Possible Extra RP Rules - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mestewart3 Dec 07, 2011 7:08:41	So one of the common complaints about 4e D&D right alongside overly long combat time is that their is a complete lack of rules concerning RP. The concept of RP rules is in fact a major point of contension between fans and non-fans. Fans like that their RP is left entierly to them without rules mucking them up and limiting them in how they play their character. Non-fans bemoan the lack of clear rewards for RPing and the lack of possibly engaging prompts that some basic RP rules could give to the game. I wonder is there any possibility of good RP rules? What rules would you like to see if D&D had RP rules? If there are no good ways of implementing D&D RP 'rules' why? What are the things about RP rules that you cannot stand? I myself am a huge fan of the Fate System. I play both the Dresden Files RPG and Spirit of the Century. For a while now I have been thinking about lifting the concept of Aspects and Fate Points from the Fate System and implementing them in some style to D&D. www.evilhat.com/spirit/sotc-content-prev... the Aspects and Fate Points sections of this preview describe the concepts pretty well. I'm thinking something like having an aspect for your race and one for your class, a background aspect and a current aspect. So four aspects and four fate points at level one. Also get an extra aspect upon reaching Paragon and another at Epic. At each level you can retrain one aspect. Important Monsters and NPC's could also have aspects and fate points, this gives them a little bit more versatility in opposing skill challenges and things like that as well as giving players something more to work with. Insight could be used to figure out what the enemy NPC's aspects are. In D&D terms I am thinking that Fate Points could be used to Tag an aspect to add +2 to a skill/ability check or a saving throw so long as the check makes sense. Getting a +2 on your streetwise check to track down a paticular fence with your I know a guy who knows a guy Aspect. Make minor declerations about the scene. Like suddenly noticing the small vial of acid on the wizards workbench because, I worked for a mad wizard once. Tag an NPC's aspect to give them a -2 to one skill/ability check or a saving throw. the Ambasador's Hot temper keeps him from eloquently stating his point in front of the duke after your character goads him into a fit. I specificaly left out combat specific bonuses like defenses and attacks because Combat already has enough of a frame work that it doesn't really need more in my opinion. I have seen first hand how aspects and fate points can add to a game and would love to see what sort of wacky stuff comes up in a D&D game.
#2 pluisjen Dec 07, 2011 7:16:12	One problem I see with roleplaying rules is that not everyone is as good, nor as interested, in good roleplaying. I don't want to penalise the people at my table who are there to socialise and kill orcs instead of being there to explore the personality of their character, Sir Vorpal von Hackenslash. (Yes, I'm totally stealing that name because it's brilliant) So if there'd be a system like this, I'd rather it'd give out roleplaying bonusses to roleplayers over giving out regular mechanical bonusses for it. Other then that; it could work. Aspects, Virtues, Vices, Motivations, Goals, all of that stuff can be set up and used. And can be rewarded with roleplaying bonusses (titles, land, non-functional items, reputation, etc) when completed. I really wouldn't mind that.
#3 Arcane_Guyver Dec 07, 2011 7:36:28	I rather like this idea. You can bolt this subsystem on with little effort, and the one time I did play Spirit of the Century the Aspects/Fate Points injected some life into things.
#4 kalontas Dec 07, 2011 7:48:52	The only RP rules I would support would be something very basic - e.g. just describing your character's personality in a few adjectives and rewarding players for behaving according to those. Perhaps some motivations and objectives, but not everyone has those clear from the very beginning. I'm doing that anyway (rewarding people for behaving in accordance with their stated personality), so it wouldn't really change much for me. Any rules stricter than that (like, rolling to determine what personality traits you can take) would me too much. I don't want dice mucking my personality.
#5 ciaran Dec 07, 2011 9:00:07	I could a few good RP encounters - long or short - as one combat encounter.
#6 AbdulAlhazred Dec 07, 2011 9:40:52	It is certainly true that 4e doesn't have this kind of mechanical RP rules. No edition of D&D ever has. I'd note that I don't think this is what the "there's no RP rules in 4e" crowd is complaining about. They're complaining about the lack of 'CraPPer' skills in 4e. Given that 4e has backgrounds and practices and whatnot at this point it seems more like a proxy for "4e isn't 3.5" kind of complaints. That being said there is of course always the possibility of adding actual mechanical 'RP rules' to most any game, including 4e. Seems to me like your suggested way of doing it is the fairly straightforward sort of implementation. It would certainly work. I think it rather contravenes a number of the unspoken cultural assumptions of D&D, mainly that the players have autonomy in how they run their characters. OTOH you could argue that up to 4e alignment kind of stepped on that anyway, at least in some games. I don't really have anything against the concept, there's really nothing there to criticize. I don't personally find it a lack in my games, and there are some minor downsides to this sort of thing. The main one being you can sort of box yourself into a character concept that is hard to grow out of. Retraining can work for you there, but then there are a lot of character 'aspects' that it doesn't make sense to be able to retrain (well, its a magical world, you COULD invent reasons why my greedy bastard of a dwarf suddenly became generous, but it feels like it somewhat undermines the value of the concept). Overall it seems like a good 'third party' kind of extension to the game. A decent write up with guidelines based on experience doing it in play would probably be pretty useful to at least some people. As a core part of D&D rules? I'm not so sure. I think it would certainly be unpopular with as many people as would like it. There could be some kind of optional rules for it, but there could be infinite optional rules. You'd have to advance a convincing argument for why this particular optional rule would be one that is more desirable than other ones. It might be a tough sell.
#7 Bohrdumb Dec 07, 2011 10:04:53	I will usually reward the entire group for good roleplaying by one person. It puts the spotlight on them and encourages other players to follow suit.
#8 edwin_su Dec 07, 2011 10:24:44	the way i tend to reward nice roleplay is as folows. if players initiate roleplay that is not part of what I planned as an encounter I just decide if i count it as an encounter of easy er non challange encounter ( non challange encounter does count as en encounter for gaining milestones and action points but does not reward xp)
#9 JRedGiant1 Dec 07, 2011 10:44:21	I really like the Fate System. (Doesn't hurt that I really love the Harry Dresden novels.) I think it would be too complicated to tack on to the official, RAW game, but I would love to see a package of house rules put together that groups could tack on to their own games. Something to consider is that in Dresden, your inherent power is balanced by your refresh score. So a Karrin Murphy has a much higher refresh, and more starting fate points, than Harry Dresden does. Would a 4E system start all characters with the same refresh? Should the refresh cost be spelled out in some way? Or should DM's have the latitude to give the cheese-weasel-of doom characters a low or zero refresh cost, while a less optimized character might have a higher refresh? Personally, I see this as a home game only package, and I think the DM should be able to set refresh at his discretion. I also think that the seven aspects a Fate character has (at least in Dresden RPG - I have never had the chance to look over Spirit of the Century) is too many for 4E - maybe tone it down to 5 or even 3. The game is complex enough.
#10 Garthanos Dec 07, 2011 10:50:41	I also think that the seven aspects a Fate character has (at least in Dresden RPG - I have never had the chance to look over Spirit of the Century) is too many for 4E - maybe tone it down to 5 or even 3. The game is complex enough. Aspects take on some central definitions of a characters abilities in the Fate games so the number is required they dont have builds and paragon paths and themes. Aspects are those for there game.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

