Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ALRUFF 11-17-06, 04:03 PM	Do you feel that the core mechanics of D&D lend themselves to strong roleplaying, or stifle it in favor of the crunchy number bits?
EscherEnigma 11-17-06, 04:40 PM	In my experience, the quality of role playing at a tabletop RPG has less to do with the mechanics of a game then the personalities and desires of the players. I've had games of D&D with incredible role playing and games of D&D where it was just a dungeon crawl with the dice doing the talking. But this isn't unique to D&D, I've had this happen with almost any system, though some do encourage RP more then others. But honestly? RP can happen in any system if thats what people want. D&D is just fairly well defined what happens when the talkign fails and you need to kick in a door.
Solaris 11-17-06, 05:10 PM	In my experience, the quality of role playing at a tabletop RPG has less to do with the mechanics of a game then the personalities and desires of the players. 'nuff said.
Edymnion 11-17-06, 05:33 PM	Agreed, the mechanics of a setting have *NOTHING* to do with if the players roleplay or not. I've seen people powergame in BESM, and people that go for months in Champions or GURPS without ever rolling dice. The more complex the rules, the more time and energy must be put into using them, and hence the greater fluency with manipulating rules to get what you want out of them. The bottom line though is that roleplayers will be roleplayers, and munchkins will be munchkins, reguardless of the system you use.
Seeker95 11-17-06, 07:55 PM	Chiming in with agreement with the Old Timer's club. Or, to answer the OP in my own words: No and No. (Where "no" means "not relevant to the concept of roleplaying".)
justdmjeff 11-17-06, 09:22 PM	Do you feel that the core mechanics of D&D lend themselves to strong roleplaying, or stifle it in favor of the crunchy number bits? Speaking as another old-timer; I think the core rules can stifle roleplaying if you let them. There are a lot of rules for everything other than roleplaying. If you concentrate too much on that aspect of the game then you can get bogged down by it. If your group prefers dungeon crawls then the rules lend themselves to crunchy goodness. If it is roleplaying you want then just roleplay. The rules themselves do not hinder roleplaying. (which is pretty much what everyone else who responded to the OP said anyway. So if you want you can just ignore the ramblings of a tired old man, go ahead. I will not be offended.)
a_psh 11-17-06, 10:22 PM	In my experience, the quality of role playing at a tabletop RPG has less to do with the mechanics of a game then the personalities and desires of the players.True, but mechanics can help or hinder the players as they pursue their goals. You can't make a good game with bad players, but you can make a better game by taking a good gaming group and giving them a system that they like.
johnkretzer 11-17-06, 11:32 PM	The Rules of a RP game only get in the way of role-playing if you let them. But this is true of any game system. Though the real question can the core rules in the D&D game help with role-playing, and my answear is yes they can. Rules don't negate role-playing neither do dice. You can role-play in a fight while the dice aare rolled.
Sim_antix 11-18-06, 12:16 AM	In my experience, the quality of role playing at a tabletop RPG has less to do with the mechanics of a game then the personalities and desires of the players. Going to have to agree with Solaris that this is all that needs to be said on this matter.
The Club 11-18-06, 02:21 AM	The Rules of a RP game only get in the way of role-playing if you let them. But this is true of any game system. Negative, Ghost Rider. There are systems geared pretty much exclusively to characterization and narrative elements. These games aren't very similar to D&D and other RPG's which are essentially D&D rehash. Then there are games that aren't quite as narrativist, but introduce mechanics where role-playing has in-game consequences. The mechanics of D&D don't really do anything to actively support role-playing, especially in comparison to games that do. As has been pointed out, however, there's a whole lot of role-playing and narrative that can be layered onto a good D&D game, even if it's more parallel than orthogonal. None of this should be confused with the false dichotomy that tactical rules interfere with play-acting and the like. But a preponderance of crunchy bits is probably a pretty good indicator of where the game is leaning. The Club
a_psh 11-18-06, 02:54 AM	But a preponderance of crunchy bits is probably a pretty good indicator of where the game is leaning.To piggy-back off that, the advancement and reward systems are useful as a vague barometer of the intent of a game. The DMG definitely has a combat- and challenge-oriented view of rewards, but gives the GM an out in the form of ad hoc experience awards. Overall, I think it's fair to say that the actual system leans a bit towards hacking but tries to make itself amenable to "drift" by giving you these little hooks to pull on.
Azezel 11-18-06, 04:28 AM	In my experience, which is not vast, but was attentive, the mechanics of a given system can do little to foster or discourage role-playing. The idea that the more complex the rules, the less scope there is for role-playing is entirely untrue (I mean, how much role-playing did you do when you were nine and tearing around shouting 'I shot you' to the other kids?). This is especially true of the idea that class & level based games discourage rp. It is a popular refrain in some places, naming no names, but for my part, I have never seen it to be anything more than a straw man for people who just don't like a given system. That said, certain mechanics can influence role-playing. That is not to say that they encourage, or discourage role playing, merely that I personally find they lend themselves to enjoyable rp. Vancian spellcasting is my favourite of these, I find the system is enjoyable to role play. That is not to say that it helps anyone else rp, just that I find this particual mechanic improves my enjoyment of the game. The same can be said of some other factors.
a_psh 11-18-06, 01:03 PM	In my experience, which is not vast, but was attentive, the mechanics of a given system can do little to foster or discourage role-playing."Roleplaying" is rather vague. I think it's much more unambiguous and useful to ask whether the mechanics of a system have a strong effect on the kinds of roleplaying you see in the game. To which the answer is "Yes, they do."
nastynate 11-18-06, 01:37 PM	Many people thus far seem to think that the mechanics of the game have nothing to do with role-playing, but I am forced to disagree. D&D is a very complex game (compared to some other RPGs) that is designed around a system that encourages combat, skill checks, and resource management. You do not advance levels for role-playing; you advance levels for rolling dice and overcoming challenges. By no means does this indicate that roleplaying is stifled by D&D, but what it does mean is that role-playing is not the goal of the game. Role-playing in D&D is actually the means used to set up encounters or to encourage players to get involved in situations where they can use their class abilities and skills to overcome challenges. There are systems out there, like the WoD which do not reward experience points for fighting. When the system doesn't reward you for combat (instead rewarding you for achieving goals, staying in character, and good role-playing), then you spend less time in combat and more time role-playing in general. While I won't comment one way or the other on the WoD mechanically, I am positive that games in the storyteller system almost always have more role-playing than games in the d20 system (the quality of that role-playing however, depends entirely upon the players). Please don't misconstrue my words here. You can role-play perfectly fine within a D20 game, and I have seen some phenominal role-playing in D&D games. I am also not advocating the storyteller system over the D20 system. I am however, firm in my belief that removing combat from the XP table, does indeed encourage more role-playing (not necessarily better role-playing) and less time rolling dice. If you want a role-play heavy game, D&D is just not designed for it (unless you want to stay at low levels forever). -Peace-
Seeker95 11-18-06, 03:14 PM	Please don't misconstrue my words here.I don't think folks are likely to misconstrue them. Rather, we are more likely to simply disagree.
CharlieRock 11-18-06, 03:22 PM	There are systems out there, like the WoD which do not reward experience points for fighting. When the system doesn't reward you for combat (instead rewarding you for achieving goals, staying in character, and good role-playing), then you spend less time in combat and more time role-playing in general. While I won't comment one way or the other on the WoD mechanically, I am positive that games in the storyteller system almost always have more role-playing than games in the d20 system (the quality of that role-playing however, depends entirely upon the players). I've played a game system that, when substituted in your quote for WoD, is true and accurate. Except the part where I spent less time in combat. It was about same-same compared with D&D. :whatsthis
nastynate 11-18-06, 03:25 PM	I don't think folks are likely to misconstrue them. Rather, we are more likely to simply disagree. That's cool, but I mentioned the dreaded WoD, which usually results in nasty flames. I just didn't want people to jump to conculsions without actually thinking about the content of the post. Why do you disagree?
CharlieRock 11-18-06, 03:31 PM	That's cool, but I mentioned the dreaded WoD, which usually results in nasty flames. I just didn't want people to jump to conculsions without actually thinking about the content of the post. Why do you disagree? There is a nifty technique to XP in the new D&D system. After the players level up to a certain point they get no XP in combat if their opponents were 'too weak'. If they veer too far off the story ,you can low-ball them till they figure out they are attacking windmills and not advancing the story in any significance. If you keep feeding them XP through combat, you are cutting your own knees out as far as RPing a story line goes.
DragonChild_ 11-18-06, 03:38 PM	How come "Role Play" automatically means "No combat" ? I mean, D&D, at it's core, is about heroic fantasy. Heroes become better heroes by saving the town from the rampaging dragon, and doing... well, heroic stuff. WoD is not about heroic combat, it's about... well, I don't know exactly what it's about. More mysteries, and stuff. Are you suggesting that any game with mysteries (or, whatever WOD IS) is "more roleplay" then heroic fantasy can be? It's also worth noting, I personally HATE systems that give XP based on the quality of the RP. That's entirely subjective, and encourages the DM to act like a total jerk, even if the DM doesn't relize that's exactly what he's doing. D&D, where you get XP for doing things as a GROUP, encourages a coherent party, and encourages you to have fun playing with your friends, instead of against them.
Tharivol 11-18-06, 03:57 PM	Role-playing in D&D is actually the means used to set up encounters or to encourage players to get involved in situations where they can use their class abilities and skills to overcome challenges. But why is that considered "not-role-playing"? Role-playing isn't limited to standing there talking to people in a town. Role-playing is playing out the characters words and actions--and that happens to include getting involved in situations where they can use their class abilities and skills to overcome challenges. People who don't do anything and don't overcome challenges aren't very interesting roles to play. While I suppose that it's entirely possible to not role-play at all when in combat or whatever, the fact that you're rolling dice does not mean that you're not role-playing at the same time. My character is fighting for her life/to kill his hated foe/to stop the murderer from escaping/to protect the hostage/to get the powerful artifact from the hands of the bad guy who already has it--thinking in character here is entirely possible, and hard not to do for me at least. EDIT: In other words, what DragonChild said.
CharlieRock 11-18-06, 04:28 PM	People who don't do anything and don't overcome challenges aren't very interesting roles to play. Apparently, they are in WoD. :thinks:
Sim_antix 11-18-06, 04:35 PM	The amount and quality of role playing is entirely dependant on the players. A system like WoD attracts those who wish to tell dark fantasy stories and therefor you wont find many non role playing intensive players, if any at all. WoD is also the preferred setting for most LARPers because there is virtually no combat, something that I for one, and many others are not very fond of. D&D and d20 in general has enough crunchy game mechanics to attract those who want a workable fantasy combat and leveling system. It also has several campaign worlds and enough variety to give you options when role playing instead of being limited to one very specific campaign world.
