
DnD STARTED Roleplaying sir, rose-colored glasses or not!
The system will reward you the same experience points for overcoming an encounter whether you kill it, talk your way by it, bribe it, or sneak through (as long as you NEEDED to get past it to accomplish your objective anyway).
You sound like you'd be a great player. It is unfortunate that you have not had better experiences, but it is not the rules...In every example you give it is either the DM hackin on you for roleplaying, or another player taking advantage of the rules in some way. There are NO fixes for that...well, legal ones anyways.
D&D should not be changed into something it isn't. When is the last time you went to a movie that was exciting but without any sort of physical contest deciding things at some point? Even Indy shoots and punches people ALL the time, and he's a Professor! Most people (perhaps a HUGE assumption on my part, but I'm tired and festive all at once) enjoy encountering strange, evil creatures and testing themselves in combat, if combat is all the creature offers. We'd much rather watch Star Wars than Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and surely don't want that in our DnD. Those of you who I have heaped into the above assumption are more than welcome to rebutt me...but you will have to roll initiative. Turns out I'm pretty wily in my dotage.
Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?Let me jump in:
One of my favorite gaming sessions ever was a Living Greyhawk module entitled The Weight of Words. Six hours, zero combat. Absolute blast.
Point being: it's certainly possible, and it can be a whole lot of fun, too.
The d20 mechanic doesn't have a disclaimer on it that says it's only good for combat. d20 noncombat conflicts can be done. There just isn't a lot of support for it in the printed rules.
-Matt
I might add that the system, mechanically, doesn't support or suggest it. Most of the "abilities" given to classes are combat-oriented, as the most easily-given example. Another, DnD was originally developed as a set of rules for miniatures, and it maintains, to a great extent, this mindset.
Not a bad thing, necessarily. I'm just suggesting a reason why non-combat modules aren't produced. They're not, intrinsically, the mindset of the game. Even if they were, they'd always be second in sales.
There's nothing wrong with combat: though that, and the number-crunching game, are part of the DnD setup and mindset. So, roleplay is there, but to do so you're "fighting" the system a little more than you would another system that wasn't say, an evolved set of rules adapted for miniatures. ;)
And I roleplay in my sessions, thanks much. And I love DnD. However, I also acknowledge it comes with a certain mindset.
Now, altering that mindset?
I have a feeling that that'd need to come as a supplement. A well-fleshed out supplement, to be sure, but a supplement. Something titled "Roleplay Options," which offer variations of the rules.
Such as those 4 skill points. Or the "character background" option, where at 1st level, characters get some base points in specific skills, based on their youthful training.
As a general statement, though: yes, we've been focusing too much on video games lately, and turning every class into a different form of fighter.
Some go pew-pew.
Some go kablooey.
Some stab in the dark.
A gross overstatement, but you get the idea.
To Samuel Weiss
DnD is a crunchy system, we can't get away from that. So any social system could become bogged down.
As a player or DM, would you be happy if combat was resolved purely on. Resolved as; D20 + +/-modifiers > DC = encounter beaten. More over, only the fight usual makes the roles, and if the monster survives, you can choose to ignore it's responce.
Worse still, resolved by discussion between the most eliquant member of the player group and the DM, with one persons raw personal player charisma determining the out come of a single fight, or DM the DM simply deciding that you fail.
I suspect you wouldn't be, i know i wouldn't, so why accept this for a social system? A game in which social interaction is to have any weight at all and is to be considered a viable method
The social system we have cannot deal with:
- Attempts to cause social disgrace through gossip.
- Attempts to bait some one into outburst in a social setting.
- Managing an organisation.
- Any social influence of characters.
- Love bombing and harpying
- Delaying through polite convosation
- ect, ect, ect.
A more developed system, should allow all players to contribute meaningfully to a social situation. One person acts to delay a rival interest from getting to the target, another charms on of the targets friends so that he gets good reports on the group, while the other two chip away at his resolve and bring him to the 'right' conclusion on how to spend the tax surplus this year.
As for the idea that some players don't live up to the charm their character has under such situations. Thats already the case. The dullest of people do can currently play a charisma based character with spiked social skills and clean up an social encounter, so that will be no change. In fact it is a good thing. Why should 'johns' lack of tone in his voice disadvantage him any more in a game than my lack of skill with a sword. We are reflecting the talents of the character, not using our talents in there place.
Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?
Wrong qestion: Could you imagine running an adventure that doesn't include combat?
I agree, that for publications, that really doesn't seem like such a good idea, but I would assume that a really great fraction (probably a great majority) plays adventures designed by the gm.
Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?Wrong qestion: Could you imagine running an adventure that doesn't include combat?
I agree, that for publications, that really doesn't seem like such a good idea, but I would assume that a really great fraction (probably a great majority) plays adventures designed by the gm.
They have these. They are called Choose Your Own Adventure books.