mestewart3

Dec 07, 2011 7:08:41

So one of the common complaints about 4e D&D right alongside overly long combat time is that their is a complete lack of rules concerning RP. The concept of RP rules is in fact a major point of contension between fans and non-fans. Fans like that their RP is left entierly to them without rules mucking them up and limiting them in how they play their character. Non-fans bemoan the lack of clear rewards for RPing and the lack of possibly engaging prompts that some basic RP rules could give to the game.

I wonder is there any possibility of good RP rules? What rules would you like to see if D&D had RP rules? If there are no good ways of implementing D&D RP 'rules' why? What are the things about RP rules that you cannot stand?

I myself am a huge fan of the Fate System. I play both the Dresden Files RPG and Spirit of the Century. For a while now I have been thinking about lifting the concept of Aspects and Fate Points from the Fate System and implementing them in some style to D&D.
www.evilhat.com/spirit/sotc-content-prev... the Aspects and Fate Points sections of this preview describe the concepts pretty well.

I'm thinking something like having an aspect for your race and one for your class, a background aspect and a current aspect. So four aspects and four fate points at level one. Also get an extra aspect upon reaching Paragon and another at Epic. At each level you can retrain one aspect.

Important Monsters and NPC's could also have aspects and fate points, this gives them a little bit more versatility in opposing skill challenges and things like that as well as giving players something more to work with. Insight could be used to figure out what the enemy NPC's aspects are.

In D&D terms I am thinking that Fate Points could be used to

Tag an aspect to add +2 to a skill/ability check or a saving throw so long as the check makes sense. Getting a +2 on your streetwise check to track down a paticular fence with your I know a guy who knows a guy Aspect.

Make minor declerations about the scene. Like suddenly noticing the small vial of acid on the wizards workbench because, I worked for a mad wizard once.

Tag an NPC's aspect to give them a -2 to one skill/ability check or a saving throw. the Ambasador's Hot temper keeps him from eloquently stating his point in front of the duke after your character goads him into a fit.

I specificaly left out combat specific bonuses like defenses and attacks because Combat already has enough of a frame work that it doesn't really need more in my opinion.

I have seen first hand how aspects and fate points can add to a game and would love to see what sort of wacky stuff comes up in a D&D game.

pluisjen

Dec 07, 2011 7:16:12

One problem I see with roleplaying rules is that not everyone is as good, nor as interested, in good roleplaying. I don't want to penalise the people at my table who are there to socialise and kill orcs instead of being there to explore the personality of their character, Sir Vorpal von Hackenslash. (Yes, I'm totally stealing that name because it's brilliant)

So if there'd be a system like this, I'd rather it'd give out roleplaying bonusses to roleplayers over giving out regular mechanical bonusses for it.