nastynate 11-18-06, 06:05 PM	But why is that considered "not-role-playing"? Role-playing isn't limited to standing there talking to people in a town. Role-playing is playing out the characters words and actions--and that happens to include getting involved in situations where they can use their class abilities and skills to overcome challenges. People who don't do anything and don't overcome challenges aren't very interesting roles to play. You are putting words in my mouth. That is role-playing. The point I was trying to make is that in D&D your advancement (levels) are based on non-role-playing situations, and the role-playing you actually do just leads up to them. The less you role-play and the more you fight, the faster you gain levels. You are rewarded for less role-play by the mechanics of the game. While I suppose that it's entirely possible to not role-play at all when in combat or whatever, the fact that you're rolling dice does not mean that you're not role-playing at the same time. My character is fighting for her life/to kill his hated foe/to stop the murderer from escaping/to protect the hostage/to get the powerful artifact from the hands of the bad guy who already has it--thinking in character here is entirely possible, and hard not to do for me at least. Suppose the average combat scenario takes a half hour to resolve in real time, but it only lasts 4 rounds in game. How much role-playing actually happens in those 24 seconds? Sure you get to make a few interesting battle cries, and witty comments, but a non-combat encounter will involve far more role-playing every time. You can think and act in character, during the encounter, but the dialogue is certainly secondary to the die rolling. I like combat, so this is not a problem for me, but I recognize the difference. There is a nifty technique to XP in the new D&D system. After the players level up to a certain point they get no XP in combat if their opponents were 'too weak'. If they veer too far off the story ,you can low-ball them till they figure out they are attacking windmills and not advancing the story in any significance. If you keep feeding them XP through combat, you are cutting your own knees out as far as RPing a story line goes. This is great, but not relevant to my point. Advancement based on killing things, means you have to kill things to progress. Conversely, advancement based on interaction with NPCs, dialogue, and staying in character, means that combat is not even necessary; you still can if you want to, but it is not required to further the story, plot, or your character's abilities. To me dialogue is 90% of role-playing, and more combat does indeed equal less dialogue. Also to respond to your most recent post (which was clearly the kind of jab I expected from the WoD bashers), in the WoD characters do overcome challenges and work together. Those challenges rarely revolve around combat however. You might have to negotiate between a couple different factions, discover the truth behind some hidden mystery, overcome some inner flaw, or prove yourself to an important politcal ally. Just because you didn't kill the BBEG, doesn't mean you didn't accomplish anything. How come "Role Play" automatically means "No combat" ? I mean, D&D, at it's core, is about heroic fantasy. Heroes become better heroes by saving the town from the rampaging dragon, and doing... well, heroic stuff. WoD is not about heroic combat, it's about... well, I don't know exactly what it's about. More mysteries, and stuff. Role-play doesn't mean no combat, nor did I say it does. But less combat does indeed mean more role-play. How come in D&D the only way save somebody is to kill something else? It shouldn't be, IMO. A character that does not take lives and avoids combat if at all possible, is actually extremely difficult to play in D&D, because you would hamper the progress of the game. Are you suggesting that any game with mysteries (or, whatever WOD IS) is "more roleplay" then heroic fantasy can be? The more time you spend rolling dice, the less time you spend immersed in the personality of your character and dialogue between your character and the other people of the world. If by heroic fantasy you mean D&D combat, then heroic fantasy will result in less roleplaying. If you simply mean the genre, and not the mechanics of combat, then no it won't result in less role-playing. If you hardly role-play in a WoD game, and focus almost entirely on combat, you hardly gain any experience points. If you hardly role-play in D&D and focus almost entirely on combat, you gain more experience points. This is result of the mechanics of these two games, and not a result of the genre of the game. If D&D did not reward XP for killing things, it would be an entirely different game. It's also worth noting, I personally HATE systems that give XP based on the quality of the RP. That's entirely subjective, and encourages the DM to act like a total jerk, even if the DM doesn't relize that's exactly what he's doing. D&D, where you get XP for doing things as a GROUP, encourages a coherent party, and encourages you to have fun playing with your friends, instead of against them. I agree that D&D encourages teamwork, tactics, and group play, which is why I like it. It does not really encourage role-play though (at least in comparison to some other RPGs); we ourselves have to add that element. Some D&D games have almost none, while others have a great deal. Besides if WoD games really encouraged the storyteller to be a total jerk, the game would have never succeeded. Who want's to play with jerks? People are jerks on their own, the game doesn't turn them into one. I like D&D specifically because it encourages combat and tactics, not because it supports deep immersion into your character for tense role-playing scenarios. Sure we can and do add these elements to our games, but they are totally in our hands to do so. The amount and quality of role playing is entirely dependant on the players. A system like WoD attracts those who wish to tell dark fantasy stories and therefor you wont find many non role playing intensive players, if any at all. WoD is also the preferred setting for most LARPers because there is virtually no combat, something that I for one, and many others are not very fond of. D&D and d20 in general has enough crunchy game mechanics to attract those who want a workable fantasy combat and leveling system. It also has several campaign worlds and enough variety to give you options when role playing instead of being limited to one very specific campaign world. Well said Sam, I completely agree. -Peace-
Seeker95 11-18-06, 07:36 PM	Why do you disagree?This is why I disagree with your statements.The less you role-play and the more you fight, the faster you gain levels.You deem roleplaying and combat to be mutually exclusive. I do not. You also seem to view combat as the only means of acquiring experience. I do not. If you are in town, trying to gather information for your adventure, and you manage to get info from the city guard, or the tavern wench, or the Main Street beggar, you have overcome an obstacle. That is worth experience points. If you have a guy at the local bar start some trouble, and you manage to talk him out of wrecking th eplace (diplomacy, intimidation, power-of-suggestion) then you have overcome an encounter without combat. That is worth experience points. If you infiltrate the local thieves' guild, find and secure the roster of members, successfully get out again, and deliver the roster to the constable, you have achieved the same victory as if you had fought your way in and taken the list by force. That is worth experience points. What you describe as the problem is a player and DM problem. It is not a mechanics or game system problem. If the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, then it makes sense that the only obstacle your DM will throw at you is a nail. And if the only obstacles or challenges your DM presents are nails, then perhaps it is time to get creative and pretend you don't have the hammer. I disagree with both your premises and your conclusions.
nastynate 11-18-06, 09:08 PM	This is why I disagree with your statements.You deem roleplaying and combat to be mutually exclusive. I do not. You also seem to view combat as the only means of acquiring experience. I do not. Wrong. I deem combat as an impediment to role-play, but not a mutually exclusive concept. I also view combat as the most efficient and mechanically well described means of aquiring experience points in D&D, but not the only means. If you are in town, trying to gather information for your adventure, and you manage to get info from the city guard, or the tavern wench, or the Main Street beggar, you have overcome an obstacle. That is worth experience points. Sure it is, but how many? what's the CR? D&D is not designed to work in this way, so we have to take things into our own hands and estimate the challenge rating and XP value of the afore mentioned encounters. Not so with combat. There the rules are concise and clear. Less-combat central RPG rules systems devote more content to these types of scenarios, better guidelines and rule support for setting them up, and more specific experience rewards for completing them. If you have a guy at the local bar start some trouble, and you manage to talk him out of wrecking th eplace (diplomacy, intimidation, power-of-suggestion) then you have overcome an encounter without combat. That is worth experience points. I agree. though killing him is worth the same XP in D&D. If you infiltrate the local thieves' guild, find and secure the roster of members, successfully get out again, and deliver the roster to the constable, you have achieved the same victory as if you had fought your way in and taken the list by force. That is worth experience points. Quite true, but no more XP than mindlessly hacking your way through the guild. What you describe as the problem is a player and DM problem. It is not a mechanics or game system problem. If the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, then it makes sense that the only obstacle your DM will throw at you is a nail. And if the only obstacles or challenges your DM presents are nails, then perhaps it is time to get creative and pretend you don't have the hammer.. There is no problem. I simply realize that good role-playing is not required to succeed in D&D, and the most effective means of gaining experience points is by physically defeating your challenges. We can play the game otherwise and role-play our hearts out, just as you have described, but the DMG is very vague on these issues in regard to XP, while combat/trap based XP is well documented; far more of the core rules are devoted to combat than any other aspects of the game combined. My players and I role-play quite well regardless of which system we play, but the combat heavy rules are part of D&D for a reason...for combat. D&D is a game built on the premise of killing things and taking their stuff (even the lawful good paladins do it!). The role-playing element still exists, but it is not nearly as important to D&D as it is to some other RPG systems. No matter how much focus we put into RP, it doesn't change the fundimental nature of D&D. 4 non-combat encounters per day will not consume the same amount of resources as 4 combat encounters per day. D&D needs combat, and combat consumes most of the time at the game table. If you weren't in combat, how would you spend that time at your gaming table? (Answer: role-playing) I disagree with both your premises and your conclusions. I agree to disagree.
Tharivol 11-18-06, 09:22 PM	But combat isn't different from role-playing. Role-playing isn't limited to standing around and talking. Having your characters do things (like fighting) is role-playing too.
Solaris 11-18-06, 09:29 PM	Wrong. I deem combat as an impediment to role-playWhat if you're playing the role of a combatant? :confused: Role-playing isn't limited to standing around and talking. Having your characters do things (like fighting) is role-playing too.Yup. What he said.
SilvercatMoonpaw 11-18-06, 09:54 PM	For all the nothing it will do, let me lay my :twocents: on the table: Using D&D does not mean one is prevented from roleplaying at all. But it can styfle different kinds. My specific irritant is that D&D styfles character creation. I'm not saying every aspect: even with core you can do some interesting things with the choices given. But maybe core doesn't have every choice I'd like to make down mechanically. You can go to a splat, or web-enhancement or article, or get some PDF from a 3rd-party (assuming the DM lets you). But that's not enough: it still won't give you what you need mechanically. And not all of us are wizzes at class or race creation. Even some of the special books that allow you to build your own balanced races and classes might not have the specific feature I need listed. Immediately my enjoyment of the game drops a notch. And don't tell me that this encourages me to be even more creative because it challenges me: that's a cheap excuse. The only limits I wish to hold to are what the DM has decided he or she is willing to deal or not deal with or has decided is part of the setting. I hold the same thing for character advancement. And I do think that D&D has too many options that only focus on its combat. There needs to be more classes, PrC, and feats that enhance how skills are used. And on combat: The system assumes a certain amount of combat, and the rules for rewarding combat are clearer than for rewarding non-combat. None of this means one cannot roleplay in combat, or that fighting is not a part of roleplaying. But, again, it styfles certain aspects of roleplaying for me. Combat rules are so difficult to memorize that I have to spend time looking them up when I could be roleplaying. And don't tell me that just means I have to study the rules more: it decreases my enojyment of the game and still will not guarantee a solution. Sometimes combat seems so boring because we are working with all these rules. It just sets a "now is not the time for being creative" tone for the whole affair. Same thing happens with Races, Classes, PrC, Feats, Spells, Magic Items, etc. that focus more on what I can do in combat than out. And most importantly the focus on combat rules means that it's impossible, as far as I can tell, to play a non-combat PC. So in the end D&D prevents me from being and acting certain ways I wish to be and act, and that styfles my ultimate roleplaying.
CharlieRock 11-18-06, 10:07 PM	.If you have a guy at the local bar start some trouble, and you manage to talk him out of wrecking th eplace (diplomacy, intimidation, power-of-suggestion) then you have overcome an encounter without combat. That is worth experience points.I agree. though killing him is worth the same XP in D&D. Not really. If they are too low you get no XP (and no info). If you overcome the obstacle you get XP for an obstacle of CR equivalent to your level. Fairly easy. There is no problem. I simply realize that good role-playing is not required to succeed in D&D, and the most effective means of gaining experience points is by physically defeating your challenges. We can play the game otherwise and role-play our hearts out, just as you have described, but the DMG is very vague on these issues in regard to XP, while combat/trap based XP is well documented; far more of the core rules are devoted to combat than any other aspects of the game combined. Low-ball the XP. Combat is only the most efficient means of gaining XP if the DM feeds a steady stream of high XP monsters into it. I.e. It is entirely up to the DM as to the most efficient means of gaining XP. The DMG has some fairly clear suggestions on how to award XP without strong-arming the DM into either style.
CharlieRock 11-18-06, 10:23 PM	For all the nothing it will do, let me lay my :twocents: on the table: Using D&D does not mean one is prevented from roleplaying at all. But it can styfle different kinds. My specific irritant is that D&D styfles character creation. I'm not saying every aspect: even with core you can do some interesting things with the choices given. But maybe core doesn't have every choice I'd like to make down mechanically. You can go to a splat, or web-enhancement or article, or get some PDF from a 3rd-party (assuming the DM lets you). But that's not enough: it still won't give you what you need mechanically. And not all of us are wizzes at class or race creation. Even some of the special books that allow you to build your own balanced races and classes might not have the specific feature I need listed. Immediately my enjoyment of the game drops a notch. And don't tell me that this encourages me to be even more creative because it challenges me: that's a cheap excuse. The only limits I wish to hold to are what the DM has decided he or she is willing to deal or not deal with or has decided is part of the setting. I hold the same thing for character advancement. And I do think that D&D has too many options that only focus on its combat. There needs to be more classes, PrC, and feats that enhance how skills are used. And on combat: The system assumes a certain amount of combat, and the rules for rewarding combat are clearer than for rewarding non-combat. None of this means one cannot roleplay in combat, or that fighting is not a part of roleplaying. But, again, it styfles certain aspects of roleplaying for me. Combat rules are so difficult to memorize that I have to spend time looking them up when I could be roleplaying. And don't tell me that just means I have to study the rules more: it decreases my enojyment of the game and still will not guarantee a solution. Sometimes combat seems so boring because we are working with all these rules. It just sets a "now is not the time for being creative" tone for the whole affair. Same thing happens with Races, Classes, PrC, Feats, Spells, Magic Items, etc. that focus more on what I can do in combat than out. And most importantly the focus on combat rules means that it's impossible, as far as I can tell, to play a non-combat PC. So in the end D&D prevents me from being and acting certain ways I wish to be and act, and that styfles my ultimate roleplaying. If there aren't enough classes, or PrCs in D&D3.5 for you, wow. There's just as much , (actually more) page space on assigning XP for non-combat as for combat. And with the free-form variant it is also much easier to figure up.