Why is everyone so afraid of the DM making decisions? I feel your pain in some ways, as I spent years with a controlling DM who refused to expand the game and insisted that he was "god" and therefore unquestionable at the table. This went as far as him writing "scripts" that he wanted us to follow, or saying things like "You're character would NEVER do that!" It rankled all of us to the point that I eventually took over DMing, and the old DM now sits alone at home, surrounded by his old AD&D books (he refuses to adapt as a DM or play in my games since 3.5 "is not D&D") and no one to game with.
Regarding party balance; doesn't anyone get together to make characters for a new campaign anymore? "I'll let you have my chicken wings if you let me play the fighter type this time!" That is where balance is achieved, backgrounds are fashioned, and where the DM gets in his head how he will need to gear the campaign based on the players and the characters they create. This is where the magic happens!
|
I agree it has something to do with individuals, but certain systems "tend" to encourage combat over roleplaying. DnD is one of those systems. It's not easy to roleplay because everyone is "best" at one skill and no one else gets a chance to shine because one +20 negates all of their actions. They're simply not needed.
That is a flaw of adventure design, not game design. No action should negate the rest of a party just because it has some super-modifier.
However, do not confuse the existence of unique skills with an unbalanced system. Just because only one character in a party takes Diplomacy, or Perception, or Disable Device, or whatever else, does not in any way make the system flawed. It just means a specific character is the best one to perform in a specific situation.Again, that is often on an individual player who is unable to tolerate another player getting the spotlight with his "special ability", rather than the system failing to give everyone a turn in the spotlight with their "special ability".
|
|
I used to believe this. I did, and I argued for it, wholeheartedly, promoted it, wore it as a badge...
But the core of a system suggests a way of play. It suggests a mindset, a way of doing things or a way of thinking, and that's one more reason we get "cults" of people around certain games: they're drawn to style.
. . .
How can we adjust the system to support roleplay?
The best way to encourage interaction and skills over combat is to make combat destructive to success, i.e. "lethal".
When the combat system is so lethal that your chances of continuing the campaign becomes minimal every time you get into a fight, players will do everything they can to avoid fights. Traveller is a great example of this, particularly as the tech available increases. (FGMPs are pretty much auto-kills.)Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?
What sells in the store is not always what is best in quality.
What works for one group as a published adventure does not always work for all groups as a published adventure.That said, yes I can imagine that. I can particularly imagine adventures where the combat is marginal to irrelevant, and included only because "the rules require you to kill stuff", and for individual use could be completely ignored with absolutely no loss to the quality of the story. I can also imagine adventures where the combat is purely supportive to the skill tasks required to succeed at the adventure.
|
|
To Samuel Weiss
DnD is a crunchy system, we can't get away from that. So any social system could become bogged down.
As a player or DM, would you be happy if combat was resolved purely on. Resolved as; D20 + +/-modifiers > DC = encounter beaten. More over, only the fight usual makes the roles, and if the monster survives, you can choose to ignore it's responce.
Worse still, resolved by discussion between the most eliquant member of the player group and the DM, with one persons raw personal player charisma determining the out come of a single fight, or DM the DM simply deciding that you fail.
But that is how the combat system often runs, say when someone decides to overargue rules, or has the only way to bypass a monster's resistance, or has the right build to overwhelm the monster, or any of a variety of other examples.
I suspect you wouldn't be, i know i wouldn't, so why accept this for a social system? A game in which social interaction is to have any weight at all and is to be considered a viable method
The social system we have cannot deal with:
- Attempts to cause social disgrace through gossip.
- Attempts to bait some one into outburst in a social setting.
- Managing an organisation.
- Any social influence of characters.
- Love bombing and harpying
- Delaying through polite convosation
- ect, ect, ect.
For the first, you have Bluff and Gather Information.
For the second, a hard and fast rule opens players up to having their character's actions driven by skill checks of NPCs.For the third, there are two versions appearing in the PHB II and DMG II.
For the fourth, there are feats and general guidelines for situational modifiers.
For the fifth, those are highly specialized, and only relevant for very particular types of play that will never interest most players.
For the sixth, that is a simple function of Bluff.
etc, etc, etc.
A more developed system, should allow all players to contribute meaningfully to a social situation. One person acts to delay a rival interest from getting to the target, another charms on of the targets friends so that he gets good reports on the group, while the other two chip away at his resolve and bring him to the 'right' conclusion on how to spend the tax surplus this year.
All of which still either requires players to take social skills for their character, eliminates social skills entirely and lets everyone be equally good at them no matter character concept and background, or devolves to personal ability vs. pure luck in resolution.
As for the idea that some players don't live up to the charm their character has under such situations. Thats already the case. The dullest of people do can currently play a charisma based character with spiked social skills and clean up an social encounter, so that will be no change. In fact it is a good thing. Why should 'johns' lack of tone in his voice disadvantage him any more in a game than my lack of skill with a sword. We are reflecting the talents of the character, not using our talents in there place.
No reason at all.
But then the entire system defaults to rolling dice for success, modified by optimization, and you just have the "system" I gave a play example of.
How can we adjust the system to support roleplay?The best way to encourage interaction and skills over combat is to make combat destructive to success, i.e. "lethal".
