Crimson Longinus
Legend
Sure.
No. If people like such, more power to them. It's just that such rules are in no way or form required. Whether one finds such to enhance or detract from roleplaying is matter of taste.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E [+] How can 5e best handle role playing outside of combat?
- Thread starter TheSword
- Start date
Lyxen
Great Old One
Only if you ignore all the things like personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, a large part of background, and alignment (and I'm sure I'm missing some) which are still RAW part of the rules for character creation, all of chapter 4 in the PH actually.
TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
A lot of the contention in these sort of threads comes down to overlapping definitions. A lot of people use "roleplaying" to describe the thespianism and overt characterization aspects of the game ("acting like my character"), but one can be a contributing, active participant in a roleplaying game (which would also be "roleplaying") without the need for displays of characterization.
Bolares
Hero
I think the problem here is that 5e doesn't give a depth of exploration and social interaction systems for those who want them. Even in their hexcrawl adventure exploration rules a pretty bare bones. Sure there are some optional rules, but they are pretty shallow. I think core 5e should be pretty light, but the optional rules for the non combat pillars are not good enough for a lot of people who want them.
Lyxen
Great Old One
I'm still amazed after all that talk that people still confuse mechanical resolution of whatever (combat, skills, exploration, social interaction) with roleplaying (that definition is not universal, by the way, but it's a least wider than just participating in a roleplaying game, which is completely circular).
This is not a point with content. Combat rules are in no way or form requred. The game's existence is not required. No rules for anything are "required" in a general sense.
They may well be necessary for some to achieve a particular goal or desired experience.
For your desired experience, they may not be required, which is great for you. But since you haven't defined what that goal/experience is, nobody can really tell if what you say is relevant to them.
5e is an extremely rule-light game (six numerical bonus coming from stats, modified by a single "proficiency bonus" if you can somehow claim to be proficient in the task (whether it is because of a skil, because of a tool, or because you talked the DM into buying that you having a Kundarak bank account in your background made you an expert in cracking Kundarak safe). Expertise modifies it slightly. Tacked upon that is a rule-heavy subsystem for dealing with combat.
If you have no problem with a single roll resolution system with large variability (d20) compared to the static bonus you can apply (say, from -1 to +11), you can very well do anything with this rule-light system. Sure, there may be better rule-light systems, but it's like poker and chess, you can have fun doing both, even if one is superior to the other. And saying "you can do anything in improv theater" doesn't mean that it's lame to play D&D, it means that since you can do anything even with no rules, you can all the more do anything with the simple ruleset.
In my current campaign, the average must be of less than 1 fight by evening. In the one I play in, we're at session #4, and we fought: a few kobolds, 3 dogs and... we had an action scene with insects but it wasn't really a fight, more a skill challenge (can you repair your vehicle before the swarm reach you?). So it's at most 0.75 and in truth closer to 0.5 No player died of boredom during these sessions (50+campaign in the first case and TBH, fights are becoming increasingly rare as the campaign progress).
We could switch to another system. But why, when the one we have is perfectly functional, albeit simple?
So to answer the first question, yes I feel it can (but I am not looking toward rule-heavy).
With regard to the optional rules, tools as proficiency and background as proficiency are useful to differentiate mechanically between players. In the end it doesn't matter a lot since it's always "just the prof. bonus", but players like to leverage something on their character sheet to get an advantage in a given situation.
To maximize opportunity, I remove filler combat, I try gave a semblance of authority to the PC (so they don't have to fight their way through all situations... IRL most police forces giving speed ticket don't end up in a firefight) and I play in a urban setting. If the most dangerous random encounter is a drunkard, fireball might be out of place. On the other hand, the combat systems allow for fun and interesting fight when they happen. As alluded above, we also do things like skill challenges when there is a tension needing collective effort to be resolved.
If you have no problem with a single roll resolution system with large variability (d20) compared to the static bonus you can apply (say, from -1 to +11), you can very well do anything with this rule-light system. Sure, there may be better rule-light systems, but it's like poker and chess, you can have fun doing both, even if one is superior to the other. And saying "you can do anything in improv theater" doesn't mean that it's lame to play D&D, it means that since you can do anything even with no rules, you can all the more do anything with the simple ruleset.
In my current campaign, the average must be of less than 1 fight by evening. In the one I play in, we're at session #4, and we fought: a few kobolds, 3 dogs and... we had an action scene with insects but it wasn't really a fight, more a skill challenge (can you repair your vehicle before the swarm reach you?). So it's at most 0.75 and in truth closer to 0.5 No player died of boredom during these sessions (50+campaign in the first case and TBH, fights are becoming increasingly rare as the campaign progress).
We could switch to another system. But why, when the one we have is perfectly functional, albeit simple?
So to answer the first question, yes I feel it can (but I am not looking toward rule-heavy).
With regard to the optional rules, tools as proficiency and background as proficiency are useful to differentiate mechanically between players. In the end it doesn't matter a lot since it's always "just the prof. bonus", but players like to leverage something on their character sheet to get an advantage in a given situation.
To maximize opportunity, I remove filler combat, I try gave a semblance of authority to the PC (so they don't have to fight their way through all situations... IRL most police forces giving speed ticket don't end up in a firefight) and I play in a urban setting. If the most dangerous random encounter is a drunkard, fireball might be out of place. On the other hand, the combat systems allow for fun and interesting fight when they happen. As alluded above, we also do things like skill challenges when there is a tension needing collective effort to be resolved.
Last edited:
Would you even require a system for everything besides the combat you do to get the exact same experience and support for it?
TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
I would slightly disagree with that. Even the combat rules are relatively lightweight. The bulk of the rules text is much more focused on the complexity of magic. If magic was done by simply making an Arcana or Religion check to create whatever effect was desired, then 5e might classify as "rules-light".
TheSword
Legend
So to expand the original question, which was obviously not as clear as I thought it was. Then I was on a plane to Madrid so couldn’t clarify!
This was the quote that caught my attention. Is everything not-combat in 5e, filler until the next fight comes along as this poster seem to suggest.
Can you have a meaningful, enjoyable, challenging (not necessarily risk of death) session in D&D without inserting CR/level appropriate fights. If so, are there any specific techniques or rules you would use to do so?
If your answer is “yes, obviously” but you don’t want to talk about the how, the thread probably isn’t for you.
If your answer is “no, 5e can only ever be improv outside of combat” then the thread also probably also isn’t for you.
@vincegetorix gets it. Thanks for that list. I’ve never seen plot points before. It sounds like something that could take roleplaying encounters to a new level of engagement.
This was the quote that caught my attention. Is everything not-combat in 5e, filler until the next fight comes along as this poster seem to suggest.
Can you have a meaningful, enjoyable, challenging (not necessarily risk of death) session in D&D without inserting CR/level appropriate fights. If so, are there any specific techniques or rules you would use to do so?
If your answer is “yes, obviously” but you don’t want to talk about the how, the thread probably isn’t for you.
If your answer is “no, 5e can only ever be improv outside of combat” then the thread also probably also isn’t for you.
@vincegetorix gets it. Thanks for that list. I’ve never seen plot points before. It sounds like something that could take roleplaying encounters to a new level of engagement.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