Serrin 11-18-06, 11:06 PM	I think that the core D&D mechanics stifle roleplay because the game is very much geared towards crunchy combat, and crunchy combat is not particularly roleplay-y. Yes, SOMETIMES you roleplay in combat. You might have the option to CDG the evil sorcerer, or save the princess, but not both. On the other hand, most of the time, your only decision in combat is "how should I act to kill the other guys the fastest?". You know how actions can be moral (saving someone), immoral (murdering someone), or amoral (eating a peanut butter sandwich)? Combat is aroleplay. There's nothing particularly roleplaying or anti-roleplaying about taking the steps deemed most efficient at ending the current combat in victory. Roleplaying is about your character. If some bizarre wizard (and terrible DM) wanted to test your basic arithmetic skills by forcing you to do 50 pages of simple addition before agreeing to help you, and you actually did so in character ("One and three is four...seven and two is nine..." for 15 minutes), and the wizard said "Okay, you can add numbers, I'll help you", would you consider that great roleplaying? I wouldn't. I don't think most people would. Even if they really, really liked math. There was no room for roleplaying in that exercise, because one plus three is four is pretty much right no matter what. Your character's uniqueness had no hand in making that decisions. At its heart, roleplaying is about being given a choice, and making it based on your character. "I'll help the princess, because she's the only person who's been nice to me since becoming a lich" or "I'll save the princess, because her support would be valuable in my plans" is good roleplaying. "I'll try to break the grapple, because I don't have any good light or natural weapons" isn't. It's mechanistic. Sometimes combat involves RP subtly, like "I'll cast fireball and include myself in the radius, because Pyromanius is a reckless mage like that, and he can probably kill all the orcs by doing so". But most of the time, what you, your character, or any tactically adept creature in the same situation is going to be exactly the same. How often does the rogue's player have to think about his motivations, or his emotions, or anything else about his character before saying "I move into flanking position and sneak attack the dude"? Not often, in my experience. And combat IS what a majority of D&D time is spent on, typically. The players have a much greater influence on the amount of roleplaying done, as many people have noted, but the system does nudge people in certain ways undeniably.
a_psh 11-19-06, 12:10 AM	There are systems out there, like the WoD which do not reward experience points for fighting. When the system doesn't reward you for combat (instead rewarding you for achieving goals, staying in character, and good role-playing), then you spend less time in combat and more time role-playing in general. While I won't comment one way or the other on the WoD mechanically, I am positive that games in the storyteller system almost always have more role-playing than games in the d20 system (the quality of that role-playing however, depends entirely upon the players).I was with you until this point. The WoD reward system doesn't actually reward you for anything. The per-session XP breakdown is: * 1 automatic point. This is a "gimme". * 1 for "learning curve," representing your character learning something over the course of the session. As long as anything happens, this is essentially a gimme (unless you just want to slap a player with a penalty for something). * 1 for "roleplaying," which refers to entertaining or dramatic portrayals of your character, with the added caveat that it has to be in line with your "character concept", sometimes two for a particularly good job. The one point is a gimme unless the GM specifically chooses to narrowly interpret "character concept" (i.e. take control of your character away from you). The second point is kind of an arbitrary award. * 1 for "heroism," representing putting yourself in heroic danger. This seems like it's more up to the GM than the player, really, since Vampire &c. have the GM controling the scenes. Where's the roleplaying in the XP system? It's not in all the gimme points. 3 points for just showing up, unless you get on the GM's nerves. 4 if there was any kind of climactic or dangerous scene (e.g. a fight). 5 if there was a fight and the GM just plain likes you (that's all that suggesting an extra point for particularly good roleplaying really means). There's very little roleplaying in the "roleplaying" XP... not any more so than it is in just having the GM arbitrarily eyeball and give out XP for roleplaying in a D&D game without really sticking to any kind of pattern. All you have are vague appeals to drama and "character concept" without anything that helps you actually define or explore your character in a meaningful way. (Asking the GM to judge what's part of your "character concept" and what's not is as dumb as having a GM who repeatedly tells you "No, you can't do that because you're Lawful Good" instead of just changing your alignment to whatever fits better.) This system does absolutely nothing to help you actually meaningfully roleplay your character. Hell, it pretty much doesn't even define what "roleplaying" is. No, the WoD/Vampire XP system definitely doesn't do any more to reward roleplaying than just straight-up ad hoc XP in D&D does. The book may say that it does, but the actual design doesn't back up the rhetoric.
Ongorth 11-19-06, 12:20 AM	No, the WoD/Vampire XP system definitely doesn't do any more to reward roleplaying than just straight-up ad hoc XP in D&D does. The book may say that it does, but the actual design doesn't back up the rhetoric. I completely agree. The expression "D&D with sunglasses" didn't arise without reason. People use their RPG system to do what they want regardless of what the system may have been intended to be used for. It doesn't even matter if the system is completely detrimental for the kind of game they are running, they will still go ahead and use it anyway and have the best time in the world doing it. And they should be able to. They paid the money for the game, they'll do what they want with it no matter what people on the internet think. If they are having fun, what do they care?
The Club 11-19-06, 12:44 AM	I think that the core D&D mechanics stifle roleplay because the game is very much geared towards crunchy combat, and crunchy combat is not particularly roleplay-y. I'll be the first to point out that D&D mechanics don't really encourage or reward role-playing in particular, but I'd also have to add that every single combat situation in D&D is a defining moment for a character. Or it should be, at any rate. Aren't the characters risking injury and death in combat? Every time characters enter combat, they are showing what they consider important enough to fight and die for. Granted, this gets glossed over by too many D&D players, but armed combat with other people and horrifying monsters should be pretty serious points for character development. For me, the heart of role-playing is a character's decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Even if D&D's mechanics don't force a lot of narration and storytelling, the steady stream of life-and-death situations is a pretty good source of plot and character points. The Club
Serrin 11-19-06, 01:05 AM	Aren't the characters risking injury and death in combat? Every time characters enter combat, they are showing what they consider important enough to fight and die for. <snip> Even if D&D's mechanics don't force a lot of narration and storytelling, the steady stream of life-and-death situations is a pretty good source of plot and character points. Technically? You're dead on. In practice? Players and/or characters quickly grow accustomed to battle, death, and even dying. If the characters get hardened, that's plausible, but doesn't make for very interesting RP. If the players just ignore the risks of battle (perhaps because battle is 90% of their games), then that's just bad form. After the first dozen times you've risked your life in combat, how much character development can you do with subsequent combat adventures?
nastynate 11-19-06, 01:27 AM	I was with you until this point. The WoD reward system doesn't actually reward you for anything. The per-session XP breakdown is: * 1 automatic point. This is a "gimme". * 1 for "learning curve," representing your character learning something over the course of the session. As long as anything happens, this is essentially a gimme (unless you just want to slap a player with a penalty for something). * 1 for "roleplaying," which refers to entertaining or dramatic portrayals of your character, with the added caveat that it has to be in line with your "character concept", sometimes two for a particularly good job. The one point is a gimme unless the GM specifically chooses to narrowly interpret "character concept" (i.e. take control of your character away from you). The second point is kind of an arbitrary award. * 1 for "heroism," representing putting yourself in heroic danger. This seems like it's more up to the GM than the player, really, since Vampire &c. have the GM controling the scenes. Where's the roleplaying in the XP system? It's not in all the gimme points. 3 points for just showing up, unless you get on the GM's nerves. 4 if there was any kind of climactic or dangerous scene (e.g. a fight). 5 if there was a fight and the GM just plain likes you (that's all that suggesting an extra point for particularly good roleplaying really means). There's very little roleplaying in the "roleplaying" XP... not any more so than it is in just having the GM arbitrarily eyeball and give out XP for roleplaying in a D&D game without really sticking to any kind of pattern. All you have are vague appeals to drama and "character concept" without anything that helps you actually define or explore your character in a meaningful way. (Asking the GM to judge what's part of your "character concept" and what's not is as dumb as having a GM who repeatedly tells you "No, you can't do that because you're Lawful Good" instead of just changing your alignment to whatever fits better.) This system does absolutely nothing to help you actually meaningfully roleplay your character. Hell, it pretty much doesn't even define what "roleplaying" is. No, the WoD/Vampire XP system definitely doesn't do any more to reward roleplaying than just straight-up ad hoc XP in D&D does. The book may say that it does, but the actual design doesn't back up the rhetoric. I should have used a different system. I know there is a strong bias against WoD from almost all avid D&D players, but had I referenced Castle Falkenstein (not the new GURPS crap either), Ars Magica, or Larp-based games very few people would know what I was talking about. I took a calculated risk with a better known system that revolves around less combat than D&D and it backfired in my face. Not much I can do now though...I'm the WoD supporter, and anything else I post is now pretty much ignored or flame bait. Just FYI, I like D&D much better than WoD, simply because I like the actions of the players to have a more signifcant impact on the game. Playing the little fish in the big pond is tiresome after a while. Every system has pros and cons, and both WoD and D&D are no exception. I agree with everything you have posted up until now (there are a dozen points I could contend in this post, but it is off-topic and I don't really feel like derailing the thread to talk about the Storyteller rules). My point was and remains that a less combat-centric setting (yes WoD does indeed qualify) does tend to have much more role-playing opportunity, just as Serrin has said over the last couple posts. I never wanted to infer however that WoD is without flaw or a better game than D&D, and I'm sorry if that is the perception thus far. -Peace-
Solaris 11-19-06, 01:32 AM	Just FYI, I like D&D much better than WoD, simply because I like the actions of the players to have a more signifcant impact on the game. Playing the little fish in the big pond is tiresome after a while. Just like the typical accusations that the Forgotten Realms is too NPC-heavy, this is entirely in the hands of the GM.
Vaelan 11-19-06, 02:55 AM	The only factor that can be established on any rational level is the attitude of the players. All other claims are baseless and worthy of nothing more than dismissal. I would normally add that I welcome any arguments to the contrary that are based in reason, but such arguments are impractical to the point of impossibility.
The Club 11-19-06, 03:12 AM	Technically? You're dead on. In practice? Players and/or characters quickly grow accustomed to battle, death, and even dying. If the characters get hardened, that's plausible, but doesn't make for very interesting RP. If the players just ignore the risks of battle (perhaps because battle is 90% of their games), then that's just bad form. After the first dozen times you've risked your life in combat, how much character development can you do with subsequent combat adventures? If the players no longer find drama in life-or-death situations, what are the chances that they're finding drama in less threatening situations? I suppose D&D may discourage this by making death a temporary setback. In games where death is easy to come by and permanent, players are more likely to measure their violent responses more carefully. In any case, I think you're talking more about jaded players than about how the mechanics themselves discourage role-playing. When players don't think about things like the mortality of their characters, not much role-playing is going on to begin with. There are other systems that bring narrative elements directly into play. D&D doesn't do that. But the door is still open for players to bring as much of that in as they like. Clearly the emphasis in D&D is squad-level tactics (and looting), though. The Club
The Club 11-19-06, 03:16 AM	The only factor that can be established on any rational level is the attitude of the players. All other claims are baseless and worthy of nothing more than dismissal. I would normally add that I welcome any arguments to the contrary that are based in reason, but such arguments are impractical to the point of impossibility. Contrary positions are already being argued rationally in this thread. The OP's question is legitimate, and is wide open for debate. The mechanics and thematic emphasis of game has to have some effect on the way it encourages (or discourages) role-playing. The Club
a_psh 11-19-06, 03:21 AM	I know there is a strong bias against WoD from almost all avid D&D playersThere's also a strong bias against WoD among folks who have seen the game at work, read some of the rhetoric in the books, and then discovered another system that actually does involve "story" and the other concepts that the WoD books merely talk about a lot but never back up with the system itself. If I was just comparing it to D&D, the comparison would've been a lot more favorable, since I could just wave my hands and say "these strive to accomplish different things". But having seen games that actually do what WoD claims to do, I can honestly say that it is just "D&D with sunglasses". And dice pools. At least I like dice pools. My point was and remains that a less combat-centric setting (yes WoD does indeed qualify) does tend to have much more role-playing opportunity, just as Serrin has said over the last couple posts.I disagree with this point. While one can certainly find some faults with the way D&D does combat, there are plenty of systems where battle and character development are very tightly wedded. There are also plenty of systems (like WoD) where characters do a lot of talking and the GM does a lot of "storytelling" and yet nothing really happens.