When the combat system is so lethal that your chances of continuing the campaign becomes minimal every time you get into a fight, players will do everything they can to avoid fights.
There is great truth here.
Victory Games rules are another great example: if you get into firefights, sooner or later you die. Period. Which means that players spend LOTS of time maneuvering their characters around, using stealth and investigation and social interaction and other skills, until when a fight finally occurs it's lopsidedly in their favor, so they don't all die. What a great system!
Indeed, it seems as if the Pathfinder crowd might stand for some more lethality in combat (witness the Crimson Throne AP, in which the queen kills a non-flat-footed, high-level, high hp ranger with one blow, despite the fact that the rules of D&D expressly forbid this).
Also, if combat were deadlier, melee characters would regain some of their appeal at high levels, if we made them manifestly better at it (i.e., less likely to die).
Indeed, it seems as if the Pathfinder crowd might stand for some more lethality in combat (witness the Crimson Throne AP, in which the queen kills a non-flat-footed, high-level, high hp ranger with one blow, despite the fact that the rules of D&D expressly forbid this).
There IS precedent for this in D&D, the optional Instant Death Crit where if you roll two natural 20's (to hit, then when confirming a crit) then confirm again, the target dies. But more than likely the Killer Queen was an aspect of plot, rather than rules mechanics. Story and roleplaying SHOULD supercede rules/logic in the RP world whenever possible, especially in situations where it makes the game more dramatic or fun. As long as the DM/Player contract is adhered to, there should be no problems. Trust and respect are earned over time, not something a DM should just demand because he is running the game.
But more than likely the Killer Queen was an aspect of plot, rather than rules mechanics. Story and roleplaying SHOULD supercede rules/logic in the RP world whenever possible, especially in situations where it makes the game more dramatic or fun.
There was a whole thread devoted to the pros and cons of this; let's not start up the debate again.
There was a whole thread devoted to the pros and cons of this; let's not start up the debate again.
Right; my point was just to show that there might be some demand for lethal combat rules.
|
|
Right; my point was just to show that there might be some demand for lethal combat rules.
Well, let us also note the implications of this.
The systems of a game are highly interconnected. That is why it can be difficult to "stay on topic" when discussing certain major structural elements.And it means it is not coincidental that I support less lethality and lighter social interaction rules.
And it means it is not coincidental that I support less lethality and lighter social interaction rules.
Which almost leads to the implication that two (2) variant systems might be better: one with detailed but relatively safe combat, "rules lite" everything else, and low fatalities; another with streamlined, lethal combat; more detailed and intricate skills and social interaction rules; and high fatalities when skills are ignored in favor of combat... which of course is the antithesis of the oft-cited "game rules have no effect on style of play."
I'm not sure; I've run D&D using 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5, PF, 007, Amber Diceless rules, and a personal hybrid system; I was able to maintain a consistent campaign across all those rule sets, but did find that I enjoyed it a lot more under some systems than others.
I want death. Lots and lots of gory, bloody, nasty death. Ok, that's it, I guess i'm running only Shadowrun and Warhammer Fantasy from now on!
We could just play Call of Cthulhu and track sanity points... but Jerry might quit if we tell him his character isn't supposed to start off being one of the monsters...
Oh, and Paizo doesn't write for Call of Cthulhu. Nor Shadowrun nor Warhammer. Looks like we're stuck with some version of Pathfinder after all, no matter how full of houserules it gets...
I want death. Lots and lots of gory, bloody, nasty death. Ok, that's it, I guess i'm running only Shadowrun and Warhammer Fantasy from now on!We could just play Call of Cthulhu and track sanity points... but Jerry might quit if we tell him his character isn't supposed to start off being one of the monsters...
Oh, and Paizo doesn't write for Call of Cthulhu. Nor Shadowrun nor Warhammer. Looks like we're stuck with some version of Pathfinder after all, no matter how full of houserules it gets...
I cannot express how awesome it would be to see logue and Pett team up to write a campaign for WFRP 2nd ed with paizo doing the organising for it.
|
|
Which almost leads to the implication that two (2) variant systems might be better: one with detailed but relatively safe combat, "rules lite" everything else, and low fatalities; another with streamlined, lethal combat; more detailed and intricate skills and social interaction rules; and high fatalities when skills are ignored in favor of combat... which of course is the antithesis of the oft-cited "game rules have no effect on style of play."
I'm not sure; I've run D&D using 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5, PF, 007, Amber Diceless rules, and a personal hybrid system; I was able to maintain a consistent campaign across all those rule sets, but did find that I enjoyed it a lot more under some systems than others.
I have run D&D using 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3E, 3.5, and Hero system, and have the same experiences. (I have also run a few other systems.)
I think the key is understanding that while game rules do not absolutely mandate a style of play, they certainly do influence a number of critical choices, and the choices it influences are often the key ones in determining whether people like the system as a whole.
And yes, it may well indicate that for long term success two divergent systems like that based on a single, solid core are required. Of course, I also think that the wrong conclusions was drawn in deciding between core rules and setting books.
