D&D 5E If an option is presented, it needs to be good enough to take.

[Obryn]

Combat can be a part of roleplaying. But in D&D it is a special snowflake because the rules make it so. Just as in Ars Magica spell casting is a special snowflake, and in Trail of Cthulhu investigation is a special combat.

There are some RPGs I know of that treat non-combat and combat action resolution as basically in terms of action resolution and PC build mechanics: HeroWars/Quest; Maelstrom Storytelling; The Dying Earth; The World, the Flesh and the Devil; and other indie RPGs.

D&D in any edition has not been such a game. All PCs get level-based attack bonuses and hit points. The bulk of the action resolution mechanics are framed by reference to combat situations (and this is true even in classic D&D, despite the odd protestation to the contrary - in B/X, for example, reaction rolls are clearly framed in terms of negotiations between potential belligerents, and other non-combat action resolution is confined to movement rules, opening doors, and searching for traps and secret doors). The only edition of D&D with conflict resolution mechanics for social situations is 4e, and it has a wide range of utility powers to support that mechanic.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with pemerton here.

Combat is central and essential to D&D. One of its cores is a robust combat resolution mechanic. Heck - look to Next. What are we playtesting? Mostly combat.

It's just not all D&D is about. At least it hasn't ever been in my experience, from 1e to 4e.

-O

 

[GreyICE]

So if I'm reading this right, you'd have it that characters can be one of:

A: good at combat and good at roleplaying
B: good at combat and poor at roleplaying

I think what's being asked for is more of a trade-off; that if someone wants to be poor at combat they'll somewhat default into being good at non-combat by virtue of the game design. Someone could be passable but not expert at both, but in theory could not be good at both nor be poor at both.

The whole problem arises from trying to have too much mechanical representation of differences between characters and letting that stand in place of roleplaying a personality and showing the differences that way.

Lan-"sometimes rules-light is the way to go"-efan

No, there's also an option C:
A: good at combat and good at non-combat
B: good at combat and poor at non-combat
C. good at non-combat and poor at combat


That way everyone can contribute to multiple parts of the game if they want to, and no one gets left out mechanically.


[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: I get it! This isn't about roleplaying at all! This is about MINIMIZING your combat skills in order to MAXIMIZE your non-combat skills.

So basically you want to build another Min-Max abomination that the rest of the party has to drag around until they're in a situation where the Min-Maxing special snowflake powers work then the Min-Maxer gets to play while the rest of the party looks around totally bored because they can't contribute a damn thing to the Min-Maxers chosen field (because they've made broad, varied characters that don't Min-Max)?

No. Min-Maxing is not a gamestyle we need to encourage or support.

 

[billd91]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with pemerton here.

Combat is central and essential to D&D. One of its cores is a robust combat resolution mechanic. Heck - look to Next. What are we playtesting? Mostly combat.

I would argue you'd see the same in many other games when under development, not just D&D. Is combat central and essential to Star Wars RPGs? You see combat in a LOT of Star Wars situations, particularly the movies. But I doubt most people consider Star Wars RPGs to be about combat. They might not even consider it central and essential to Star Wars.

How about Traveller? GURPS? Champions? Feng Shui? Cyberpunk?

Of course, with Feng Shui, it's pretty clear that there are games designed as combat engines. And that's fine. But lots of games are designed with reasonably robust combat engines that don't get saddled with the claim they're about combat to the degree D&D seems to. It is unfortunate to see people reduce the D&D experience down to being essentially laying down the violence when, like these other games, its orientation toward combat or transcombat activities depends a lot on the individual player's or group's orientation toward the game and what they want to get out of it.

 

[Derren]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: I get it! This isn't about roleplaying at all! This is about MINIMIZING your combat skills in order to MAXIMIZE your non-combat skills.

No, you don't get it. You just pull out strawmens to defend your point. Its about an role playing game allowing you to play a non combat role or just even someone bad at combat.
This is simply not possible in D&D because combat abilities are mandatory. You always play a trained mass murderer no matter the role you actually want to play.
If you want to expand the possible roles D&D allows you to play, something imo sorely needed, you must not have a combat silo, or any silo at all. All abilities come from the same resources and the player decides what he wants to take combat or not without the system forcing or even just suggesting (by labeling everything else as undesirable) some choices.

