On Behavioral Realism

[happyhermit]

...
If there are ''a few" rules for bluffing and reading others....then there ARE rules. As a social game, a common ''trick" in poker is to tell stories or jokes or whatever to distract other players: you will find this in just about any strategy advice on playing poker, but it is NOT in the rules of the game.
...

So you are arguing that it's a binary proposition? That there are either rules or not rules for a thing? In that case D&D has rules for social interaction, exploration, pretty much anything.

If it clears it up any, Poker games can have no rules for bluffing and reading other players, but that doesn't stop those things from being an important part of the game, agreed?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So you are arguing that it's a binary proposition? That there are either rules or not rules for a thing? In that case D&D has rules for social interaction, exploration, pretty much anything.

If it clears it up any, Poker games can have no rules for bluffing and reading other players, but that doesn't stop those things from being an important part of the game, agreed?

I think that the part of poker you're discussing is a poor fit. Specifically, as I noted above, the part you're talking about is the metagame -- the game that exists outside of the rules of poker. Bluffing, reading, calculating odds, etc., these are really part of a different game that occurs when you sit down to play poker. Nothing you do with bluffing affects how the rules of poker play out -- in fact, bluffing depends on those rules being immutable because it's the game that exists when you play the game of poker.

Meanwhile, roleplaying is, nominally, part and parcel of an RPG. Roleplaying is not a metagame that is created when you play an RPG; it's the objective, at least in part.

This is a careful distinction, but talking about how a game might or might not have rules for something really doesn't address a metagame that exists on top of the presented game. I can play poker and not bluff, not read, just the game as the rules say. I shouldn't be able to play an RPG without roleplaying.

And, really, you cannot, as the first part of playing an RPG is taking on a role via your character. Now, there's a lot of discussion about what roleplaying is, with some having extremely narrow definitions, but at it's most basic, it's just the playing of a role. Which you do if you play a character in an RPG, even if you never once put on a silly voice, provide dialog, or speak in the first person. Those things may be expectations of a table, a given group may constrain or incentivize roleplaying (@Celebrim clearly incentivizes speaking dialog in character for his games), but this isn't required by the rules. This is where table agreements and traditions start entering the game with expectations from outside the rules that then create constraints and incentives within the rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not their authority. The rules. Unless you're saying the rules = DM authority, in which case d20 + modifiers = or greater than AC to hit is also the DM using his authority.

No, the PHB and the DMG clearly give the GM the authority to decide, but do not provide any operationalization of this. There's no rule you can point to and say, "here is where a paladin has a bad thing happen to them for not following their oath." Nor can you find where a paladin has crossed a line to become an Oathbreaker, just that such things exist somewhere. So, what you have here is an assignment of authority -- the GM decides what becomes of a paladin and their oaths -- and a loose constraint -- the GM may decide bad things if you don't follow your Oath. I say loose here because there's very little to say what following your Oath means in any given situations -- it's rather subjective. What did happen here is that the authority to decide what happens with character build, usually a player authority, has be explicitly reassigned to the GM in this case. That's the extent of the rules -- GM says.

Largely, a lot of 5e can be summed up this way. Not a bad thing.

The DM is not adding constraints. Those constraints are put into place by the rules.. They're called Breaking Your Oath and Oathbreaker, and you can read them in the PHB and DMG.

Those rules don't say anything other than GM decides. If the GM is having a conversation with their players about what constitutes oathbreaking, then that's the GM using their authority to apply both constraints and operationalizing oathbreaking.

I'm not suggesting anything that the rules don't do themselves.

You're implying the rules are much more robust than they are. The "rules" for oathbreaking are weak and don't provide the player with handles except that it's up to the GM. This makes the rules for oathbreaking entirely a matter of trusting your GM. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but it's fairly trivial to find horror stories on this exact topic that are both, well, horror stories and entirely within the rules as presented. IE, the GM is granted this authority with no constraints so even when outcomes might be less than desirable, their still within the rules. Suggesting the oathbreaking rules are more than the assignment of authority without constraint is adding things. Use of that authority is use of that authority, which is as I said, the GM adding constraints to the player (presuming the GM bothers to discuss it at all).

Now, I generally admonish others by going to bad faith play, so I'm going to admonish myself, here, and note that in good faith play the oathbreaking "rules" are usually sufficient. This assumes good faith between the player and the GM, so the outcome of "GM decides" should be clear and follow from the fiction and no one should be surprised. As I noted earlier, not having things tightly constrained or operationalized is okay -- 5e does just fine doing this quite a lot. And, a number of people like it this way. Some don't. Either way, it's good to be critically open about what's actually happening in play, even when you get good outcomes (because you're a well adjusted adult person playing with other well-adjusted adult people and not being jerks to each other, usually). In the case of the rules for oathbreaking, there are none outside a blanket reassignment of authority from the player to the GM to determine the PC build effects of player choices. And, this is fine.

 

[bloodtide]

You should try reading the 5e books sometime. The entire PHB and DMG are written with roleplaying in mind. They describe roleplaying all over the place. As for being REQUIRED to roleplay, nothing in the game is REQUIRED. It's all optional. So what. Not being REQUIRED does not remove roleplaying from the game.