The latest campaign I started is 3.5 Core Rules only. We are trying to determine where the supposed flaws lie.
I remember playing Warhammer Fantasy (the miniatures one) and at first everything seemed to go smoothly, then we each chose a race and bought the supplements and it became an argue-fest! The expanded rules seemed to counteract the original rules at some point in order to give the armies a designated racial advantage. That was an expensive lesson! lol
I'll let you know how things go with just Core Rules. So far, combat seems to go rather quickly, and the game flows like Ye Dayes of Olde. Of course, that is due to the roleplaying and the fabu setting provided by Paizo.
Why is everyone so afraid of the DM making decisions? I feel your pain in some ways, as I spent years with a controlling DM who refused to expand the game and insisted that he was "god" and therefore unquestionable at the table. This went as far as him writing "scripts" that he wanted us to follow, or saying things like "You're character would NEVER do that!" It rankled all of us to the point that I eventually took over DMing, and the old DM now sits alone at home, surrounded by his old AD&D books (he refuses to adapt as a DM or play in my games since 3.5 "is not D&D") and no one to game with.
Regarding party balance; doesn't anyone get together to make characters for a new campaign anymore? "I'll let you have my chicken wings if you let me play the fighter type this time!" That is where balance is achieved, backgrounds are fashioned, and where the DM gets in his head how he will need to gear the campaign based on the players and the characters they create. This is where the magic happens!
No, and no. They're not afraid and they do. And I play with less-than-controlling DMs. I must have phrased this badly. :)
Role playing games are made from: fluff + crunch. That is, there's a theme and then a system that supports that theme. Deadlands is a very good example: players use poker chips for casting "hexes" (read: spells). The use of poker chips supports the wild, steampunk Wild West theme of the game.
Dungeons and Dragons has a theme, and its crunch is very numbers-based. It can take three hours to put a character together, because you need to add +2 to this and subtract 3 from that, but multiply this by 1.5.
I happen to like math. So this doesn't bother me, but this sort of number maneuvering is central to Dungeons and Dragons.
There's the need to plan a PC out ahead of time: say, starting at level 1 if you'd like a certain PrC, for example. In the case of needing to plan a PC out, some chances are lost for character development.
Dungeons and Dragons, and the crunch system that supports it, was created as a set of rules for miniatures. Miniatures and combat, grid-based BATTLES.
This has nothing to do with DMs. :) It's simply: a RPG is made of theme + a mechanical system. DnD's mechanical system tends to be more emphasized, and it's generally a game focused on combat (it was originally based on rules for combat miniatures, one, and two, look at the class features--even our rogue has become the Light Fighter, with more emphasis on kicking ass).
Not that kicking ass is bad. I do this every weekend, and sometimes during the week. I game. Alot.
I've also won awards for roleplaying, and tend to emphasize it. However, I also don't go to a DnD table and expect hard-end roleplay: rather, I'm pleasantly surprised when I do find it, and otherwise try to accommodate others at the table.
Because DnD doesn't demand it to greater degrees. The amount of roleplaying within the system is optional. It's also in part what makes it successful, and so universal.
Would I like to see more roleplaying options? Class features that weren't purely combat-based?
Well, yes. I'd just envision it as more a supplement...one of the things that would, as an example, offer options for more flexibility to the class system. If a player wants to alter their PC to some degree because of life-changing events in the campaign, they shouldn't be penalized for doing so.
Currently, I've been blessed with some great DMs who let me do such a thing. Does such a thing need rules? Yes, and no.
The latest campaign I started is 3.5 Core Rules only. We are trying to determine where the supposed flaws lie.
I remember playing Warhammer Fantasy (the miniatures one) and at first everything seemed to go smoothly, then we each chose a race and bought the supplements and it became an argue-fest! The expanded rules seemed to counteract the original rules at some point in order to give the armies a designated racial advantage. That was an expensive lesson! lol
I'll let you know how things go with just Core Rules. So far, combat seems to go rather quickly, and the game flows like Ye Dayes of Olde. Of course, that is due to the roleplaying and the fabu setting provided by Paizo.
Your thinking of Warhammer fantasy battle, rather than warhammer fantasy roleplay, which is one of the best games ever :)
I agree, Warhammer Fantasy RPG had some of the deepest, darkest flavor EVER! Unfortunately, most of the players at that time could not get their heads around the idea of starting out as something less than awesome (Rat-Catcher for instance), so it kind of fell by the wayside. It was my second gaming love after D&D. *sigh*
My comments were not directed at you personally SquirrelyOgre man. Well, the Choose Your Own Adventure was a little. *cowers, wondering what the attack routine of a Squirrel-Ogre might be*
Responding to the comment about DnD being open enough a system to build believable characters and interactions, the quotation from Eric Mona on the original design of Greyhawk by Gary Gygax seems to prove my point that DnD is about fighting, not about characterization: (Quotation was pulled from page two of this thread: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/general/wha tMakesPathfinderDifferentThanForgottenRealmsEtAl)
Most of this fiction is plot-driven, rather than character-driven fantasy (in the vein of, say, the Dragonlance Chronicles). Greyhawk should not run away from this, but should rather embrace it. The focus should be on what the characters are doing, not who they are. Filling in the personal details is the responsibility of the players, and one of the things that makes D&D such a joy to play.