The Club 11-19-06, 03:29 AM	I disagree with this point. While one can certainly find some faults with the way D&D does combat, there are plenty of systems where battle and character development are very tightly wedded. There are also plenty of systems (like WoD) where characters do a lot of talking and the GM does a lot of "storytelling" and yet nothing really happens. Amen. Hell, in the design I'm currently kicking around, advancement is married to character development. The idea is actually to simulate the way characters behave in a story. Winning a fight is less important in character advancement than the motivations for the fight. So, keeping a character "important" in the story (i.e. advancing him to greater challenges) is driven by making interesting narrative choices. But there will still be lots of fighting and tactical options, because I'm not as entertained by tea parties as I am by fistfights. The Club
Solaris 11-19-06, 03:32 AM	Maybe you guys' GMs sucked. I've had games of Vampire: The Masquerade that were more action-packed than the average D&D game. In fact, they contained some of the most vivid combat situations I've had in all my years of gaming. I've heard of plenty of "tea party"-style D&D games, too. If that's what the group wants, that's what they'll get, no matter the system.
nastynate 11-19-06, 04:01 AM	Just like the typical accusations that the Forgotten Realms is too NPC-heavy, this is entirely in the hands of the GM. While I am loathe to refute this (since a really didn't want to discuss the WoD any more), I feel compelled to do so, mainly because doing so supports my stance that the rule system does indeed influence the style of play in an RPG. In the WoD the NPCs are supposed to be more powerful than the PCs for a number of reasons. 1: It is a horror genre, and seemingly insurmountable foes of great power naturally lend themselves to an atmosphere of both danger, fear, and helplessness (key horror elements that are not typically found in D&D where the challenges presented are supposed to be overcome by the heroes). 2: There are laws, traditions, and a status quo that restrict the actions of the PCs in the WoD. If the NPCs are incapable of enforcing the status quo, all hell breaks loose literally and figuratively because the PCs can undermine the rules by which the secret societies of the WoD operate, without fear of reprisal or repurcussions (barring the intervention of mundane mortals en masse). 3: Being the low men on the totem pole naturally encourages team work among the players, whose characters are all but powerless on their own. In conjunction however, the PCs can influence and impact the game in ways the powerful (but primarily solitary) monsters at the top of the food chain find all but inconceivable...teamwork is simply not in their nature. 4: When your foes are all but unbeatable in combat, you are forced to seek alternative methods to thwarting their plans, such as intrigue, manipulation, and subtle (though petty) games of prestige and popularity. 5: The combat that does exist in the WoD does not typically revolve around the principle antagonists, but around their weak minions and pawns. While it can be fun, it has less overall meaning than it does in D&D where combat actually often accomplishes important objectives. (Not to mention that if the combat poses no real threat, it is less fun, so people pursue this option less frequently). I cannot really speak for nature or reason behind the powerful NPCs of the Forgotten Realms (other than the fact that they make great characters for novels), but in the realms you are not required (or even expected) to interact with these NPCs. There are hundreds of thousands of other relevent monsters, challenges, and enemies in the setting, and you can use the big names (if you want to) or completely ignore them as you see fit. The high level NPCs do not have to be directly involved in the story in any way shape or form. In the WoD however, there are typically only a couple of dozen important NPCs (almost all of whom are more powerful than the players) with whom you cannot help but to interact quite frequently. They cannot be glossed over or ignored by the storyteller since they are key elements in the story, atmosphere, and structure of the WoD. Killing one of these individuals shakes a story to the core, and completely alters the dynamic of the chronicle (usually in ways that are very, very bad for the players). D&D is designed for the players to be heroes. They should win most of their encounters, and they should be movers and shakers in the story at the very least (if not the world as a whole). Heroes that cannot hope to defeat any relevant foe, are not very good heroes. D&D encourages resolution by combat (though it does not always require it), and the looting of the dead (be it for magical items or the cash to make your own). You may add any level of role-playing you deem fit to D&D, but the mechanics of the gam require only a marginal investment of effort in this regard to be fully functional. The WoD is designed for the players to feel like little worms on big hooks. They should be struggling to find their place among a society of supernatural creatures with amazing power. The setting fosters a level of tension and paranoia that any respectable horror setting should, and the adventures revolve around the transition from relatively normal people into something completely different; like peeling back the layers of an onion to reveal deeper and more sinster and rotten layers lying beneath. Poor role-playing in the WoD leads to shallow meaningless games, because combat is simply not a viable alternative. I am tired of the oppressive and stifling atmosphere of the WoD, which is why I currently prefer D&D. Tactical teamwork, heroism, and some combat-based encounters that actually meaningfully contribute to the story are a welcome change of pace from the gritty desperation and politcal back-biting of the WoD. All that aside, we do noticably less role-playing in D&D by default, simply because combat scenarios happen more frequently and consume a greater portion of our time at the gaming table; true immerson and character development happen less in combat than they do out of combat, just as Serrin said a few posts ago. The only factor that can be established on any rational level is the attitude of the players. All other claims are baseless and worthy of nothing more than dismissal. I would normally add that I welcome any arguments to the contrary that are based in reason, but such arguments are impractical to the point of impossibility. Of course the attitude and ability of the players has the most important, pronounced, and obvious effect on role-playing, but the design of the game is absolutely a factor worthy of recognition (Battletech for example was not particularly indusive to fantastic role-playing, though the old Chaosium CoC game was). Just call me impractical to the point of impossibility I guess. ;)
Solaris 11-19-06, 04:28 AM	I maintain that the WoD, like any other setting, is what you make of it. Anyway, we were talking about mechanics stifling or enabling roleplay, and my findings in 25 years of gaming are that they matter very little. You get out of a system what you put into it. With the possible exception of Rolemaster. That's just ruleplaying (took a party of 8 about an hour and a half to kill a python). Tactical teamwork, heroism, and some combat-based encounters that actually meaningfully contribute to the storyInteresting. Sounds a lot like my WoD experiences.
Solaris 11-19-06, 04:33 AM	..
CharlieRock 11-19-06, 08:33 AM	Contrary positions are already being argued rationally in this thread. The OP's question is legitimate, and is wide open for debate. The mechanics and thematic emphasis of game has to have some effect on the way it encourages (or discourages) role-playing. The Club The breach was blown for me when I first read the DMG3.5. There is so many variable ways to award XP. I can now make any kind of adventure I want. Including a Masque of the Red Death-like adventure. Page 41 even had suggestions for eliminating combat XP altogether. I havn't hit my creative limit yet. And, I have far too many adventures to play them all in the too short time I spend with D&D. One reason is D&D3.x is so rules heavy that the players have more power over their game. This made it easier for me compared to the older 'I gotta come up with something that works before they get back with the sodas'. It cut most of the time that used to be spent arguing on rules (and ,some say, replaced this with time spent looking up the rule,LoL). Given enough prep time now, I can make any scenario with similar events consistant with each other throughout the campaign. Role play to combat. Out of all the time I spent in RPGs I can honestly say D&D ranked almost last. At least, out of all the ones I enjoyed. This latest incarnation has more of what I was looking for. I still have some complaints about it. One complaint I do not have with it is how stifling it is. It feels like someone blew out the east/west sides to a long north/south corridor. To reveal the labyrinth waiting just beyond the walls I never thought to imagine past.
SilvercatMoonpaw 11-19-06, 08:45 AM	…I'd also have to add that every single combat situation in D&D is a defining moment for a character. Or it should be, at any rate. Aren't the characters risking injury and death in combat? Every time characters enter combat, they are showing what they consider important enough to fight and die for. Granted, this gets glossed over by too many D&D players, but armed combat with other people and horrifying monsters should be pretty serious points for character development. But it might not be. And not just because of jaded players or whatnot: because some people don't want to define themselves by their combat. D&D assumes a certain amount of fighting in its rules: an encounter should burn XX% of the party's resources, where XX is inversly proportional (roughly) to the number of said encounters per day. If that's not done than certain classes like casters are free to throw around their spellslots, which were previously supposed to be saved for when they are needed. In game as well as out the character/player isn't going to worry too much about combat happening if it doesn't happen often. The only saving grace is that so many spells are more related to combat than non-combat, but maybe not enough. But then if comabt is featured, and it doesn't use up party resources in a certain amount realted to how many ecounters are going to happen that day, casters can do things such as "go nova" and overshadow the other partymembers. And the versimilitude of the game is already broken if the characters always face at least one balanced encounter per day. That's not how reality or even fantasy should work. Now I once heard the suggestion that if any activity uses up party resources it can be considered an encounter. The problem with that idea is that this "encounter" has to use up all the same resources that a combat encounter would in order to keep the characters balanced against the game. Moving rocks out of the path using the sorcerer's levitate spell burns spellslots, but not hitpoints and thus not cure spells or potions. D&D assumes combat, and assumes too much combat. It's rules are wrapped around that concept. This will influence roleplaying decision-making by expectation of combat and use of resources, even in character, styfling such styles as "carefree" and "daredevil" who will quickly find themselves out of the shield that resources set up between them and death. For me, the heart of role-playing is a character's decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Even if D&D's mechanics don't force a lot of narration and storytelling, the steady stream of life-and-death situations is a pretty good source of plot and character points. For me, killing is loathsome. I don't like hurting people, even ones in a game, even ones who are really, really evil. A stream of people I have to kill is terrible. I play D&D hoping that there will be more times when I'm required to talk or act non-violently than fight. I agree that life-or-death situations are fun, but not when it involves two parties, one of whom won't step away alive. I don't even like fighting undead. And see above for my position on a steady stream of combat. D&D has few clases and PrC that focus on non-combat ways of resolving problems, meaning I'm almost forced to decide everything at the point of a sword.
CharlieRock 11-19-06, 09:10 AM	But it might not be. And not just because of jaded players or whatnot: because some people don't want to define themselves by their combat. D&D assumes a certain amount of fighting in its rules: an encounter should burn XX% of the party's resources, where XX is inversly proportional (roughly) to the number of said encounters per day. If that's not done than certain classes like casters are free to throw around their spellslots, which were previously supposed to be saved for when they are needed. In game as well as out the character/player isn't going to worry too much about combat happening if it doesn't happen often. The only saving grace is that so many spells are more related to combat than non-combat, but maybe not enough. But then if comabt is featured, and it doesn't use up party resources in a certain amount realted to how many ecounters are going to happen that day, casters can do things such as "go nova" and overshadow the other partymembers. And the versimilitude of the game is already broken if the characters always face at least one balanced encounter per day. That's not how reality or even fantasy should work. Now I once heard the suggestion that if any activity uses up party resources it can be considered an encounter. The problem with that idea is that this "encounter" has to use up all the same resources that a combat encounter would in order to keep the characters balanced against the game. Moving rocks out of the path using the sorcerer's levitate spell burns spellslots, but not hitpoints and thus not cure spells or potions. D&D assumes combat, and assumes too much combat. It's rules are wrapped around that concept. This will influence roleplaying decision-making by expectation of combat and use of resources, even in character, styfling such styles as "carefree" and "daredevil" who will quickly find themselves out of the shield that resources set up between them and death. First of all, in your 'rock blocking path' example your showing a good example of railroading a party into using resources at an artificial (that is, not determined by the players themselves) rate. What if I just climb over the rocks.I used even less resources then. Climb, plus use rope (to make a ladder for everyone else). Since we didn't use any real resources, your method of rewarding XP means I get none. You've just outed player ingenuity. Was it risky? Thats the real question to answer when determining if the scenario is XP awardable. Assuming a fall might injure my character, but not kill him, then it is slightly risky. Small XP reward (commensurate with the risk). XP is awarded based on risk, not resources. For me, killing is loathsome. I don't like hurting people, even ones in a game, even ones who are really, really evil. A stream of people I have to kill is terrible. I play D&D hoping that there will be more times when I'm required to talk or act non-violently than fight. I agree that life-or-death situations are fun, but not when it involves two parties, one of whom won't step away alive. I don't even like fighting undead. And see above for my position on a steady stream of combat. D&D has few clases and PrC that focus on non-combat ways of resolving problems, meaning I'm almost forced to decide everything at the point of a sword. Thats is between your DM and you. Personally, I can run a whole campaign that you are just not going to be able to fight your way out of, yet still has victorious paths a hero can take (and be rewarded for). Edit: People have natural impulses towards habituation. If all your used to using D&D for (including old-timers from 2ed.) is combat heavy dungeon crawls, that is all your going to see it for in 3.5, 4.0, and 77.99. Changing this habituation may be hard, but doable.
tuffn00gies 11-19-06, 09:24 AM	Do you feel that the core mechanics of D&D lend themselves to strong roleplaying, or stifle it in favor of the crunchy number bits? The rules for alignment lend themselves readily to strong role-playing. I'd even go so far as to say that role-playing without alignment rules is just plain impossible. The rest is just crunchy number bits. Seriously, I don't think rules can really go either way. It's mostly in the players and the groups taken as a whole. For every number-crunchy game of Vampire I've seen I've also witnessed deep immersion D&D role-playing where dice were hardly ever rolled.
Sim_antix 11-19-06, 09:40 AM	So in the end D&D prevents me from being and acting certain ways I wish to be and act, and that styfles my ultimate roleplaying. Counter Point: No it doesn't. D&D has a set of rules for so many situations and literally anything you want to be or do can be extrapolated from what they give you. If there isn't a specific race, class, skill, feat, weapon/armor/equipment or spell that fits your needs, then use the guidlines they have provided you to make them. WotC has done a great job of including fairly user friendly rules for creating your own... well everything really. D&D is infinite in its possibilities, the only limit is your imagination.
tuffn00gies 11-19-06, 09:41 AM	Suppose the average combat scenario takes a half hour to resolve in real time, but it only lasts 4 rounds in game. How much role-playing actually happens in those 24 seconds? Sure you get to make a few interesting battle cries, and witty comments, but a non-combat encounter will involve far more role-playing every time. You can think and act in character, during the encounter, but the dialogue is certainly secondary to the die rolling. I like combat, so this is not a problem for me, but I recognize the difference. Conversely, suppose that a trip across some wilderness takes a week of game time, but goes uneventfully so that it's summed up in a few sentences by the DM. No dice are rolled, but no role-playing is done either.