You think that you must use the crunchy part of the combat rules for an attack, but you don't. If the outcome is not in doubt, the DM is perfectly able to just say you win. Or, since it's rulings over rules, he can just say that you hit or miss and have you roll damage, or just choose the damage. There is no "must" with anything in the game.

If you choose to remove roleplaying from the game, you can and that's okay. But it's a part of the game unless you do actively remove it.

Well, if you don't use any D&D rules, then you are not playing the D&D game. If things are just ''decided" then not only are you not playing D&D, but your not even playing a game then. There is no place in the rules for Role Playing.

So you are arguing that it's a binary proposition? That there are either rules or not rules for a thing? In that case D&D has rules for social interaction, exploration, pretty much anything.

If it clears it up any, Poker games can have no rules for bluffing and reading other players, but that doesn't stop those things from being an important part of the game, agreed?

Maybe your thinking of some game other then D&D when you say D&D has rules for pretty much anything. Reading the rules would show that is not true. And it's not that D&D does not have rules for some crunchy mechanical in-game social interaction Like I said the game has maybe a whole page of social rules, compared to the 500 pages of combat rules. Or more simply put: there is no crunchy mechanical Social chapter in the rules (you know where a character would have a social AC and another character would have a base social attack and use the social maneuver ''make a valid point" with the feat of "logical argument" for a +2 bonus to hit)

Role Playing is something extra added outside the game, not as part of it.

 

[happyhermit]

I think that the part of poker you're discussing is a poor fit.

I'm sorry, but I think a large part of why you think it's a poor fit is because it doesn't illustrate your point.

Specifically, as I noted above, the part you're talking about is the metagame -- the game that exists outside of the rules of poker. Bluffing, reading, calculating odds, etc., these are really part of a different game that occurs when you sit down to play poker.

Labeling some parts of a game the "metagame", correctly or incorrectly doesn't make them any less important parts of the game. You can label the most important parts of many games ie; social deduction games, trading games, alliance games, calling plays in football, a pitcher reading a batter, etc. etc.; "metagame" but that more often that not just leads to a lack of understanding of what those games are and how the rules influence that.

Adding more rules about those things DOESN'T mean the game will have more focus on those things, or that those things will function in a more satisfactory way.

To which the response is likely "Sure, that is easily observed, but ttrpgs are different." However, I am not the first one to make the observation that the same thing is true. Having more rules for things doesn't mean the game having will have more of that thing occur, or that it will be more satisfactory when it does.

... I shouldn't be able to play an RPG without roleplaying.

And you can't, unless you specifically choose a definition of roleplaying that means you can.

 

[happyhermit]

Maybe your thinking of some game other then D&D when you say D&D has rules for pretty much anything. Reading the rules would show that is not true.

There are specific and general rules that cover most anything.

And it's not that D&D does not have rules for some crunchy mechanical in-game social interaction Like I said the game has maybe a whole page of social rules, compared to the 500 pages of combat rules. Or more simply put: there is no crunchy mechanical Social chapter in the rules (you know where a character would have a social AC and another character would have a base social attack and use the social maneuver ''make a valid point" with the feat of "logical argument" for a +2 bonus to hit)

You literally said; "If there are ''a few" rules ... ....then there ARE rules."

Role Playing is something extra added outside the game, not as part of it.

Your argument is with Ovinomancer on this point, not me.

 

[bloodtide]

There are specific and general rules that cover most anything.

I'm not sure if your just being funny here? No game in the history of forever has rules that cover most anything. Simply put: that would be impossible.

So, guess your joke here is funny?

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure if your just being funny here? No game in the history of forever has rules that cover most anything. Simply put: that would be impossible.

Would you like to place a bet of some sort on that? I believe I can prove to you that there is at least one RPG that has rules for everything.

Small bet perhaps. I get upvoted if you agree that I won. I'll upvote you if you think I haven't.

 

[bloodtide]

Would you like to place a bet of some sort on that? I believe I can prove to you that there is at least one RPG that has rules for everything.

Small bet perhaps. I get upvoted if you agree that I won. I'll upvote you if you think I haven't.

I'm not sure we can have a bet on something that is impossible. If a single RPG did have rules for everything it would need, roughly, one trillion trillion pages of rules. And no game has that much.

To make a wild grab at any RPG from the last nearly 50 years of RPGs and say that you can find at least one game that has one rule about anyone subject...maybe? Like the obvious thing for me to say is find an RPG with a rule about dating: but I....er think...there was an All My Children RPG back in the time before time, and sure it had a rule like ''roll a 6d6 -1d6 equal to your beauty score vs his bachelor score to see if Blake Carlton dates your character". But to prove one or two RPGs...maybe...have a rule for something is not the point.

The point is, no single game....especially D&D has rules for everything.

 

[happyhermit]

I'm not sure if your just being funny here? No game in the history of forever has rules that cover most anything. Simply put: that would be impossible.

So, guess your joke here is funny?

No joke, if you aren't being sarcastic, just talking about game design and rules.

Like I said, there are specific and general rules, it's easy to make a game with rules that cover everything. ie; Player attempts something, flip a coin to determine whether they succeed. Obviously it takes a lot more to make a game that will do this and people will also find good, but it's done all the time.

5e D&D has general rules that cover most anything ie; Player says what they want their PC to attempt, DM determines whether or not rolls must be made, then the results are determined.

This is not a new concept, free Kriegsspiel is from the 1800's.