Therefore, DnD as designed in its core nature isn't about the characters, it's about the DM, and tactical scenarios.
As such, its social system and the opportunities for roleplaying are more limited than they are in games and systems that are designed to be built by the characters and to revolve around the characters.
---
This explanation also reveals an interesting trend in game design that mirrored the trend in novel design.
Fantasy and SciFi got a terrible reputation in the 1950s-1980s for being "plot driven" rather than caring about characters, which is the prime focus of "classical literature". In response, the publishing industry has changed and attempted to make the F/SF genre more mature by fostering character development, and introspection.
If you look at the submissions guidelines for Asimov's and the Magazine of Fantasy and SF, they specifically request "character-driven stories". The modern movement, exemplified by games like Exalted, is to let people create a character. The old movement was very paternalistic, top down DM-is-god-of-the-table design.
Mister Light Dragon, I think you might have misunderstood what he was saying there a little. He was suggesting that the DEEDS of the characters should have more impact in the world, rather than their personalities/backgrounds which are (or should be) defined by the players themselves. I do not think that implies the game was meant to be purely tactical. In fact, I would argue that the reason AD&D was not given "roleplaying rules" in the first place, was to allow absolute freedom for the players and the DM BOTH in creating the story. The rules are there to moderate combat and spells and things of that nature, which is why they dominate the rule books. Otherwise, why would TSR have made a game and called it a roleplaying game when they could have easily continued in the miniature battle sense under which the concept was conceived? They surely would have made more money (at the time) given that the roleplaying genre was not even really invented at that point...unless you count charades. As the topic states, Roleplaying is so much more than combat. Roleplaying does not require rules to happen or to be fair. That is why there are no rules for it. Don't get me wrong, I think it is GREAT that the system introduced skills and feats to allow you to make a character that will not be the exact clone of someone elses of the same race, class, level and stats. The Skills in particular added a LOT (some would say too much) to the roleplaying determinations. It was accepted that the DM runs the game and you lived by his rules, or (as in my personal case) you find a new game. That thought still prevails with house rules, different ways of handling things and level of roleplaying; all as diverse as the people who play the game. Just some thoughts.
BP529 - The types of players you are referring to will remain firmly entrenched with their instant gratification, low-workload video games or opt for tabletop miniature or board games, not look for roleplaying games. So, you're wrong-ish? =p
Why do people continue to insist that you cannot have roleplaying without a set of rules to define it?
The players handbooks (from 1st Edition to 3.5) ALL give the basics on how to roleplay. They give general ideas of how each race views the world, how each class fits/views/has a place in the world, skills that define the more social aspects of the character, in order for YOU the player to extrapolate on and create the personality you want to play. The game is then broken into interaction between the Dm and the players (the DM presenting a scene, the players reacting to the scene, lather, rinse repeat). SOME of this interaction is combat, more or less depending on your particular style of play, and for that there are rules which allow the DM and players to arbitrate through an unbiased system to determine the outcome. Admittedly, 1st Edition did a much better job explaining the roleplaying concept than the latest editions have, and I will not go into a lengthy treatise on marketing and broadening your audience here. But all the games are written in a way to fire the imagination, which is where YOU, the player, come in, NOT the rules.
I agree with the OP. Someone also posted the following within their reply ""In general, I don't want a lot of rules associated with roleplaying, honestly.""
The problem I have with how it is now is with all the focus on feats/skills being towards combat, rp seems to be an afterthought to the game. In terms of drawing new rpg players into the game, since rp is barely mentioned in all this and everything is combat it will only attract hack n slash types (read- WoW players...). Those that are attracted to the aspect of role playing in a tabletop game will grab up another game system that seems to have more of an rp flavor in it's handbook.
This is just my opinion, and I hope I'm wrong.
Any number of posts are pointing towards: look at these mechanics that point out how much damage I deal less than (other class) x.
My point is simply that the way the DnD system is built, mechanically, supports a more mechanical mindset. Again, I like mechanics. However, the emphasis is on mechanics over roleplay.
Again, miniatures. There's also the idea that the entire adventure is left to, and guided by, the hands of the DM. It is not "mutual storytelling," though it can be, some, but it is not designed to be.
It also attracts players with this mindset, so the battle can sometimes be more uphill than we'd want it to be. :)
Spreadsheets to calculate your fighter's attack sequence, anyone? Spreadsheets to optimize PA?
This is why I see roleplay options as a supplement, with alternate rules and rule-shadings. One we could even develop right here on this board. :)
To start:
- Your character came from somewhere, had a history before he or she took on the path that led them to where they are today. Pick an appropriate skillset or profession from the following list: your character then gains a +2 to two associated skills associated with that profession. (Designer's Note: This background "feat" replaces other +2/+2 skill feats in the PHB.)