SilvercatMoonpaw 11-19-06, 10:55 AM	The rules for alignment lend themselves readily to strong role-playing. I'd even go so far as to say that role-playing without alignment rules is just plain impossible. The rest is just crunchy number bits. The Alignment rules also styfle good roleplaying because to keep certain class features or be allowed to cast certain spells you have to have an certain alignment, which negates the possibility of acting how one wants to act and and be how one wants to be in certain circumstances. The LN paladin who is still able to Smite Evil must have a interesting motivation or belong to an organization that may not be a squeaky-clean as they think they are. A CG cleric of a LE deity, working from the inside to try and disrupt the organization (don't limit your imagination to say that this cannot be done). Furthermore alignment has the flaw that it tells you what each alignment means before you start, and I feel that many of the points of Chaos and Law, as well as Good, are debatetable. If I run my own game I could change them, but I'm not DM material, and because it's a core part of the rules who knows how many DMs just don't bother to mess with things when they could build real worlds without it. Our real world has no alignment system, and is all the more fun because you have to make the decisions about who and what is Good or Evil on your own. How does having it all predefined make for better roleplaying? Counter Point: No it doesn't. D&D has a set of rules for so many situations and literally anything you want to be or do can be extrapolated from what they give you. If there isn't a specific race, class, skill, feat, weapon/armor/equipment or spell that fits your needs, then use the guidlines they have provided you to make them. WotC has done a great job of including fairly user friendly rules for creating your own... well everything really. D&D is infinite in its possibilities, the only limit is your imagination. As I said before, not all of us are mechanical geniuses. There is another limit to the possibilities: how well I can balance the mechanics, how well I can even come up with mechanics to match my vision. I've tried and failed to design base classes and races to do what I want, and I'd never even consider spells, and probably not feats. You may be able to, but I can't. Yet I've played in systems that are designed with this sort of creation in mind, and I can do the sorts of things I want in them without blinking. D&D was not designed for self-creation, thought one can do that. But you have to be able to understand the rules better than some people can. D&D is limited by the complexity and assumptions of its rules. To reach the level that you profess exists requires abilities that not everyone posses.
Seeker95 11-19-06, 11:38 AM	As I said before, not all of us are mechanical geniuses. There is another limit to the possibilities: how well I can balance the mechanics, how well I can even come up with mechanics to match my vision. I've tried and failed to design base classes and races to do what I want, and I'd never even consider spells, and probably not feats. You may be able to, but I can't.I see a common thread in all these problems, and the commonality is not "the rules" or "the game emchanics". The problem is found in a single letter: "I" If the problem is yours, it is not inherent in the rules or mechanics. It is inherent in you. Attributing your problems to the rules is not likely to help resolve the problems.
SilvercatMoonpaw 11-19-06, 12:21 PM	I see a common thread in all these problems, and the commonality is not "the rules" or "the game emchanics". The problem is found in a single letter: "I" If the problem is yours, it is not inherent in the rules or mechanics. It is inherent in you. Attributing your problems to the rules is not likely to help resolve the problems. But if the rules are complex enough that I cannot use them the way I want them, yet in another system I operate perfectly fine, then that is a problem with the rules. I'm not saying the rules have to change: I'll just go use another system, I'm fine with that. But attributing the problem to me doesn't change that it is working with these rules as upposed to those rules that brings about the difficulty. My inability does not take place in a vacuum.
The Club 11-19-06, 01:32 PM	For me, killing is loathsome. I don't like hurting people, even ones in a game, even ones who are really, really evil. A stream of people I have to kill is terrible. I play D&D hoping that there will be more times when I'm required to talk or act non-violently than fight. I agree that life-or-death situations are fun, but not when it involves two parties, one of whom won't step away alive. I don't even like fighting undead. And see above for my position on a steady stream of combat. D&D has few clases and PrC that focus on non-combat ways of resolving problems, meaning I'm almost forced to decide everything at the point of a sword. Okay: let the record show that you're scrupulously pacifist and that make-believe violence is abhorrent to you. Now that we have that out of the way, we can address the point I was actually making. I was responding to someone's argument that the game's emphasis on violent conflict resolution inhibits role-playing. It doesn't. When you know what a man is willing to fight and die for, you know something about his character. That applies to a man who isn't willing to fight at all, too, by the way. Your complaint seems to be with the theme of the game more than the mechanics. I think that there are games out there that encourage the kind of game you want; D&D isn't among them, though. You might really dig the bidding and escalation mechanic in Dogs in the Vinyard (there's no need to play in the original setting--you can adopt it to any genre you want). D&D is designed for a particular kind of game and story, and it assumes violent conflict resolution. Within that context, a group can bring plenty of role-playing, even if the game isn't driving it with the mechanics. The Club
tuffn00gies 11-19-06, 02:38 PM	The Alignment rules also styfle good roleplaying because to keep certain class features or be allowed to cast certain spells you have to have an certain alignment, which negates the possibility of acting how one wants to act and and be how one wants to be in certain circumstances. The LN paladin who is still able to Smite Evil must have a interesting motivation or belong to an organization that may not be a squeaky-clean as they think they are. A CG cleric of a LE deity, working from the inside to try and disrupt the organization (don't limit your imagination to say that this cannot be done). Furthermore alignment has the flaw that it tells you what each alignment means before you start, and I feel that many of the points of Chaos and Law, as well as Good, are debatetable. If I run my own game I could change them, but I'm not DM material, and because it's a core part of the rules who knows how many DMs just don't bother to mess with things when they could build real worlds without it. Our real world has no alignment system, and is all the more fun because you have to make the decisions about who and what is Good or Evil on your own. How does having it all predefined make for better roleplaying? I guess sarcasm's lost on you, eh?
Sim_antix 11-19-06, 03:04 PM	@ SilvercatMoonpaw What system is it that allows you to create the things you envision? I am curious because BESM (another d20 RPG) has the most comprehensive rules for customizing races and classes that I have seen following a point system very much like Yabbas. The point being that it is still a d20 game so if there is another system out there that works better I would like to know what it is.
Serrin 11-19-06, 03:24 PM	I figure I'll throw in my two cents on WoD, since everyone else is. Do its mechanics actively encourage RP? Not unless you count the "good roleplaying" xp point. What it does do is try to get in the way less than most systems. Combat is simpler. Your choices are shoot/slice/punch, use creepy magicky powers, take cover, and maybe grapple if you've got some kind of crazy plan and/or deathwish. If you want to try something else, the DM has to adjucate it. Also, the magicky powers systems are much, much simpler in the fact that you have many less of them to work with. Fights are over faster, because nobody's chain tripping anyone else, and no psion is sitting there deliberating for half an hour on which particular nuke he should cast, and how many points to augment it with. They do like to talk about story for a bare minimum of half of their corebooks, and probably about 80%+ of their splatbooks. This is why the character optimization part of my brain plays D&D. You can't do too much CO with only 3 available powers. But yeah, their emphasis on story comes from an emphasis on story, and not something inherent in the Storytelling system.
Solaris 11-19-06, 04:00 PM	BESM (another d20 RPG) :( It didn't used to be. It used to be a charming little system whose main appeal was its simplicity.
nastynate 11-19-06, 04:11 PM	:( It didn't used to be. It used to be a charming little system whose main appeal was its simplicity. At least here we are in total agreement. :)
Sim_antix 11-19-06, 04:38 PM	I didn't even hear about it until after it switched to d20 so I wouldn't know if it was better or not.
a_psh 11-19-06, 04:59 PM	I see a common thread in all these problems, and the commonality is not "the rules" or "the game emchanics". The problem is found in a single letter: "I" If the problem is yours, it is not inherent in the rules or mechanics. It is inherent in you. Attributing your problems to the rules is not likely to help resolve the problems.That line of argument doesn't really work here, I think. Note his complaints: he's saying he can't change the system effectively, not that he can't use it. That involves a rather different skill set, not to mention a lot of time.
Seeker95 11-19-06, 06:41 PM	he's saying he can't change the system effectively, not that he can't use it. That involves a rather different skill set, not to mention a lot of time.True. But the lack of "change the system" skill in an individual person has nothing to do with the ability to roleplay. Mechanics neither fioster nor impede roleplaying. People who try to view all their roleplaying opportunities through the mechanics are placing stats first and character second. I don't care what system you ask me to play. Unless it is as videogame, I will be able to roleplay my character at every point in the game -- in and out of combat, in and out of a tavern. The mechanics present neither aid nor obstacle in my doing so.
CharlieRock 11-19-06, 08:13 PM	That line of argument doesn't really work here, I think. Note his complaints: he's saying he can't change the system effectively, not that he can't use it. That involves a rather different skill set, not to mention a lot of time. No doubt. But, he is also saying : D&D has few clases and PrC that focus on non-combat ways of resolving problems, meaning I'm almost forced to decide everything at the point of a sword. Which makes me wonder how one is even deciding character class (random dice roll?). How serious can this complainant be? If I was to say something like 'D&D has so many non-human playable races that I'm forced to be one.' Is that suddenly a fault with the game. Add to this If I run my own game I could change them, but I'm not DM material, And I'm thinking the problem is more the rest of the team wants to slice'n'dice , whilst SilvercatMoonpaw wants to RP. And the team isn't meshing well. ,Quote:Solaris Originally Posted by Sim_antix BESM (another d20 RPG) It didn't used to be. It used to be a charming little system whose main appeal was its simplicity. It used to be Tri-Stat (the d10 system :)). But, I find d20 had taken quite a few elements from that system as inspiration for the D&D3.x game (like Feats). In either form I don't find BESM complex. One is compatible with D&D, the other takes more time to be. I'm sorry to see Tri-Stat (and GoO) has run its course :(
a_psh 11-19-06, 09:16 PM	Mechanics neither fioster nor impede roleplaying.Every system satisfies some kind of creative agenda and impedes others. This is where the tension between a "fair" set of rules and a "realistic" set of rules comes from, for example. To say that this is equivalent to fostering or impeding "roleplaying" is naive, but it's definitely true that a particular systems fosters specific modes of roleplaying and impedes others -- that there exist noteworthy differences not only in thematic content but in the way you interact with that content as you go from system to system.
a_psh 11-19-06, 09:19 PM	And I'm thinking the problem is more the rest of the team wants to slice'n'dice , whilst SilvercatMoonpaw wants to RP. And the team isn't meshing well.Yup, that kind of thing basically kills a game almost no matter what else you do.
CharlieRock 11-19-06, 09:36 PM	Every system satisfies some kind of creative agenda and impedes others. This is where the tension between a "fair" set of rules and a "realistic" set of rules comes from, for example. To say that this is equivalent to fostering or impeding "roleplaying" is naive, but it's definitely true that a particular systems fosters specific modes of roleplaying and impedes others -- that there exist noteworthy differences not only in thematic content but in the way you interact with that content as you go from system to system. I think it has less to do with a particular system then the gamers themselves. If one player wants a deeply immersive intrigue driven campaign, while everyone else wants a powergamey chopamatic combat zone that one player is going to be disappointed. In any game. Really ,the only complaint to be accurately aimed at the d20 system is that it allows combat-driven stories at all. However it is still going to be up to the team as to the style of the game, and changing the game to disallow the rest of the teams wants to reflect this is only going to accomplish one thing; the team plays a game that will let them kill everything. And the holdout player is still going to be disappointed, until they join a team that wants to play a campaign that has similar interests.
CharlieRock 11-19-06, 09:43 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by CharlieRock And I'm thinking the problem is more the rest of the team wants to slice'n'dice , whilst SilvercatMoonpaw wants to RP. And the team isn't meshing well. Yup, that kind of thing basically kills a game almost no matter what else you do. Same could be said in reverse (though not heard quite as often here,LoL). If I want to play a samurai whose only interest is improving my swordplay and increasing my fame as a warrior, playing a campaign where I get to never draw my sword (or doing so has critically negative effects) is going to tick me off.
