The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[mhacdebhandia]

how about a "Camp Follower" as well. one of my favorite careers from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Forked from a thread about sexism in D&D and on EN World. Exhibit A . . .

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is the point. This is what I'm talking about. There are plenty of things to do that don't involve slaying the dragon that are still arduous, challenging, taxing, risky, and scary. I (and my wife) don't expect the game to become the straw man of endless tea. I'm talking about a world in which combat isn't the main thing, it's just one thing out of a myriad.

Everything should be as important as combat is in 4e.

Which means rules, options, differences, roles, and involvement, not DM Fiat and weak skills and skill challenges.

 

[Hairfoot]

I note that "developing a game format for players who aren't big on combat" has become "running tea parties" and "decorating of residences, the aquisition of jewelry and keepsakes, the forming of meaningful relationships with the local baker who makes that incredible spice bread that goes so good with pat of butter and a glass of milk".

And people wonder why RP game culture is seen as small-minded, sexist and exclusive!

It's one thing to say that non-combatants aren't well served by RPGs (even if by "RPG", most posters just mean 4E), and another to claim that the alternative to hack 'n slash is boring, prosaic housekeeping.

 

[Mallus]

Which means rules, options, differences, roles, and involvement, not DM Fiat and weak skills and skill challenges.

KM, that entails either a lot of rules or a lot of abstraction. There's a wonderful and compact elegance to using DM Fiat as the cornerstone of your game's design.

Are there examples of simple systems that cover, well, everything characters might get themselves into (at a level of detail that allows for interesting tactical choices)?

tangent: skills in 4e aren't weak, compared to the previous edition (were you talking about 4e skills?). Each one is useful in more situations, and since they receive far less competition from magic, they become the primary method of affecting chance on the game environment.

 

[Jack7]

one of my favorite careers from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

I'd like to make a funny remark, but, to tell ya the truth, I've never played that game and so I don't know if what I wanted to say would be true or not.

I did look it up on the web though and found these things interesting. Assuming they are true, one never knows with internet sources.

One of the most notable features of every version of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is the career system. Characters advance by entering a series of 'Careers' that provide access to a series of new or improved skills, and bonuses to attributes (called 'advances'). The menu of careers available to characters reflects the late medieval/early Renaissance setting of the Old World. Basic careers are those that might be filled by any individual in Old World society with a modest amount of training or instruction. Advanced careers require greater preparation and training, and, in version two particularly, are often more appropriate for the lifestyle of an active adventurer. The career system gives both an idea of what a character might have been doing before embarking on a career as an adventurer (working as a baker, night watchman, rat catcher, or farmer), and how they changed and developed through their career (becoming a mercenary, explorer, ship's captain, etc.).

Combat in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay also descends from the system used for large-scale miniature combat, making it substantially more deadly than the combat featured in many other systems (Dungeons & Dragons being the most common comparison). Most human-level creatures and characters can absorb only one or two hits without receiving a serious injury in the form of a 'Critical Hit' that may instantly kill, cripple, or maim a character permanently. There are no regeneration or resurrection powers in WFRP and only limited healing options; 'Fate Points', representing a character's fate or destiny, provide a limited number of opportunities to avoid crippling or killing results.

What I found intriguing for what has already been discussed in this thread though was the idea of careers (as an idea separate from profession or "class".) That could be very useful in regards to developing either a Lady or a Gentleman.

I did get the New Argonauts though. I'm gonna hav'ta study it now to see what it says.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, I would like to note the distinction between a system in which you can do romance plots, and a system that actually has a mechanic for the romance itself. I don't think anyone who wants to roleplay romance will at all be satisfied by "Roll a die, check the chart... and Yes! He accepts your token for the joust!"

My experience says otherwise. I know D&D has sort of enshrined this idea, but in my experience, I've found it to be a complete myth.

The base idea of mechanics for romance is not a bad idea, any more than the base idea of mechanics for combat is a bad idea. They're both conflicts, they both involve conflict resolution, and there should be some way that the player's character can influence the resolution of that conflict.