Blacksmithing: +2 to craft: weaponsmithing and craft: armorsmithing
Hunter: +2 to survival and craft: boyer/fletcher
...etc. A small change, but one that encourages players to think about their PC's past, and gives them a little reward for it. The skill choices would have to be looked at and balanced, of course, and DMs probably would want to allow the player some creativity in picking them. Every PC is different, after all.
However, in general...I would very much like to see less of the COMBAT ONLY OPTIONS OMG that's going around.
I understand why it's coming out: the spreadsheetism is rampant because this is testing time. However, there's more to test than just combat...
...and by putting so much focus on it, that's what we're reinforcing that the game is about. ;)
The base of the system does that already. It doesn't need help doing that. If anything, it needs help going the other direction.
You know, what I find really funny about this whole topic is that there are a large number of posts on other boards (not sure about here) that talk about how horrible all the "Complete" series of books were for 2nd Edition, how useless they were. Funny thing is, they were mostly just what people HERE are asking for; roleplaying supplements. They mostly had ideas for different types of class styles within whatever Complete Book you chose, or different ways to view that class type. It just goes to show you, you can't please all the monkeys all the time! I would recommend those books to any of you searching for roleplaying supplements.
|
One 'issue' with non-combat class abilities is that they sometimes seem to take up space that somebody else might use for combat abilities, and DMs have been trained since 1st edition to just drop adventure hooks, provide clues, etc. to get the mission going. If a party member has a class power that helps to investigate details, or has prophetic dreams that can lead to adventure hooks, that's flavorful as all hell, but it's the kind of stuff that would have happened *even if the party didn't have that ability,* because the DM would have pointed the group towards the adventure anyway, or helped them learn the bare minimum clues to get them pointed in that direction, etc.
Yes. The party is debating where to go next, the priest pulls out his bag of rune-stones, and attempts to cast an augury.
The door flies open, a messenger bursts into the room, crying "The High Priest needs you! Come to the Street of Heroes immediately!".
Priest packs up his runestones, "Why do I bother...", and thereafter never prepares an Augury, routinely swapping it for Spiritual Hammer...
|
|
I agree, Warhammer Fantasy RPG had some of the deepest, darkest flavor EVER! Unfortunately, most of the players at that time could not get their heads around the idea of starting out as something less than awesome (Rat-Catcher for instance), so it kind of fell by the wayside. It was my second gaming love after D&D. *sigh*
Rat-Catchers are TEH AW3ZOM3!!
Immunity to Disease as a starting trait?
Gimme!
Okay, so your promotion prospects aren't very bright. But given the state of the Warhammer Old World, that is one hell of an advantage. Or at least it was in the games I played.
Hell, it would be in the D&D games I play...hmmm, what does that say about me?
<cracks open the 50 shades of brown/green paint to restart his Nurgle army...>
|
|
You know, what I find really funny about this whole topic is that there are a large number of posts on other boards (not sure about here) that talk about how horrible all the "Complete" series of books were for 2nd Edition, how useless they were. Funny thing is, they were mostly just what people HERE are asking for; roleplaying supplements. They mostly had ideas for different types of class styles within whatever Complete Book you chose, or different ways to view that class type. It just goes to show you, you can't please all the monkeys all the time! I would recommend those books to any of you searching for roleplaying supplements.
Or it shows that most people either have no clue what they want, or no clue as to what makes the good products that they want.
Yes indeed, all those Complete books did crowd the shelves. I seem to recall TSR wound up being purchased by WotC.I also seem to recall a considerable amount of screaming about 3.5, and how the splatbooks did a power dive past mediocrity into system overload.
And I can find a whole bunch more threads in various places about how Mongoose Games established itself as the "Anti-Dice" of D&D because of the low quality and endless numbers of their splatbooks.
The vast majority of people do not need books to tell them how to play Drizzt.
What they need are books that create a setting that is so engaging that all they want to do is play Drizzt.
(Or Elric, or Conan, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or any of several dozen other iconic characters.)
Less rules, more setting, more adventures.
I have been saying that for ten years.
Golarion is closer than most, but it unfortunately continues to fall back on rules splat despite obviously recognizing the principle. Hopefully it will not pull Paizo down as it did WotC.
|
|
Possibility Three - My personal preference
Player: "I use Diplomacy on the king!"
DM: "OK, what do you ask him?"
Player: ""Your majesty, we beseech you [blah, blah, blah] ..."
DM: "Cool! OK, go ahead and roll your check."
Player: "16."
DM: "He mulls over your excellent points, but seems undecided... although you get the feeling if you sweeten the deal a bit he might just go along with you..."Why is everyone so afraid of that third possibility? Is it just that people are unaware that it exists? Or have never tried it?
That is the way I believe the designers intended.
I don't ask that the player jumps on the table and delivers a soliloquy worthy of Lawrence Olivier. Some players would, if I let them (LOL). Others will always be more reticent, and need to be drawn out of their shell.
But I do want to know the gist of what they say. Apart from setting DC modifiers, it ensures that both sides know what exactly has been agreed. I don't want situations like this:
PC: I ask the Duke to help us.