 

[Obryn]

Is combat central and essential to Star Wars RPGs? You see combat in a LOT of Star Wars situations, particularly the movies. But I doubt most people consider Star Wars RPGs to be about combat. They might not even consider it central and essential to Star Wars.

I would argue that a Star Wars RPG failed if (combat-wise) it did not account for all of the following:

• Lengthy lightsaber duels
• Starship combat, both of skirmish and mass battle scales
• Shootouts, old-west style
• The ability for trained jedi to mow through stormtroopers/battle droids/etc.
• In-combat force use of telekinesis, push, etc.

...etc.

So yes, I think combat of various scales is absolutely central and essential to Star Wars. It's not the only thing important about it, but it's certainly key, especially when you look at the movies' screen time spent fighting vs. not-fighting.

-O

 

[GreyICE]

No, you don't get it. You just pull out strawmens to defend your point. Its about an role playing game allowing you to play a non combat role or just even someone bad at combat.
This is simply not possible in D&D because combat abilities are mandatory. You always play a trained mass murderer no matter the role you actually want to play.
If you want to expand the possible roles D&D allows you to play, something imo sorely needed, you must not have a combat silo, or any silo at all. All abilities come from the same resources and the player decides what he wants to take combat or not without the system forcing or even just suggesting (by labeling everything else as undesirable) some choices.

That's called GURPS. It's a fine system* and D&D should not try to be GURPS, just as GURPS should not try to be D&D. There's a lot of drawbacks to the GURPS system that D&D avoids. One of the benefits/drawbacks to the D&D system is that combat tends to get separated out and made special. And most groups (I'd say 95%+) who play D&D embrace that and play campaigns based on that. I have only very rarely heard of D&D campaigns that embraced political intrigue or other roleplay-heavy systems, and most used D&D settings and were so heavily houseruled that they were more of a D20 homebrew.

The 95% of players who play that way should not be blocked off from certain aspects of roleplay because of this. They should not be a "less competent blacksmith" if their character concept is that they're a blacksmith, they should not be a less competent diplomat if their character concept is they're a diplomatic envoy, etc.

What Jameson referred to was SPECIFICALLY min-maxing in any case. Minimizing your skills in everything in order to pour every single resource you have into maximizing one narrow area. So it's not a strawman, that's exactly what he described. He even said that if the baseline was 3/3/3 he wanted the ability to make a character who was 5/1/1 - the EXACT definition of min-maxing. I'd appreciate if you didn't make insults up because you don't like what I'm saying.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It doesn't exist in D&D, past the first two or three levels.

Take a 1st level warrior. Someone who is a town guard or something like that. And in some bar somewhere, he decides he doesn't like the face of a 4th level character, one who is "bad at combat". Who wants to bet on the paid professional to win a bar fight with a 4th level character who is "bad at combat"?

That's kinda my point. I'd rather be able to point to the paid professional (who should probably be a Fighter, and probably above level 1, but regardless) and say "that guy is going to win" and then have the mechanics back it up. Just because no edition does it well does not mean that the new edition shouldn't. That reasoning means that D&D never branches out, ever. I'm pretty against that.

D&D has always had forced proficiency in combat. All D&D thieves can backstab; all D&D rogues can sneak attack. The class table in Gygax's PHB characterises classes primarily by reference to their hit dice and weapon and armour proficiencies.

It's a feature of the game.

I'm not sure people think I don't realize this. It's kind of baffling. I'm calling for change, not disputing history.

You can modulate your degree of combat proficiency in any edition - but I don't think it supports the game to allow PCs to be built that bring no combat proficiency to the table. (Of coures that might be metagame proficiency, like a lazy warlord.)

I don't understand this. How can an optional opt-out with clear, supported mechanics not support the game for people who want those types of characters? I'm missing something in your point.

Because the game doesn't have the scene framing or action resolution mechanics to handle it.

Which is why I've also called for those mechanics to get expanded and for support for non-combat to be well-supported.

I could give further reasons if you want, but the ones I've already given are pretty illustrative, I think.

Imagine there was non-combat support. Now give me further reasons.

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: I get it! This isn't about roleplaying at all! This is about MINIMIZING your combat skills in order to MAXIMIZE your non-combat skills.

I get the min-max reference, of course. It's about a trade-off of breadth for depth. Specialization and hyper-specialization. This is about being able to play specific, well-known archetypes, like the wise old sage who seemingly knows everything but sucks in a fight.