Vaelan 11-20-06, 12:32 AM	Contrary positions are already being argued rationally in this thread. I see blind insistence, which falls short of "being argued rationally". Just call me impractical to the point of impossibility I guess. I would, had you bothered to introduce sufficient evidence to support your assertion.
a_psh 11-20-06, 03:28 AM	Same could be said in reverse (though not heard quite as often here,LoL).They're both just part of a larger issue: any time the players want different things from the same game, there's going to be massive friction. I think it has less to do with a particular system then the gamers themselves. If one player wants a deeply immersive intrigue driven campaign, while everyone else wants a powergamey chopamatic combat zone that one player is going to be disappointed. In any game.Hmm... I think of the system as the final group member, in some ways. Just as all the players (I'm lumping GM in with "players" here, since I usually think of the GM as just another player anyway) bring something to the table, so does the system. Just as you expect to play a specific kind of game when you sit down, the system designers expected a specific kind of game when they wrote the product (Bob expects a swashbuckly kind of game, so he writes up a fun-loving pirate character; the game system was designed for action-oriented swashbuckly games, so it gives you rules for swinging on chandeliers). Just as players make compromises, so, too, can the system: you see this when people go about rewriting bits of it to suit their tastes. Maybe you're playing a fantasy RPG and Bob wants to be an awesome swashbuckly trickster-pirate, but the other players want a gritty militaristic feel, so he tables his idea and makes a hardened soldier instead. Maybe you're playing that high-seas adventure in D&D and the group adds some kind of "drama points" mechanic -- the system's bending just as much as Bob is bending when he decides to scrap his pirate idea. But there's only so far that Bob or the system will bend. Just as you can have friction with Bob, you can have friction with the system. You want gritty mercenary adventures, but the combat engine gives you slapstick. You want space opera, but all the gadgets in the rulebook have a hardcore cyberpunk feel. You want dragons, but the system only has rules that work for battles between roughly-man-sized creatures. You want to emphasize combat as a crucible of beliefs, but the system doesn't do anything but penalize you for entering battle. You want an action movie, but the game has "realistic" weapons stats, meaning that the majority of combat rapidly turns into suprise-round insta-kills with sinper rifles. Et cetera. There are plenty of ways the system can get in your way. Some of those ways aren't easily fixed (just like maybe Bob is be perfectly willing to play something other than an awesome pirate sometimes, but you'll absolutely never convince him to roleplay an elf princess because he just plain can't stand cross-gender play -- yeah, the analogy is getting tiresome, I know). Anyway, no matter what you do to it, some concepts and limitations are fundamentally entrenched in a system. Altering those requires massively altering the system... which is about as difficult and problematic forcing Bob to wear a dress. Any system issues are eclipsed by player issues, but you can have system issues even if there are no player issues involved. Regardless of how much your whole group is into it, it's a struggle to try to create "gritty realism" in a system where the book says that you can fall 200 feet and not die, for example. Just like it's a struggle to have a lot of fun tactical fights in a system with tons and tons of character-crippling critical hit/fumble charts with slow lookup times, a struggle to play amoral brigands in a system based entirely around being knights following a chivalric ideal, a struggle to meaningfully explore theme rather than just setting in a system that puts all the "storytelling" completely in the GM's hands, and a struggle to feel like a real human being rather than some kind of degraded animal when "playing" FATAL. ;)
a_psh 11-20-06, 03:37 AM	I see blind insistence, which falls short of "being argued rationally".Your very first post dismissed the idea as an impossible argument. Let's face it: system matters. The illusion that it doesn't comes from folks either playing too many D&D clones to realize that RPGs can actually have differences or being so used to roleplaying as something separate from mechanics -- the opposite of mechanics, the enemy of mechanics, this thing you do when you don't have any mechanics -- that they just plain ignore system any time they want to roleplay (which puts you into this annoying "roleplaying vs. combat" mindset in the first place, since combat involves mechanics and you've just gone and defined roleplaying as something that explicitly doesn't and can't).
CharlieRock 11-20-06, 08:21 AM	Hmm... I think of the system as the final group member, in some ways. Just as all the players (I'm lumping GM in with "players" here, since I usually think of the GM as just another player anyway) bring something to the table, so does the system. Just as you expect to play a specific kind of game when you sit down, the system designers expected a specific kind of game when they wrote the product (Bob expects a swashbuckly kind of game, so he writes up a fun-loving pirate character; the game system was designed for action-oriented swashbuckly games, so it gives you rules for swinging on chandeliers). Yeah. Especially if your playing a thematic game. If you wanted to build starships and explore blackholes, then 'Aliens the RPG' is wrong for you. If you wanted to play dark/hard-core sci-fi ('Cyberpunk') then jumping on 'Tenchi Muyo the RPG' was not the greatest of choices. Is D&D thematic? Oh, yeah! Its theme has broadened big time from inception. To reflect the varied stories available in its genre. D&D is not the all-encompassing d20 game though. There are d20 EveryGames being published. Its dang near the 21st century GURPS. Just as players make compromises, so, too, can the system: you see this when people go about rewriting bits of it to suit their tastes. Maybe you're playing a fantasy RPG and Bob wants to be an awesome swashbuckly trickster-pirate, but the other players want a gritty militaristic feel, so he tables his idea and makes a hardened soldier instead. Maybe you're playing that high-seas adventure in D&D and the group adds some kind of "drama points" mechanic -- the system's bending just as much as Bob is bending when he decides to scrap his pirate idea. To a large extant D&D can envelop a lot of ideas. Psionics (still don't use them), Mass-Combat, Pirates ,Nobles, Even monsters as PCs. 'Role-playing' hasn't been excluded. There are massive amounts of skills that will never get used by a traditional dungeon-crawler (unless it is a really creative dungeon,LoL). What are they there for? Non-combat gameplay. There are more pages on handling XP for non-combat encounters. Those parts were easier to me, then figuring out how many CRs to the ECL to the XP. I can list out more published articles on non-combat campaigns in Dragon, and still have to use a computer program to figure out my combat XP. Hard as it may be to imagine, a DM that has an easier time with deceit&intrigue then attack&damage. Some people have a lot of ideas about what other people should do with our game (yeah, 'OUR game'). Start writing them out. Publish them even. Monte Cook and Co. don't just write D&D stuff. They play it ,too. Sometimes for over ten hours at a go. I will tell you ,however, that if I have to wade through as many rules to haggle over the price of loot as it took me to get the loot, I'm going to be doing some snipping (and the Planes chapter of the DMG is going to have some company).
a_psh 11-20-06, 01:43 PM	Its theme has broadened big time from inception. To reflect the varied stories available in its genre. D&D is not the all-encompassing d20 game though. There are d20 EveryGames being published. Its dang near the 21st century GURPS.There are restrictions on how you tell a story rather than just what story you tell, however. Whether you play d20 this or d20 that, it still plays like d20. Just like GURPS. That's the big con that every "generic" RPG out there is trying to pull: they're trying to convince you that system doesn't influence or restrict the kinds of stories you can tell. They do this by equiating the basic character and essence of a story with its setting. With GURPS or D&D or Savage Worlds, you can tell a different story and put it in a different place, but the overall nature of that story doesn't vary much. It's like equating genre with setting. A western set in space is still a western. D&D is heroic fantasy. d20 Modern is heroic fantasy set in the modern day (what you could most readily call "action movie"). d20 Blue Rose (third-party), despite the tons of system changes they implemented, is still heroic fantasy set in a happy romantic fantasy kingdom. d20 BESM (also third-party) is a hodgepodge of anime tropes to choose from, but still plays like heroic fantasy. You can add elements and techniques from other genres, and you can port setting wholesale, but that doesn't change the basic kind of story you're telling. A D&D campaign about being detectives in Sharn is going to have elements of mystery to it, yes, but it's still a heroic fantasy at heart. Similarly, D&D in space, for example, no matter what you do to it, will always be much, much closer to space opera and not "hard s.f." (just look at d20 Future). There's definitely some wiggle room in terms of what you do in the genre (both Elric and LotR can be called heroic fantasy, after all), but you can't really jump genre without jumping system. ("Genre" may not be the best word for it, but I hope you get the idea.) My favorite RPG right now is essentially pretty close to being a heroic fantasy game, and yet the thematic concerns that went into the design were radically different from D&D's, so even that plays differently. What works in one system just doesn't work in the other, and no system works for all stories.
Sim_antix 11-20-06, 01:50 PM	I am going to have to call shenannigans. The system is just a system and you tell whatever kind of stories you want.
Solaris 11-20-06, 02:06 PM	Let's face it: system matters. The illusion that it doesn't comes from folks either playing too many D&D clones to realize that RPGs can actually have differences or being so used to roleplaying as something separate from mechanics -- the opposite of mechanics, the enemy of mechanics, this thing you do when you don't have any mechanics -- that they just plain ignore system any time they want to roleplay (which puts you into this annoying "roleplaying vs. combat" mindset in the first place, since combat involves mechanics and you've just gone and defined roleplaying as something that explicitly doesn't and can't). I've never played any D&D clones (if by that you mean other d20 System games, and not, say, Palladium or something). I grew up playing very many different roleplaying games, all with unique systems. I don't ignore system any time I roleplay -- it would make as much sense as ignoring the system any time I chessplay. Despite those points, however, I don't have a "roleplaying vs. combat" mindset, and I don't believe system is either a hindrance or an assistance to roleplaying.
a_psh 11-20-06, 03:20 PM	I've never played any D&D clones (if by that you mean other d20 System games, and not, say, Palladium or something).No, I mean 80s and 90s RPGs that tried strongly to emulate D&D. I don't recall enough about Palladium to say one way or the other specifically, but it definitely looks like a "D&D clone" based on a surface reading. I don't ignore system any time I roleplay -- it would make as much sense as ignoring the system any time I chessplay. Despite those points, however, I don't have a "roleplaying vs. combat" mindset, and I don't believe system is either a hindrance or an assistance to roleplaying.Err, read the salient line in my post again. I speak of ignoring system as what puts you into the stupid "roleplaying vs. combat" mentality, not not ignoring it, which is what you just said you do. So it would seem that you don't meet the prerequisites of the generalizaiton.
a_psh 11-20-06, 03:34 PM	I am going to have to call shenannigans. The system is just a system and you tell whatever kind of stories you want.If you're going to post a one-liner, make it one that at least addresses the argument in a pithy way. Take the same setting, characters, and basic plot structure and think about running it using D&D, Vampire (using Dark Ages Vampire or whatever it's called), Riddle of Steel, Shadow of Yesterday, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, Burning Wheel, GURPS, etc. Totally different in terms of thematic emphasis (or the potential lack thereof). You can't film a Dostoevksy story with action-movie physics and action-movie cinematographic techniques.
ALRUFF 11-20-06, 04:54 PM	Wow. The thread blossomed as much as I hoped it would. I want to take a moment to thank all of you who bolstered the debate with your impassioned points. It means a lot that you took the time to comment on my strange little question. I also want to apologize to all of the WoD players. It was my first system and has a special place in my heart. That being said, I completely flame it in this section. I really do like you all, just not your dice. My View My view is fairly simple, and was probably summed up in a much better way somewhere else on the thread. It is as follows: The GM is the paint, the Players are the brush, and the System is the canvas. Ridiculous, isn't it? However, here is the breakdown: - The GM supplies the flow of information, the vibrance, and the description. He or she has control over the color (theme) of the piece. - The Players (through the lens of character) shape the information to their liking, controlling where things go. However, they cannot inherently change the theme without some serious reworking. - The System operates as a framework and an enabler for the players. The Question The question (at its core) was whether or not the d20 system was truly an enabler, and the answer is yes. It allows you to perform all of the actions that a character might desire within the logical context of character concept and origin. I believe that power is all that any system can provide. Combat & Rewards The red herring emerged that combat power is somehow linked to roleplaying. Rewarding combat triumph with more combat expertise makes perfect sense to me. The more things you defeat in combat, the better you become at combat. Most things that you gain in combat are combat linked. Occasionally, you gain an odd point in Appraise, but hey, every system has its weirdness. As for roleplaying and combat, consider this rule of thumb: in combat, out of combat, the truth is that if your character motivates your actions, you are roleplaying. (For a more accurate reward system, see Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu [non-d20]. It only grants experience in skills that you use in the course of a game. The end of a game can be really fun as everyone rolls to see what experience they got in each skill used!) Situational Challenges Someone else brought the argument that combat challenges are the only challenges which grant power (XP). The question then becomes: what is their GM doing wrong? I personally assign every encounter (whether it be roleplay or combat) an experience value based upon the level of the characters. This is loosely based upon suggestions from d20 Modern as well as other systems. If each "struggle" (combat or roleplay) has an EL equal to the level of the characters, you will find that the PCs have a steady path to power, regardless of what events transpire in your game. And even if you spent your entire game at level one, could you not tell a compelling story? Isn't a compelling story what roleplaying is all about? Where did this fallacious argument of roleplaying must equal power come from? D&D vs. WoD: A Brief Comparison You know, I could go on forever about this, but I won't. Anyone who feels that the WoD encourages roleplay more than D&D would do well to talk to a WoD group and ask all of them how much combat prowess their characters have. I almost never hear this line: "Man, my Werewolf ROCKS at cooking." It's often "powers" this and "powers" that. "Big guns" this and "guns" that. WoD-ers have a lot of animosity for D&D players because of one thing: the super-goth WoD storyline. Vampire is "supposed" (by popular account) to play like Anne Rice. D&D is "supposed" (by those same idiots) to play like J.R.R. Tolkien. Is someone out there going to tell me that Rice has more literary merit than Tolkien? Just because WoD contains characters that can easily become mired in self-pity, that doesn't mean that it's a better system for roleplaying. Another question: What makes political pursuit more valid for roleplay than combat pursuit? White Wolf has included all sorts of dice rules for players who happen to be less charasimatic than their charming boy-vampire counterparts. Oftentimes, the same number of dice rolls hit the table, whether you're playing D&D or WoD. I have a lot of connotatively-loaded words in this section because my view is plain: WoD contains more non-combat because their combat system is inefficient and boring, as well as largely abstract. I say non-combat because "roleplaying" in this instance would be a misnomer. Story vs. Roleplaying Encouragement Would I go so far as to say that the WoD is an inferior system? Most definitely. It is defined by its story, a merit that I feel is the burden of the GM to provide. Without its story, WoD brings nothing to the table for me.