DM: Roll Diplomacy DC 30.
PC: 31! Yes!
DM: He says yes. (Makes mental note to send 20 henchmen to guard PCs).
Next day, upon the plains of desolation, before the gates of Baron Dreadlord...
PC: This is the hour of battle! The Duke's men should be sweeping through the northern valley before the hour is out! Those five hundred heavy lancers will clear the field...
DM: Eh? What?
PC: The five hundred heavy lancers we asked for, yesterday. And the Supreme Patriarchs of the Eight Colleges of Magic should be here by now. What's keeping them?
DM: What are you talking about? He gave you those halberdiers!
PC: F*** the halberdiers! What about the cavalry?
DM: You never mentioned cavalry!
PC: We discussed it between ourselves while you were in the other room, going through your notes. We want cavalry.
DM: Well you never said that...
PC: Well, that's what I meant...
You know, what I find really funny about this whole topic is that there are a large number of posts on other boards (not sure about here) that talk about how horrible all the "Complete" series of books were for 2nd Edition, how useless they were. Funny thing is, they were mostly just what people HERE are asking for; roleplaying supplements.
With respect, again non-mechanical fluff is being passed off as non-combat rules. The two are not synonymous, even if some players fervently wish that they were. Personally speaking, if those Complete books had contained more actual non-combat rules (i.e., game mechanics), and less garbage like "Elves are totally awesome and everyone loves them but this has no game effect," THEN I might have liked them a lot more. In short, my preferences are diametrically opposed to Sam's: I prefer to have more actual rules for non-combat stuff, so that I can build a game around them (instead of just having storytime hour dictated by me). I find that having workable non-combat mechanics actually helps me foster a more immersive roleplaying environment; those rules don't prevent it by any means. Other people have obviously had drastically different experiences.
Simple flavor text, I can come up with on my own, but I lack more than 6 or 8 people to playtest rules mechanics for me, whereas Paizo currently has access to thousands!
Now: can you imagine a DnD adventure module getting published that didn't include combat?Wrong qestion: Could you imagine running an adventure that doesn't include combat?
I agree, that for publications, that really doesn't seem like such a good idea, but I would assume that a really great fraction (probably a great majority) plays adventures designed by the gm.
I would like to point people toward Dungeon issue 131 and the Prince of Redhand adventure for the Age of Worms AP.
My players had a blast. It was fun to watch the highly charismatic, but socially inept battle dancer deal with all of the attention she was getting. The nature of the party had the PCs on edge the entire time. They kept expecting the other shoe to fall and some dire threat to rise up. It never did. The party was designed to foreshadow events to come.
I would like to point people toward Dungeon issue 131 and the Prince of Redhand adventure for the Age of Worms AP.
That was a freakin' awesome adventure. What made it even better was that all of the roleplay elements had underlying mechanics as well: none of this "what happens is whatever is written, or whatever the DM decides" stuff. The players' actions determined the outcomes based on their skills, talents, and to a smaller extent the luck of the dice. Just like combat, except more fun.
Wow. Yet againg I am humbled by the amount of knowledge I don't seem to have about the game I love ( and I have been playing for 19 years!). Maybe it is because I played mostly with new players, in a small town, in a lightly populated province.
My experience with roleplay vs combat and mechanics vs. fluff seems to all come down to experience. The more experienced players stuck to the rules+mods and played their characters as builds. The newer players, stuck more to concecpts, described their actions cinematically rather than mathematically, and relied on the DM to help fill in the blanks.
I would love to know exactly where the transition occurs between new player and experienced player, because personally I would halt everyone at that point. Ultimately a balance between these things is needed- I believe this to be a given. I think it is also a given that the game is based on tactics and combat. The key to remember is that is the foundation of the game, it does not have to be all the game is about.
I think this has been said above by those you most likely know more than I, but new rules for the roleplaying 'fluff' are not needed. They are taken care of in some ways through skills, through feats or backgrounds(which are great btw) and otherwise can be taken care of through a circumstance bonus. Ultimately though, this still comes down to a roll of some sort or, you can 'take 10' on certain events/situations if the roleplaying behaviour is repeated. The 'mechanics' for this will be interpreted differently, but there will always be some underlying mechanic to back up the story/roleplaying action.
No adventure can be without story and no good encounter can be run without some description. I think we can agree on this. That at some point, the adventure will fall back to just mechanics is also a given. I think we should just be aware that neither element complely supercedes the other and that each should have it's time to shine.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we need a 3-axis system -- just so that we're sharing the same language.
Axis 1: (A) Combat vs. (B) non-combat;
Axis 2: (A) Mechanics vs. (B) fluff;
Axis 3: (A) "Roll-playing" vs. role-playing.
Most people seem to be combining 1B, 2B, and 3B into various groupings, but almost no one is looking at all three separately. Likewise, overwhelming people seem to be equating 1A with 2A.
