D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Oofta]

"If people want to have other opinions, they should start special threads so I know not to post in them or just go somewhere else."

This is the level of twisting you routinely use, by the way.

I think if you believe D&D would be better with structured rules for social encounters you may actually achieve something if you started a plus thread to discuss ideas on how to implement it.

This thread, and related is never going to actually discuss ideas and possible implementation of rules which obviously you are full of. But whatever I say you will always take in the most negative light possible.

 

[Oofta]

No man, I’m not saying your opinion is wrong. My analogy was intentionally over the top because it was about someone backing up their opinion about a game with something that was clearly incorrect to anyone familiar with the game.

So when you say things about other games that are as obviously wrong to people who know those games as D&D requiring punching people in the face would be to you, expect to be called out on it.

Not about liking D&D….that’s fine. But the part where you say that games that do something different must be doing it for X.

Some people have clearly stated that they want a structured rules around social interactions so they can metagame and judge risks and potential outcomes. Others have mentioned games where you discover that your PC is attracted to a member of the same sex.

I think the first risks putting the metagame ahead of the role playing, the latter is telling me what my character feels. I could go on with other examples. Am I 100% accurate on descriptions of other games? How could I be when there are only a small handful of examples after more than 300 posts? Most responses are once again, like yours, personal accusations of "you don't understand". Well then freakin' explain it! Instead of nitpicking the details, why not give me concise examples of what you do mean? Or better yet, since this is a side-topic, just start another thread, even a plus thread so you don't get a**holes like me dissing it and discuss all the awesome things you could bring to the game?

 

[Oofta]

I explained why upthread. If I'm playing White Plume Mountain, with the goal being to extract the magic weapons from a complex dungeon with many tricks in it, having to hear about the gnomes fear of heights and hatred of fish is at best a tedious waste of time. If it means that PC doesn't pull their weight when it matters, it goes from being a waste of time to actively disruptive.

So optimization is all that matters? PCs aren't allowed to have weaknesses or foibles?

I mean, I agree that it can be too much and be taken too far. But where's the line? I assume it's quite varied from one group to another.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like in early D&D there were rules about this, even if they were rudimentary compared to other areas. NPC attitudes and Charisma checks and the like. Speaking with potential enemies was much more prevalent in early D&DI feel like these rules were replaced as the rules progressed to 2e AD&D.

My only comment on this is that these rules were very combat-related. IIRC (and I don't feel like looking it up), they were all related to:
Initial encounters (parlay or fight).
Henchmen (how many cannon fodder can I bring in?)
Morale (run away, run away!)

Real social engagement was done through roleplaying

I think it's likely that Classic Traveller's inclusion of a NPC reaction table - in its 1977 ruleset - was inspired by D&D. The rules call out the use of the table in a range of contexts, including encounter reactions, hireling loyalty and reliability, responses to business offers, etc.

I would conjecture that at least some D&D groups at that time used the D&D reaction rules similarly.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Weird, I clicked the quote notification and it took me back four pages in the thread.

 

[Maxperson]

I explained why upthread. If I'm playing White Plume Mountain, with the goal being to extract the magic weapons from a complex dungeon with many tricks in it, having to hear about the gnomes fear of heights and hatred of fish is at best a tedious waste of time. If it means that PC doesn't pull their weight when it matters, it goes from being a waste of time to actively disruptive.

Why should going into a dungeon to get loot and roleplaying a character's personality be mutually exclusive? I mean, if all you are doing is bashing open doors to get loot and fight monsters, Munchkin is at least a game designed around that.

 

[pemerton]

So optimization is all that matters? PCs aren't allowed to have weaknesses or foibles?

I mean, I agree that it can be too much and be taken too far. But where's the line? I assume it's quite varied from one group to another.

In the post to which this is a reply, I said If I'm playing White Plume Mountain, with the goal being to extract the magic weapons from a complex dungeon with many tricks in it.

In the earlier post upthread that sparked this discussion of a gnome who hates fish and is scared of heights, I said If I'm sitting down with a group to play a WPM-ish dungeon crawl, I don't think I need to hear all about the gnome's fear of heights and hatred of fish.

So why would you impute to me the view that optimisation is all that matters? In the system for which White Plume Mountain is designed (classic D&D) there is no optimisation because PC build is pick a race, pick a class, pick some gear (including weapons), pick some spells. The cleverness of play is in engaging the fiction with gear and spells, not in PC build.

And why would you ignore the fact that I'm talking about sitting down with a group to play WPM or a similar sort of dungeon crawl? If I'm sitting down to play a different sort of game, then my attitude towards portrayal of character will be different. Of course in that case I'd be looking for a game in which portrayal of character actually matters to play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think if you believe D&D would be better with structured rules for social encounters you may actually achieve something if you started a plus thread to discuss ideas on how to implement it.

I've said no such thing, and it already has such rules -- they are not optional, they are the written rules for dealing with social encounters. Are you unfamiliar with the current rules of 5e? They're in the DMG, if you're curious about the social rules present in 5e. I do believe, though, you're on record dismissing them and have chosen to houserule them out of your game. Regardless, on the merits of rules for social encounters in D&D, they're already present, so perhaps it is you that needs to exile yourself to plus threads? I've also heard the DM's Guild might be a useful outlet.

This thread, and related is never going to actually discuss ideas and possible implementation of rules which obviously you are full of. But whatever I say you will always take in the most negative light possible.

I don't have any such points. My issue with your posts are the errors you make when generalizing about the rules of other games (and, apparently, 5e?). I have no desire to add further rules to 5e, and am not advocating for such.

It would behoove you to stop creating caricatures of other posters in your head, and imagining their arguments, because it appears to lead you astray and accuse other posters of doing things they haven't done and desiring things they haven't mentioned (and, in my case, do not care for at all).

 

[pemerton]

Why should going into a dungeon to get loot and roleplaying a character's personality be mutually exclusive? I mean, if all you are doing is bashing open doors to get loot and fight monsters, Munchkin is at least a game designed around that.

As I replied just upthread to @Oofta, I encourage you to read the full post to which you're replying, including the context.

I am talking about sitting down to play a WPM-ish dungeon crawl. Just for starters, that game has basically nothing to dow with bashing open doors to get loot and fight monsters, which seems to be a 3E-D&D era conceit.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

In the post to which this is a reply, I said If I'm playing White Plume Mountain, with the goal being to extract the magic weapons from a complex dungeon with many tricks in it.

In the earlier post upthread that sparked this discussion of a gnome who hates fish and is scared of heights, I said If I'm sitting down with a group to play a WPM-ish dungeon crawl, I don't think I need to hear all about the gnome's fear of heights and hatred of fish.

So why would you impute to me the view that optimisation is all that matters? In the system for which White Plume Mountain is designed (classic D&D) there is no optimisation because PC build is pick a race, pick a class, pick some gear (including weapons), pick some spells. The cleverness of play is in engaging the fiction with gear and spells, not in PC build.

And why would you ignore the fact that I'm talking about sitting down with a group to play WPM or a similar sort of dungeon crawl? If I'm sitting down to play a different sort of game, then my attitude towards portrayal of character will be different. Of course in that case I'd be looking for a game in which portrayal of character actually matters to play.

Sort of, you might want to do both in which case an argument can be made White Plume Mountain could absolutely serve as a backdrop for character exposition, like, why not, you could just do it.