Sim_antix 11-20-06, 05:05 PM	Without its story, WoD brings nothing to the table for me. Word. But it is a decent story...
ALRUFF 11-20-06, 05:11 PM	Too bad I like to write... Without its story, WoD brings nothing to the table for me. Word. But it is a decent story...
CharlieRock 11-20-06, 10:12 PM	No, I mean 80s and 90s RPGs that tried strongly to emulate D&D. I don't recall enough about Palladium to say one way or the other specifically, but it definitely looks like a "D&D clone" based on a surface reading. Err, read the salient line in my post again. I speak of ignoring system as what puts you into the stupid "roleplaying vs. combat" mentality, not not ignoring it, which is what you just said you do. So it would seem that you don't meet the prerequisites of the generalizaiton. I would use the term 'D&D cousin' instead of 'clone' to describe the Palladium system. Sure, it uses 3d6 range for stats (this modifies with non-humans differently then d20, also), but there are more stats. And thuogh it uses d20 for combat, it uses d% for most everything else. And it has some features that were way ahead when introduced (dual-stack hit points, defense rolls, ablative armor). And, unlike real 'clone games' that died out, Palladium is still live and supported (currently at #3 behind WotC and WW). Just sos ya know, I had to reread that salient line ,like, three times. :confused: (finally got it :P)
a_psh 11-21-06, 01:17 AM	The question (at its core) was whether or not the d20 system was truly an enabler, and the answer is yes.That's an incomplete question. Any system that's not a pile of junk enables something. What does d20 in particular enable, however? What kind of games work and what kind of games don't? It allows you to perform all of the actions that a character might desire within the logical context of character concept and origin. I believe that power is all that any system can provide.I disagree. A system can do so much more for you than that. The mechanics it provides give the whole game a tone that just can't be ignored. System determines the overall feel and genre of a game: regardless of how much the GM tries to make the game sound "gritty" or "realistic" in his descriptions, if I can fall 100 feet and not die and do so reliably, my character is still an epic superhero with a sword. System has a big hand in how the group shares different kinds of creative authority: who gets to narrate what (this tends to be tacit rather than explicit in most), who gets content authority, who gets to start and end scenes. System just plain tells you what's important in a game and what isn't: if my character gets bonuses based on the narrative importance of an action and how much it's related to his desires and what he represents, I sure as heck can't ignore the personal significance of battle that The Club was talking about; if the system just lets me narrate in whatever equipment I want and gives it minimal stats, I sure as hell can't spend three hours shopping for things during the session, can I? Et cetera. As for roleplaying and combat, consider this rule of thumb: in combat, out of combat, the truth is that if your character motivates your actions, you are roleplaying.By that logic, if you're resolving combat on a fine-grained scale, your character has to motivate more than just your basic reasons for entering combat. So, as far as d20 goes, this point is up for debate... Can you consistently make actions that are principally guided by your view of your character in d20 combat? There are effectively two parts to this: 1. Can the range of actions that d20 combat offers actually represent something meaningful about the character performing them? 2. Are there other concerns that override roleplaying concerns when you are engaged in d20 combat? I'd have to say "yes" on 1, though very half-heartedly: if you're a fighter engaged in melee, most of the interesting stuff you do is really just narrating stuff about your demeanor and combat style over top of set of relatively simple actions you can perform. As for 2. Oh, boy... d20 combat is very strongly a minis wargame. You can throw out the minis and even the grid and it's still a minis wargame. Play it long enough and you can see what the optimal choices are 99% of the time. Unless the GM overrides the existing rules, there's a set of basic tricks that can get you through battle and most weird ideas generally fail. Roleplaying can certainly exist hand-in-hand with tactical thinking in d20 combat, but one is pretty much expendable and the other is not. So another "yes" here from me, though, once again, half-heartedly. So, my answer to the original question is basically this: So, hell yes, you can focus on roleplaying your character in D&D (duh). What your character is and what he does is inherently limited by system, however, which means that you're roleplaying a fantasy hero or, at best, a non-hero in a heroic-fantasy world. And, maybe as part of that "heroic fantasy" thing, the system never goes out of its way to make your character's personality or motivations important at all. Would I go so far as to say that the WoD is an inferior system? Most definitely. It is defined by its story, a merit that I feel is the burden of the GM to provide. Without its story, WoD brings nothing to the table for me.WoD as a system is inferior because it's not really defined by ANYTHING. At all. The combat engine is fairly simple and yet combat is still time-consuming because you're rolling for every attack. The stupid morality gauges (whether the old one or the new one based on virtues and vices) have all the same problems as alignment; you need to spend XP to buy up Humanity, but gaining XP has absolutely nothing to do with your moral outlook or humanity in the first place. The system rants and raves about cooperative storytelling and then strips the players of absolutely any kind of power -- even the power to define what their characters are about, really (note how the GM takes XP away for straying from your "character concept," which is whatever he thinks it is). Nothing in the Storyteller or Storytelling systems actually gives players a voice. As far as thematic or narrativist play goes, WoD is crap. Because the system is crap.
CharlieRock 11-21-06, 08:13 AM	There are effectively two parts to this: 1. Can the range of actions that d20 combat offers actually represent something meaningful about the character performing them? 2. Are there other concerns that override roleplaying concerns when you are engaged in d20 combat? I read a very interesting article in Dragon about how feats can bring shape to a characters (PC or NPC) personality. Comparing someone who uses Power Attack (and picks it in the first place) to another using Improved Critical. You have a heavy swinging 'put your back into it' melee type and a calculating, 'strike the weakest point' type. This can carry over into attitudes taken out of combat as well. A Power Attacker will likely balk at plans that call for sneaking through a window or other infiltration types, while the calculating Critical Hitter will love the opportunity. Even feats that do not reserve themselves solely to combat ,like Alertness, can show much about a character. With Alertness ,you can portray a shifty eyed ,nervous ,'can't stand still' type. When a concept is formed early in a characters progress, the choice of feats can magnify a cerebral concept into something that actually effects actions in-game. Other outside-of-tactical concerns during combat that reflect character can be ; staying back and shooting bolts when melee could be just (or more) effective ,quarter given when asked, using AoEs to spread confusion (a chaotically anarchistic's delight) when total suppression was available. Really, if your playing a character you just use the same old A-B-C technique because it has the most modifiers , your playing in-character ... provided your character is a by-the-book tactician. Edit: Also, to consider while role-playing in combat ; that it is stressful and certain people (military for one) have came up with the 'correct' way of handling these stressful situations regardless of natural inclination. So going with the biggest modifiers for every fight does not indicate one is not role-playing specifically. Add to that the 'I never knew you had it in you to do that' kind of adventurers that find courage only in the extreme stress of combat.
ALRUFF 11-21-06, 10:52 AM	System determines the overall feel and genre of a game: regardless of how much the GM tries to make the game sound "gritty" or "realistic" in his descriptions, if I can fall 100 feet and not die and do so reliably, my character is still an epic superhero with a sword. I can't bring myself to agree with your "100 foot" statement because the massive damage number varies for each campaign. As it is originally set in the books, massive damage is 50, a number that is roughly ten times the HP of a commoner. That means that you are ten times as lucky or hardy as a farmer, which isn't very "worldly." However, that variable is an obvious DM discretion, and ranges from 50 to 10 to Con. System has a big hand in how the group shares different kinds of creative authority: who gets to narrate what (this tends to be tacit rather than explicit in most), who gets content authority, who gets to start and end scenes. What system are you playing where the GM/ST isn't in charge of basically everything except character action? I would like proof of this assertion. System just plain tells you what's important in a game and what isn't: if my character gets bonuses based on the narrative importance of an action and how much it's related to his desires and what he represents, I sure as heck can't ignore the personal significance of battle that The Club was talking about... Why on earth should your character get a bonus based upon the narrative importance of an action? That's not the way it works in real life. If I was shot by a sniper while trying to get to my car, and I was bleeding to death, that doesn't give me a BONUS. For 90% of the people out there, they choke on stage during important events. Should they get a bonus there? Moreover, why should that be up to the GM or the system to add a bonus to your character rolls based upon your judgement of "narrative importance?" Wouldn't you be the one playing the character? Wouldn't you use, for example, an action point? ...if the system just lets me narrate in whatever equipment I want and gives it minimal stats, I sure as hell can't spend three hours shopping for things during the session, can I? Et cetera. If your GM lets you spend three hours shopping, that is the tone that he has set forth. I don't allow that crap in my game, and lo and behold, I don't run Monsters & Mallwalkers. I realize that you were setting an example, but so was I. The DM determines a lot about the flow of the game, and I don't think you're taking that dynamic into account. It sounds like your basic point is that the system determines the mood, and by extension, the quality of roleplay. My point is that the d20 System is so endlessly modifiable that you can create any setting within it. Deadlands, Spycraft, Ravenloft, Call of Cthulhu and Star Wars have all translated fairly well. If you can create a port of any setting, can you create any mood? I'm not convinced that I'm right, here, but I'm not convinced that you are, either.
a_psh 11-21-06, 02:10 PM	I read a very interesting article in Dragon about how feats can bring shape to a characters (PC or NPC) personality.Great post. This kind of focus on details and demeanor is definitely sufficient for roleplaying. I don't know what the OP's "strong roleplaying" quite means, however. If it's a focus on the narrative "stuff" of a character, then that's insufficient. If it's all about immersion, then that really depends on how much the group is able to suspend disbelief and how engaged they are during the crunchier bits of the game, like combat -- I think you've shown that it can definitely happen quite well, Charlie. So I think my "yeses" above should be a bit less half-heartedly than they sound.
CharlieRock 11-21-06, 02:28 PM	Credit Eric Cagle's article Feats of Personality in Dragon Magazine #299 (http://paizo.com/store/paizo/dragon/issues/2002/299) :cool: (they really ought to have a subscription slip in the core books :D)
LCD2YOU 11-21-06, 02:31 PM	Mechanics are secondary. Good players and a good DM make the roleplaying. The system is irrelevant to how well the players and DM actually roleplay.