However, I can have a game in which combat has lots of role-playing (1A and 3B). I can (and want) a game in which non-combat options (1B) have rules (2A) and yet are still role-played (3B). In fact, I think an ideal game has mixes of ALL SIX endpoints.
I do not believe that 2A prohibits 3B. In fact, I do not believe that axis 2 is necessarily the same as axis 3: one can have mechanics, and still have role-playing. The thing is, if there are no mechanics, there obviously can't be any "roll-playing," and that's the source of the confusion.
I do not believe that 1A prohibits 3B. People can still role-play in combat.
Most importantly, I do not believe that 3A and 3B are binary -- rather, both can -- and should -- be present.
|
|
The thing you are missing is your assumption that non-combat always equals social interaction.
It does not.
You can have quite a bit of extensive rules for picking locks and other technical activities, which all devolve to roll-playing, without infringing on the number and quality of combat actiivies, social interaction, mechanics, fluff, random results, or role-playing.
|
|
And a bit more.
To a certain degree, by its nature, "role-playing" has to be that stuff outside the rules.
However, also by its nature, "role-playing" has to be that stuff limited by the setting.
If it can be reduced to a mathematical equation, outside of the rare Twilight Zone episode, expression of the equation may be flavorful, but it cannot function as a modifier without making personal expertise the overwhelming factor.
Conversely, to put it very simply, you cannot play a ninja in a cowboy game without coming off more than a tad lame. Well, outside of a really cool Toshiro Mifune-Charles Bronson team-up that is. (A Jackie Chan-Owen Wilson team-up gives you a pure comedy, which is great as a comedy, but exceptionally "lame" as a drama.)
The thing you are missing is your assumption that non-combat always equals social interaction. It does not. You can have quite a bit of extensive rules for picking locks and other technical activities, which all devolve to roll-playing, without infringing on the number and quality of combat actiivies, social interaction, mechanics, fluff, random results, or role-playing.
I don't think I personally was missing that, although it's true that social interaction maybe requires separate mechanics from most skills -- and if so, add another axis. Because you can have social interaction even if combat is imminent, or even underway -- bluffing, intimidation, calls for surrender.
|
|
I don't think I personally was missing that, although it's true that social interaction maybe requires separate mechanics from most skills -- and if so, add another axis. Because you can have social interaction even if combat is imminent, or even underway -- bluffing, intimidation, calls for surrender.
You are missing it. That you need to take note that social interaction can continue if combat is iminent or in progress demonstrates that. Of course it continues! The only thing that functionally ends social interaction is killing the creature to be interacted with, and speak with dead can subvert that "rule".
Social interaction is not combat (except in a Clausewitzian sense), and it is not technical performance (aka, skills). It must remain its own form of expression with the system, with a minimal set of rules to account for people without the personal skills, a general limit of the milieu standards, and nothing more.
You are missing it. That you need to take note that social interaction can continue if combat is iminent or in progress demonstrates that.
Easy there, Sam. That you need to insult and badger people who see your point (and point out to you that they see it, so that you'll know it), demonstrates that maybe it's time to take a breather. Which is too bad, because until then I was very much enjoying your contributions to the discussion.
I'm sorry but I keep remembering a very short game I ran under the d20 Slayers rules, which has a rules system that tangible in-game effects for hurling insults back and forth. The the surface an interesting idea, allowing a fighter with a good investment Intimidate to apply his trash talk to combat. The final result was two players that end up with characters that complemented each others demoralizing abilities (a bit of min-max?) and basically avoided most combats through the whole of the game by bringing their humanoid foes to the brink of despair with their rather acid whits alone.
Leaving the aside, I notice that the discussion seems to be focusing more on the social (mental) parts of role-playing but not the physical ones. What is the role-playing support for climbing a mountain? The roll-play is fairly simple, even if you being including extra rules from environment effects. How can that be translated into role-playing?
Leaving the aside, I notice that the discussion seems to be focusing more on the social (mental) parts of role-playing but not the physical ones. What is the role-playing support for climbing a mountain? The roll-play is fairly simple, even if you being including extra rules from environment effects. How can that be translated into role-playing?
Simple: if a player at my table says, "I climb down the 50-ft. pit, I roll a 27," I stare at him blankly. Then he comes back with, "OK, I get my 50 feet of rope, my hammer, and some pitons out of my backpack; I'm going to pound a piton into the floor near the edge of the pit, and test it repeatedly so I'm sure it'll hold my weight. Then I lower the rope down the pit and climb down hand over hand, with my feet on the wall of the pit for balance." Then I smile, say "cool!" and ask him to roll his check.
It's the difference between picturing a video-game blip that magically zips down the pit by some unknown mechanism, vs. imagining a person who actually wants to climb down without falling to his death.
|
|
Easy there, Sam. That you need to insult and badger people who see your point (and point out to you that they see it, so that you'll know it), demonstrates that maybe it's time to take a breather. Which is too bad, because until then I was very much enjoying your contributions to the discussion.
That is an observation.
If you take it as an insult and badgering that is your choice, and perhaps a sign that you may need to take a breather. (And should I take that suggestion as badgering?)