The key to it is having player input. If the player has unique and special romantic abilities that can be used to overcome that challenge -- and if the game rewards those romantic pursuits (in the form of XP, or treasure, or whatever) -- it can be as involved and interesting as a fight.

One thing I'm sure no player really wants to do is just constantly ask the DM "Can I do this?", or to resolve something important with a single die roll that everyone has an even chance on.

It would be like running combat based on your descriptions of your attacks, or on rolling a d20 and having anyone who rolled below a 10 die. It's not very satisfying.

Add diversity. Add player input. Add the elements of rising action (and reward) to this conflict resolution, and you'll find that people are into playing a game that lets them fall in love as much as they are into playing a game that lets them kill monsters.

Mechanics are at the core of the experience. Without robust mechanical support, you've got random chance or DM fiat, neither of which encourage much player input by themselves.

Some people might not want it; some people might WANT a game where their own powers of talking help them talk to NPC's, just as some players prefer a game where their own powers of puzzle-solving help them solve puzzles, and their own powers of sword-fighting help them sword-fight.

Sorry if it sounds like kind of a rant, but the idea that "you don't need mechanics for role-playing" is pretty deeply ingrained in the D&D community, though it doesn't seem to apply to the broader table top RPG community at all, and the point is one I've argued kind of a lot.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

Forked from a thread about sexism in D&D and on EN World. Exhibit A . . .

Actually I was making a point... Creating new classes aside from existing ones is IMHO rather patronizing. And that friends, is the quickest way to scare off female players. These things should be roleplaying considerations not actual classes.

The Camp Follower career in WFRP is not a female specific career nor is it about sex. While yes, you could play Chloe the One-legged Camp Follower; You could easily play Helga the old washerwoman or Johann the guy who sets up tents or cuts and gathers wood. Armies used to have almost the same numbers of civilian hangers on (camp followers) that dealt with a wide veriety of mundane tasks and support roles that eased the burden of the soldiers. they weren't all whores...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry if it sounds like kind of a rant, but the idea that "you don't need mechanics for role-playing" is pretty deeply ingrained in the D&D community, though it doesn't seem to apply to the broader table top RPG community at all, and the point is one I've argued kind of a lot.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. Ultimiately, I think it is a role-playing game. I want to play a game. Pretending to be an elf is an important part of this game, but I am pretending by getting a +2 to Dexterity and Wisdom and a +2 to Perception and Nature skill checks. There is a rule telling me that I am playing the Elf.

I play a paladin in one of our 4E games. Actually, he is a Fighter with two multiclass feats in Cleric. (He was a "real" Paladin in the 3E Game). I still use mechanics to represent the fact that I am a "holy warrior".

So, if romance, intrigue, guilds, fortress management are supposed to be an important part of the roleplaying experience, they should also have a mechanical representation.

For me, this also means it needs a certain degree of complexity. A single skill check is unsatisfying, there should be a decision making process involved, risks & rewards. Combat (a single one or a series of them) delivers that in spades. I think skill challenges* can also create some of that.


*) I notice that a lot of "new" skill challenges add limits and variations, like everyone has to contribute, or you can use a skill only a limited number of times, which forces you to make choices. That already adds some complexity, I think methods of expanding or losing opportunities to use skills might also be useful. For example, if you fail your first Bluff Check, you can no longer use the skill at all, but if you succeed at a particular knowledge check, you can open up uses for Diplomacy.

 

[Umbran]

Forked from a thread about sexism in D&D and on EN World. Exhibit A . . .

Not necessarily. While any number of prostitutes did follow armies around, so did blacksmiths, tinkers, porters, any number of young urchins trying to get odd jobs for a coin or two. The soldiers get money (pay and/or loot) - the idea that they only spend that money on ale and whores is not historically accurate.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never had the idea that a camp follower might be a prostitute!

I mean, it makes sense now that I hear it, but...