Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

pemerton said:

I missed that. Where is it?

Click to expand...

DM guidelines, first page, "Contests" at bottom of second column, 3rd paragraph. It is three sentences instead of the one I remembered:

When you call for a contest, keep in mind what's at stake. What are the intentions of each side? Use that intent to determine which abilities are involved in the contest and the consequencs of the contest.

Click to expand...

It's using stake, intention, and consequences in the plain English that makes them not stand out in this context, but I don't think the word choice is accidental.

TrippyHippy said:

The game doesn't need a system for social interaction. Y'know, um, role-play it.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. Why not roleplay combat also, and everything else for that matter? That way, all you need is some people together anywhere, and do it all in your heads?

This may work, but it is not really D&D and should not be confused as such, or any RPG.

Crazy Jerome said:

DM guidelines, first page, "Contests" at bottom of second column, 3rd paragraph.

<snip>

It's using stake, intention, and consequences in the plain English that makes them not stand out in this context, but I don't think the word choice is accidental.

Click to expand...

Thanks - and I agree that the word choice is almost certainly not accidental. (Of course, I can't XP you again yet . . .)

This makes me even more disapointed they didn't try and do something more interesting in setting up the Medusa in the Caves of Chaos.

Dice4Hire said:

This makes no sense. Why not roleplay combat also, and everything else for that matter? That way, all you need is some people together anywhere, and do it all in your heads?

This may work, but it is not really D&D and should not be confused as such, or any RPG.

Click to expand...

Have you ever played Amber? It's noteworthy in game design history as a RPG that didn't use dice, and did in fact role-play out combat scenes (with lots of advice about how to do it). It's based on Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles, which are great fantasy novels, and the RPG is considered something of a classic too. It's lots of fun to play, and really challenged the conventions of how people can roleplay.

Of course it's not D&D, but mainstream games have always needed to incorporate more than one style of gaming to be successful. There is a balance that needs to be struck between the tactical simulationary aspects of the game, and the free-form narrative. Traditionally, the combat aspects of D&D have been largely dominated by tactical gaming and dice-rolling (which is cool, btw), but the social aspects have historically been freeform.

So D&D, throughout most of it's history, has been without a social system and people have played and enjoyed it. It's false, therefore, to claim that it 'needs' a social interaction system. You can indeed just role-play it.

TrippyHippy said:

The game doesn't need a system for social interaction. Y'know, um, role-play it.

Click to expand...

This gets down to a very basic question of what an RPG is. Is it a game that models what a player's /character/ can do, or is it a game in which the player places /himself/ a role? If the former, yes, the game needs mechanical resolution systems to help determine what they character can achieve in a social situation. If a character is a 'silver tongued bard,' he'll do better in social situations than a character conceived and modeled as an 'uncouth barbarian.' In the latter case, there's no need for a system, regardless of the character, it's the ability of the player to convince the DM that matters in a social situation. So, if the player of the 'uncouth barbarian' happens to be much better at mediating a treaty negotiation (in the eyes of the DM) than the player of the 'silver tongued bard,' then the uncouth barbarian save the day at the negotiating table - as well as kicking ass on the battlefield.

Tony Vargas said:

This gets down to a very basic question of what an RPG is. Is it a game that models what a player's /character/ can do, or is it a game in which the player places /himself/ a role? If the former, yes, the game needs mechanical resolution systems to help determine what they character can achieve in a social situation. If a character is a 'silver tongued bard,' he'll do better in social situations than a character conceived and modeled as an 'uncouth barbarian.' In the latter case, there's no need for a system, regardless of the character, it's the ability of the player to convince the DM that matters in a social situation. So, if the player of the 'uncouth barbarian' happens to be much better at mediating a treaty negotiation (in the eyes of the DM) than the player of the 'silver tongued bard,' then the uncouth barbarian save the day at the negotiating table - as well as kicking ass on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

The definition of a RPG is a major point of difference between gamers.