a_psh 11-21-06, 03:45 PM	I can't bring myself to agree with your "100 foot" statement because the massive damage number varies for each campaign. As it is originally set in the books, massive damage is 50, a number that is roughly ten times the HP of a commoner. That means that you are ten times as lucky or hardy as a farmer, which isn't very "worldly." However, that variable is an obvious DM discretion, and ranges from 50 to 10 to Con.That's still just a low-DC Fort save. You're going to have to do some rather massive houseruling (more massive than the changes made to D&D to make d20 Modern or True20) to change the fact that at 15th level, you're pretty damn heroic. The alternative, of course, is not to play at 15th level. What system are you playing where the GM/ST isn't in charge of basically everything except character action? I would like proof of this assertion.Most of the innovative work in RPG design over the last five years or so has gone into systems that work this way in one way or another. Think about a plain ol' D&D game, even. Is the GM always narrating? Well, in most groups, this authority will pass from player to GM and make pretty rapidly. Sometimes you roll some dice, GM tells you you hit, the GM spends 10 seconds narrating what just happened, and you go on; sometimes, you roll some dice, the GM tells you you hit, and you spend 10 seconds narrating what happened. Most people don't even notice the difference unless the GM's just always squelching them when they try to talk. Similarly, your characters wander into town and say "Can we say my grandmother lives here?" Boom! You've just exerted setting authority. You say "I think it would be cool if my character became the last scion of his family" and, two sessions later, they all drop dead from an evil sorceror's curse. Plot authority. It's just that all this stuff is kinda limited because we keep telling ourselves the GM is god and only do it subconsciously. But that's not how it has to work. Here's one of my favorite examples, both of how all kinds of power can be shared and how mechanics really help with more than just task resolution... the story-building mechanics from Dead of Night. Dead of Night is a little RPG tailored to "campfire horror" stories. Not Vampire's angst-horror or CoC's Lovecraftian horror, but mostly old-fashioned shockers. How can the PCs have any control in a game that's all about surprises and shocks and never knowing what to expect? Shouldn't the GM be a puppetmaster/dictator and run the whole game using illusionist techniques to strip the players of choice? Nope. Instead, DoN gives us the following system... Your characters have a limited pool of "hit points" (where each point really is worth one full hit; I believe they're called Survival Points or whatever). Damage causes you to lose points. You can also spend them as an "action point" kind of mechanic. Or you can spend them to preempt the order of narration -- this last one is weird and I'm not quite familiar with how it works, so let's just ignore it. Every time you spend a point to make something happen, the GM gets a Tension Point (I think he also starts with five), like a floating pool of "action points". He can spend those to influence rolls, too. At the start of the game, the group collaborates to set up a system for how Tension Points should be spent (there's a big list of suggestions to help you out). For example, you could have a game based on the rule "GM doesn't spend any Tension Points until he gets 10 (then he can spend them freely after the total has hit 10 at least once); GM only uses Tension to disadvantage players, not to give them bonuses; GM must always spend Tension to penalize any hiding checks made by the players": without knowing anything about what the terrible monster is going to be, you know that there's going to be a slow buildup and then a relentless fury of horror, and that there is no escape. Great for a story where the PCs go snooping around a spooky house and then find a terrible and gorey demise at the hands of a chainsaw murderer or a ghost or a werewolf or something. Now if the group works together and makes this set, instead: "GM only spends Tension Points to help rolls; GM may spend Tension Points at any time; GM must spend Tension Points to help with all foraging-for-gear checks and any running-away checks where the consequences would otherwise kill a player." Going back to the above spooky house scenario, you've now made a horror story about being chased and struggling to survive rather than one of slow exploration followed by a rapid and vicious demise. Bring out the same old chainsaw murderer and watch as the PCs run away or try to thwart him with a gun they find in the basement. Or bring on some zombies or raptors instead. =) See how everybody gets to pitch in and control the pacing and plot even though the players are all still completely in the dark about what's actually going to happen in play? Why on earth should your character get a bonus based upon the narrative importance of an action?Because you're telling a story. Call it all fiction if you want, but our culture is littered with tales of people doing extraordinary things because they're sticking up for something they believe in. It's the basis of the very idea of heroism. "Heroes" don't just kick ass all over the place, they are driven by something: faith, love, a desire to defend their homeland, a belief in the righteousness of their cause, or even a deep hatred of someone or something. If that's the kind of story you want to tell, bring in mechanics to make it happen. That's not the way it works in real life.Real-world stories of heroism, though certainly we dress them up a bit, aren't just all made up. Belief and morale matter very much both in and out of battle, sometimes much more so than pure mechanical training (a lot of a soldiers' training is about morale and "fighting spirit" rather than just how to hit a guy here or shoot a guy there). If I was shot by a sniper while trying to get to my car, and I was bleeding to death, that doesn't give me a BONUS. For 90% of the people out there, they choke on stage during important events. Should they get a bonus there?If you're the protagonist of a story and the scene is about you rushing to warn the president of an assassination attempt, then HELL YES! If you're a hard-boiled detective who just brought down the biggest mafia family in the city, then it varies: are you surging heroically on, perhaps only to falter anyway a few second later, or is your character's story simply over, him lying there in a pool of his own blood with the name of the mysterious blonde on his lips? (Vincent Baker said that this begs a rather interesting question, namely "Who says your character gets to be a protagonist in the shared storyline rather than just a bit player?", but this is a bit beyond the basics of what we're laying out here.) But, well, here's the thing: a lot of good stories, particularly action-oriented ones, are about beating the odds. If you're playing an RPG to simulate "reality" and just hoping a good story will come out sometimes, you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time. That's the point of any kind of probability-skewing mechanic (e.g. action points) in the first place: you want to make those "beating the odds" stories actually happen in play. Moreover, why should that be up to the GM or the system to add a bonus to your character rolls based upon your judgement of "narrative importance?" Wouldn't you be the one playing the character?That's only if nothing's supported by rules. In a system actually designed to work this way, the GM does about as much judging as he does in D&D when you want to figure out whether you have line of effect to a target behind a low wall. To use Riddle of Steel as an example, because that's the one I'm most familiar with, you just have stuff like "Faith (Atenism)", "Destiny (become kind by his own hand)", "Drive (acquire power)", or "Passion (Love for Lady Artemesia)" written down right next to your ability scores on your character sheet. As long as you spend a minute or two making sure everyone gets the rules, it's pretty transparent when those do or do not kick in (and give you bonus dice to roll in a scene). You as a group define what kind of narrative keys are available for characters in the game. You as a player pick the keys you want for your character. There's pretty minimal GM oversight involved in actually using them in play (just a veto every once in a while if someone tries too hard to stretch the definitions you all agreed on, which is no different from the GM occasionally stepping in to tell you that the spell or combat maneuver you wanted to do just doesn't make any sense). Wouldn't you use, for example, an action point?Action points, karma points, drama points, &c. are a stockpiled mechanic. They give you limited control over fate. They're another kind of power-sharing mechanic. The kind of system I've presented above is more based on the idea that your capacity is based on the importance of a scene or situation rather than how many you have saved up. You could use one or both quite successfuly. But their function is different: you spend action points to briefly nudge the story in a direction you want, but the kind of thing described above is apply continuous pressure to direct the story somewhere without your deliberate intervention. The DM determines a lot about the flow of the game, and I don't think you're taking that dynamic into account.Mechanics can greatly help or hinder, though. See my Dead of Night example, above. It sounds like your basic point is that the system determines the mood, and by extension, the quality of roleplay.The character of roleplay, not the quality per se. If you can create a port of any setting, can you create any mood?Firefly is set in space. Yet Firefly is a Western. Firefly is a Western because it follows the stylistic conventions of a Western. System enforces certain stylistic convetions. Just changing the setting isn't necessarily sufficient to do anything you want, as those stylistic conventions are still there in the system.
nastynate 11-21-06, 04:47 PM	Mechanics are secondary. Mechanics are not secondary in the rules books, nor are they secondary in many games (as much as I wish that weren't true). They are secondary to some of us, but certainly not all of us. Good players and a good DM make the roleplaying. The system is irrelevant to how well the players and DM actually roleplay. How well you role-play yes, but how much no. D&D is like an action movie. Die hard was a fantastic action flik, but Bruce Willis was not going to win an Oscar for his role in it, because the structure and theme of the movie was more focused on heroics than acting. No matter how great Bruce Willis's acting skill may be (not that I think he's all that great mind you), his role in that movie was not going to be Oscar worthy. Even if you cast a phenominal actor and previous Oscar winner in that same role, he would not win an Oscar for that part. Different genres however, do support more immersive and dynamic roles (those Oscar winning roles), and different genres of RPGs with less focus on action, tend to naturally support more dynamic role-playing. Explosions and fireballs are cool, but they are not going to inspire good acting or role-playing, they're gonna blow things up. In other words, the more mechanical distractions in the game, the less we focus on role-playing. Counting squares on a grid, calculating stacking combat modifiers and multipliers, tracking spell durations and so forth, don't stop you from role-playing, but it does shift your focus away from it. That is simply undeniable fact...though I guess everyone who thinks it is deniable, can also do calculus and play chess while driving their cars and talking on their cell phones too. This doesn't mean, that we don't have immersive role-playing in between combat, but during combat the role-playing is significantly limited and dumbed down, by our shift away from thinking like the character into a mode when we think more like the player. I don't really see why this point is contested, its perfectly natural and has been a part of D&D from the very beginning. We did our most focused role-playing (not our best role-playing mind you) when we played House, Cowboys and Indians, and Cops and Robbers, long before we picked up our dice, character sheets, and rule books. These tools we now use don't actually enable anything (we did just fine without them when we were 5 years old), they simply mediate disputes by providing structure and limiting what we can do (to provide us with consistent recognizable themes and predictable results). They are much like morals, laws, and science are in the real world, boundaries within which we operate to foster mutual well-being, understanding, and cooperation. We don't need them to use our minds, but they are essential to working together cohesively. Unrelated Note: when using rocket science or taking the bar exam, how much of our brain is devoted to the task at hand, and how much is drifting away into the land of make-believe. The left brain and right brain don't really cooperate with one another all that well, and role-playing is a right brain activity, while D&D combat is a left brain activity. Science at work...combat does interfere with role-playing. -Peace-
a_psh 11-21-06, 05:06 PM	Mechanics are secondary. Good players and a good DM make the roleplaying. The system is irrelevant to how well the players and DM actually roleplay.A good chef can make a decent meal out of anything. But his masterworks come from picking just the right tools and ingredients to make exactly the dish he wants to serve up. You have to understand just what it is that any given system does before you can use it at its best. And all systems have their inherent benefits and limitations. It's about getting everything you can out of your game, not just making do.
CharlieRock 11-21-06, 05:29 PM	Different genres however, do support more immersive and dynamic roles (those Oscar winning roles), and different genres of RPGs with less focus on action, tend to naturally support more dynamic role-playing. Explosions and fireballs are cool, but they are not going to inspire good acting or role-playing, they're gonna blow things up. No. Dynamic role-players tend to support dynamic role-playing. Action-weak games just tend to weed out the munchkins. Does D&D allow munchkinism? Yes. But, it is also fair to say that it allows deep immersion role-playing as well. Who are the better RPGamers? Well, the ones who are having the most fun. Possibly, both. In other words, the more mechanical distractions in the game, the less we focus on role-playing. Counting squares on a grid, calculating stacking combat modifiers and multipliers, tracking spell durations and so forth, don't stop you from role-playing, but it does shift your focus away from it. That is simply undeniable fact...though I guess everyone who thinks it is deniable, can also do calculus and play chess while driving their cars and talking on their cell phones too. 1ed D&D had virtual laissez-free rules for role-playing. No diplomacy checks, 'morale rolls' only in combat or dire emergency, etc. (in fact, the 'basic' D&D has far fewer rules then D&D3.x altogether). So, does it allow better RPing then D&D3.x? According to your stated logic for 'rules vs. RPing' it would. This doesn't mean, that we don't have immersive role-playing in between combat, but during combat the role-playing is significantly limited and dumbed down, by our shift away from thinking like the character into a mode when we think more like the player. I don't really see why this point is contested, its perfectly natural and has been a part of D&D from the very beginning. Your still expected to stay IC for decisions in combat. You may know that you can win a fight, but if your character is cowardly ,your expected to run. Unrelated Note: when using rocket science or taking the bar exam, how much of our brain is devoted to the task at hand, and how much is drifting away into the land of make-believe. The left brain and right brain don't really cooperate with one another all that well, and role-playing is a right brain activity, while D&D combat is a left brain activity. Science at work...combat does interfere with role-playing. While looking at the dice numbers may be a mechanical process, imagining how those numbers translate into actions isn't. Pure imagination. Simple requirement for any RPG.
ALRUFF 11-21-06, 05:47 PM	In other words, the more mechanical distractions in the game, the less we focus on role-playing. Counting squares on a grid, calculating stacking combat modifiers and multipliers, tracking spell durations and so forth, don't stop you from role-playing, but it does shift your focus away from it. That is simply undeniable fact...though I guess everyone who thinks it is deniable, can also do calculus and play chess while driving their cars and talking on their cell phones too. I'm going to do something ridiculous here and bring up my Lord of the Rings example again. I'd like to think there was some pretty serious drama there. Couldn't that same drama work its way into a D&D game as well? You don't feel it's a disservice to the fantasy genres to compare them to Die Hard? I'd like to address the shared power issue proposed by a_psh. I've never really had the problems that you indicate in my game, so I'm going to have to recuse myself from this debate. When I GM, I let the players pretty much have at it. I provide a basic plot hook and I know where the story is going, but I only control my own NPCs. That is to say that most of the time, players do the narrating. I like the idea behind Dead of Night, though. It reminds me of Conspiracy of Shadows, a virtually diceless game. I think that the reason I don't get your points here is because I've got a tightly-knit group that I'm quite fond of. They love to roleplay, and we have a nice balance of wargamery and in-character interaction. However, the more I read of other folks' posts, the more I feel like we are not the norm, and that people just swing their swords because they can.
ALRUFF 11-21-06, 05:53 PM	Unrelated Note: when using rocket science or taking the bar exam, how much of our brain is devoted to the task at hand, and how much is drifting away into the land of make-believe. The left brain and right brain don't really cooperate with one another all that well, and role-playing is a right brain activity, while D&D combat is a left brain activity. Science at work...combat does interfere with role-playing. Haha! I think that you might get ripped a new one by some psych majors, but I see your point. Be that as it may, you've never drifted off during a test or a complicated task? Hell, I'm MORE susceptible to daydreaming when under pressure! Also, when I have a set of rules that back me up (for example: smiting), I feel MORE immersed. I feel like my character really CAN do what I want him to do. That way, when I make a relatively easy decision about how to handle a situation, I feel more in-character. Of course, you're talking to the guy who loves to play his alignment and almost never runs the neutral line. Combat rules for me have always been an extension of my character's persona.
CharlieRock 11-21-06, 05:55 PM	However, the more I read of other folks' posts, the more I feel like we are not the norm, and that people just swing their swords because they can. No. :nonono: We swing our swords because the babes like that. Ask MrsCharlie. :tie:
Sim_antix 11-21-06, 07:42 PM	No. :nonono: We swing our swords because the babes like that. Ask MrsCharlie. :tie: Its true. Every swing of a sword in history has been to impress some chick or another...
ALRUFF 11-22-06, 11:23 AM	No. :nonono: We swing our swords because the babes like that. Ask MrsCharlie. :tie: Love the emotocon there.