Testament said:
Ah, so killing the EVIL monsters and taking their stuff. Gotcha.
Funny. Why be so diminutive about D&D. It's a great game. You don't have to discount it. The philosophy your repeating came from a community of people who bitterly hate the game. Would you be so dismissive about life by saying it's only about staying alive?
Does roleplay need rules?
Nope, the DM needs rules to make a persistently believable world. The players don't need rules at all.
How does a system encourage roleplaying in terms of character interaction?
The ones I like simply get out of the way and are best thought of as "the way the world works" instead of mechanics. Others are metagamey and tend to be situational setups. For instance, many indie games are single situations for players to solve in their own way. Other kinds of roleplaying games, like Model U.N., have different ends, but preset goals for all or particular individuals.
As you know, a combat system isn't required for an RPG. It's just needed for ones where combat might happen. The current 4e rules are poorly designed for use as an RPG-combat system because they require one to stop roleplaying to play it. That it also happens to be the majority of the rules of 4E bodes ill for the game as a whole.
Creating rules for it, more often than not, just leads back to the hideous argument about rules DISCOURAGING roleplaying (Diplomacy skill, I'm looking at you again...)
Read my examples above again. Diplomacy isn't required for D&D, it's a 3.x thing and sucky IMO. A basic character reaction roll modified by a DM judging your performance works a ton better for my games. (yes, you need to trust your DM)
You have got to be kidding me. Dice or any kind of physical object at that point as an action resolution mechanic at that point are badwrongfun are they, since they remove you from behaving in character? See, I can be a reductionist too.
Dude, players rolling dice are making a choice in character to attempt something. The actual random result of the dice is for the DM. If dice aren't cool for you, then the DM can roll for you. (or LARPS which don't use player seen conflict resolution)
That's why there's a GM last time I checked, to change the flow and course of things. And if an adventure isn't supposed to provide encounters, then what is it supposed to do? Last time I checked, a dungeon of any kind is an adventure flowchart designed for the exclusive purpose of funnelling players into the required area/events.
Only the railroading dungeon designs which have become popular in the last 10 years or so. Most traditional dungeons are intertwining mazes of tricks, traps, monsters, and treasure. And the goals are decided upon by the players to give them more freedom. This isn't an edition problem though. Just lousy adventure design by Wizards. Goodman does fairly well if you're looking to buy.
I have taken a look at it, indeed I ran it under 1E rules (thank god I know some old gamers who own the relevant books) and made my players sign a waiver not to be angry at me or hurt me when they got killed again.
In terms of design its a good example of using non-combat challenges, and that's about it. I fail to see how its central to the core philosophy of D&D though, when in terms of implementation of that design its a steaming pile of highly radioactive, sarin-gas emitting feces. Indeed, the prospect of it EVER being central scares me and makes me glad I started with 3E. The sheer arbitrary nature of the encounters offends me in so many ways as both a player and a GM that I'm bewildered as to how anyone could possibly think it ever was a good adventure. You chose B in this situation out of A-Q? You're dead. You stood on tile 4 of 287? Dead, and so is he.
It's a good example of what is D&D because it forces players to think outside of the box to win. They can't kick in the door and expect an adventure to be suitably easy to beat with a couple of swings. Heck, the game gets extraordinarily dull if you play that way IMO. It's just hack and slash. It's all the dozens of ways each of those trap-like situations could be solved. Or sidestepped. Or utilized to remove another trap. Or reveal through design a clue about another encounter. It's a difficult read if you aren't thinking how to beat it or that each is like a riddle in it's way with more than one answer. It's better to see veterans attempt it. If you just read it without seeing the challenges or how they can be beaten, it looks like an arbitrary meatgrinder. Which it's not. It can be beat with 1st level PCs. (though you really can't resort to violence then)
It really was poor timing to publish so early though. Too hard of a riddle-like adventure too early.
But they've brought riddles back in 4e. That's good!
Mallus said:
1) Which ones, and are any of them earlier editions of D&D, because my first thought was "Pendragon?"
2) What's your (concise) definition of RP?
1. By which ones I mean pretty much all of the ones ever published under the name roleplaying game. But to be honest I don't include computer games calling themselves RPGs. You're call really. To me it's more of an RPG than any of those.
2. Never really thought about it. A game that has roleplaying as its #1 priority? That would work for me. Though I think D&D traditionally has teambuilding as it's #1 priority, but as such brings it about by placing folks in-character in situations where they have to work as a team or lose. I think winning and losing is a big part of it where normal roleplaying games don't really need that. IMO winning and losing is one of the things at D&D's heart.