Other then that; it could work. Aspects, Virtues, Vices, Motivations, Goals, all of that stuff can be set up and used. And can be rewarded with roleplaying bonusses (titles, land, non-functional items, reputation, etc) when completed. I really wouldn't mind that.

Arcane_Guyver

Dec 07, 2011 7:36:28

I rather like this idea. You can bolt this subsystem on with little effort, and the one time I did play Spirit of the Century the Aspects/Fate Points injected some life into things.

kalontas

Dec 07, 2011 7:48:52

The only RP rules I would support would be something very basic - e.g. just describing your character's personality in a few adjectives and rewarding players for behaving according to those. Perhaps some motivations and objectives, but not everyone has those clear from the very beginning. I'm doing that anyway (rewarding people for behaving in accordance with their stated personality), so it wouldn't really change much for me.

Any rules stricter than that (like, rolling to determine what personality traits you can take) would me too much. I don't want dice mucking my personality.

ciaran

Dec 07, 2011 9:00:07

I could a few good RP encounters - long or short - as one combat encounter.

AbdulAlhazred

Dec 07, 2011 9:40:52

It is certainly true that 4e doesn't have this kind of mechanical RP rules. No edition of D&D ever has. I'd note that I don't think this is what the "there's no RP rules in 4e" crowd is complaining about. They're complaining about the lack of 'CraPPer' skills in 4e. Given that 4e has backgrounds and practices and whatnot at this point it seems more like a proxy for "4e isn't 3.5" kind of complaints.

That being said there is of course always the possibility of adding actual mechanical 'RP rules' to most any game, including 4e. Seems to me like your suggested way of doing it is the fairly straightforward sort of implementation. It would certainly work. I think it rather contravenes a number of the unspoken cultural assumptions of D&D, mainly that the players have autonomy in how they run their characters. OTOH you could argue that up to 4e alignment kind of stepped on that anyway, at least in some games. I don't really have anything against the concept, there's really nothing there to criticize. I don't personally find it a lack in my games, and there are some minor downsides to this sort of thing. The main one being you can sort of box yourself into a character concept that is hard to grow out of. Retraining can work for you there, but then there are a lot of character 'aspects' that it doesn't make sense to be able to retrain (well, its a magical world, you COULD invent reasons why my greedy bastard of a dwarf suddenly became generous, but it feels like it somewhat undermines the value of the concept).

Overall it seems like a good 'third party' kind of extension to the game. A decent write up with guidelines based on experience doing it in play would probably be pretty useful to at least some people. As a core part of D&D rules? I'm not so sure. I think it would certainly be unpopular with as many people as would like it. There could be some kind of optional rules for it, but there could be infinite optional rules. You'd have to advance a convincing argument for why this particular optional rule would be one that is more desirable than other ones. It might be a tough sell.

Bohrdumb

Dec 07, 2011 10:04:53

I will usually reward the entire group for good roleplaying by one person. It puts the spotlight on them and encourages other players to follow suit.

edwin_su

Dec 07, 2011 10:24:44

the way i tend to reward nice roleplay is as folows.
if players initiate roleplay that is not part of what I planned as an encounter

I just decide if i count it as an encounter of easy er non challange encounter
( non challange encounter does count as en encounter for gaining milestones and action points but does not reward xp)

JRedGiant1

Dec 07, 2011 10:44:21

I really like the Fate System. (Doesn't hurt that I really love the Harry Dresden novels.) I think it would be too complicated to tack on to the official, RAW game, but I would love to see a package of house rules put together that groups could tack on to their own games.

Something to consider is that in Dresden, your inherent power is balanced by your refresh score. So a Karrin Murphy has a much higher refresh, and more starting fate points, than Harry Dresden does. Would a 4E system start all characters with the same refresh? Should the refresh cost be spelled out in some way? Or should DM's have the latitude to give the cheese-weasel-of doom characters a low or zero refresh cost, while a less optimized character might have a higher refresh?

Personally, I see this as a home game only package, and I think the DM should be able to set refresh at his discretion.

I also think that the seven aspects a Fate character has (at least in Dresden RPG - I have never had the chance to look over Spirit of the Century) is too many for 4E - maybe tone it down to 5 or even 3. The game is complex enough.

#10

Garthanos

Dec 07, 2011 10:50:41

I also think that the seven aspects a Fate character has (at least in Dresden RPG - I have never had the chance to look over Spirit of the Century) is too many for 4E - maybe tone it down to 5 or even 3. The game is complex enough.

Aspects take on some central definitions of a characters abilities in the Fate games so the number is required they dont have builds and paragon paths and themes. Aspects are those for there game.