So basically you want to build another Min-Max abomination that the rest of the party has to drag around until they're in a situation where the Min-Maxing special snowflake powers work then the Min-Maxer gets to play while the rest of the party looks around totally bored because they can't contribute a damn thing to the Min-Maxers chosen field (because they've made broad, varied characters that don't Min-Max)?

If the players are well-informed about what specialization and hyper-specialization entail, and they all accept the player swapping away from the default to do so, and it makes for a more enjoyable game for everyone, then hell yes I'm for it. Then again, our descriptions are different, aren't they?

No. Min-Maxing is not a gamestyle we need to encourage or support.

Obviously moving away from 3/3/3 isn't for you, huh? If your group can't have fun with it, then don't do it. You can sit comfortably in broad competency, have everyone have some breadth to their abilities, and never even touch the default setting. Easy, yeah? Win / win, no? As always, play what you like

EDIT: You just posted something I want to reply to:

What Jameson referred to was SPECIFICALLY min-maxing in any case. Minimizing your skills in everything in order to pour every single resource you have into maximizing one narrow area. So it's not a strawman, that's exactly what he described. He even said that if the baseline was 3/3/3 he wanted the ability to make a character who was 5/1/1 - the EXACT definition of min-maxing. I'd appreciate if you didn't make insults up because you don't like what I'm saying.

No, this isn't min-maxing, it's optimizing. Min-maxing is "minimizing your flaws while maximizing your abilities/power/etc." That's not what I'm trying to do; your 5/1/1 character might be deeply flawed if he can't contribute more often, can't defend himself, etc. However, when optimizing for your non-combat Sage concept, you'd need to get rid of your combat ability (optimally), while boosting his know-it-all skills (optimally). At least, that's the basic gamer jargon as I know it to be casually used. I'm for optimization (something anybody who pursues a specific concept usually does), not min-maxing. Again, as always, play what you like

 

[GreyICE]

Lets just quote Wikipedia here:

Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields.

So yeah. Going from 3/3/3 to 5/1/1 is the exact definition of min-maxing.

And what does it lead to? Well, lets assume gametime is split evenly between the three pillars (which is rare, but). 2/3rds of the time, you are useless. 40 minutes out of every hour your purpose at the table is to be a lawn ornament.

20 minutes out of every hour the purpose of every other player is to be a lawn ornament.

That's bad. That's really, really bad. That's beyond spotlight design and into terrible design. The rest of the table has literally nothing invested in your '20 minutes alone with the DM' while you have nothing invested in the '40 minutes where your character is furniture.' So the rest of the party will naturally shy away from situations where they're worthless and you'll try to make everything about your damn spotlight.

No.
No, no, no, no, no.
NO!

We are not sacrificing fun, interesting roleplaying opportunities on the altar of the great god MinMax. No goddamn way.

Interesting non-combat stuff goes into backgrounds, into themes, into interesting bits of character classes and races. Interesting combat stuff goes into feats, into the bulk of classes, into races. The split for each race and class should be roughly equivalent (not even - equivalent). And never shall the twain meet.

No more diplomomancers, no more geas bards, no more maximizing skills at the cost of minimizing fun.

If you want to play someone whose incompetent at combat, just do it. Take a fighter and decide never to use Combat Superiority dice. Take a Wizard and don't cast spells during battle. Then you're terrible at combat. The system doesn't need to reward you for this decision.

 

[billd91]

No more diplomomancers, no more geas bards, no more maximizing skills at the cost of minimizing fun.

Unless, of course, you happen to find that (or even being weak 2/3 of the time) fun. But I guess people like that don't count.

Don't get me wrong, there are group-negative ways to min-max. But not all choices centered around development in one axis are bad, even to the neglect of other axes, is bad. If the group is min-max friendly or you can do it without running roughshod over the other players in the areas you excel, it's not likely to be a problem.

If you don't like min-maxing, then don't min-max. Don't play with people who do. That's a perfectly viable solution to the min-maxing problem that doesn't trample over people who like to have a game system be responsive to their development choices.

 

[GreyICE]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]: If you happen to like playing a character that is weak 2/3rds of the time, just do so. I cannot stress this strongly enough. There is nothing at all stopping you from doing so. Nothing. At. All.

Answer me this: am I wrong?