When a player takes the character's role, what do what aspect of themselves do they replace with the character's? Does the player take on the character's...

natural ability? Then you need ability scores.

combat ability? Then you need combat rules.

skills and knowledge? Then you need a skill system.

social talent and mannerisms? Then you need a social system.

personality, motivation, and drives? Then you need a motivation/drive/traits system.

history? Then you need a background system

interesting tweaks on the way they do things? Then you need themes, schemes, and feats

fears, willpower and sanity? Then you need sanity rules.

friends, enemies, and relationships? Then you need a contact or relationship system

occupation and spending habits? Then you need a wealth system

honor reputation, and allegiance? Then you need honor/reputation/allegiance rules

corruption on their soul? Then you need a taint system

...

Tony Vargas said:

This gets down to a very basic question of what an RPG is. Is it a game that models what a player's /character/ can do, or is it a game in which the player places /himself/ a role? If the former, yes, the game needs mechanical resolution systems to help determine what they character can achieve in a social situation. If a character is a 'silver tongued bard,' he'll do better in social situations than a character conceived and modeled as an 'uncouth barbarian.' In the latter case, there's no need for a system, regardless of the character, it's the ability of the player to convince the DM that matters in a social situation. So, if the player of the 'uncouth barbarian' happens to be much better at mediating a treaty negotiation (in the eyes of the DM) than the player of the 'silver tongued bard,' then the uncouth barbarian save the day at the negotiating table - as well as kicking ass on the battlefield.

Click to expand...

This argument actually reminds me of the game play of Ars Magica, which had each character represented by numerically valued Personality Traits (along with their other stats). So, a character might have 'Silver-tongued +3' as a trait, or 'Uncouth -2" for example.

The weird thing is, even though PCs had these traits, the trait mechanics of the game only operated for NPCs. It was a 'troupe' style game that had players each playing a Wizard (or high profile Companion), while the whole group shared a group of henchmen (collectively called 'Grogs'). The Trait mechanics were rolled to see how these Grogs reacted to events or instructions (along with the same mechanics being used for regular NPCs). The traits for the Wizards and Companions were explicitly meant to be used for roleplaying 'guides' only - they were just part of the profile to allow you to get into character easily.

I actually think there has been something of a generational shift in the last 10 years, broadly in the wake of 'Indie' games, where there is now an expectation of mechanical guidance through specified aspects of play in order to meet a gaming objective. Previous generations cared more about freeform simplicity and immersion in narrative, and even more previous generations gave greater expediency to realistic simulation.

Yes this is similar to GNS theory, with the critical difference being that I don't think it is a hallmark of good design to only cater for one style or another. I actually think the D&D game is big enough to flexibly allow for all styles and tastes - even if it takes 'advanced' optional supplements to achieve it. This, I hope, is what can be achieved from 5e.

TrippyHippy said:

Yes this is similar to GNS theory, with the critical difference being that I don't think it is a hallmark of good design to only cater for one style or another. I actually think the D&D game is big enough to flexibly allow for all styles and tastes - even if it takes 'advanced' optional supplements to achieve it.

Click to expand...

It's even easier than that. You just provide a mechanical resolution system for those who want to resolve social interaction based on the character. Those who want to use player RP as a resolution mechanic simply throw it out.

Tony Vargas said:

It's even easier than that. You just provide a mechanical resolution system for those who want to resolve social interaction based on the character. Those who want to use player RP as a resolution mechanic simply throw it out.

Click to expand...

Well, the major issue with that is that gamers can feel constricted by the rules that are presented - indeed it can be a source of conflict if one person wants to use the rules and another doesn't.

What I want is to change the format of the game, so that there is a 'basic' D&D game that, while being entirely self contained and complete to run as is, can be immediately supplemented by a range of DMs guides that are specific to a particular gaming style.

So, rather than having a hodgepodge of 'advice' contained in a single Dungeon Master's Guide, you get a DM's guide for running the game with lots of clear mechanical resolutions, and another one for running the game freeform, and so on.

These books need not be mutually exclusive, and gaming groups can pick and choose their own approach. However, by doing things in this way, the designers are effectively saying there isn't 'one true way' of playing the game and effectively building flexibility into the game design.