D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Aldarc]

One thing I've found - and I'm probably not alone in this - is that in general once mechanics get involved, most of the roleplay goes out the window.

Sure, there's been some glorious exceptions - I fondly recall one combat I ran where the characters kept their pre-existing and rather humourous in-character discussion/argument* going right through the battle, yelling their points and counterpoints across the line to each other while they beat up their foes - but those are very much the exception. Usually, once initiative gets called there's little if any in-character speech until the combat is done.

You should tell that to Critical Role and their Critters. I'm sure that they would be quick to agree that your sweeping generalizations match up with their experiences.

 

[Lanefan]

This argument here strikes me as a fallacy of extremes, as if our only options for roleplaying are either freeform roleplaying or a complete lack thereof, which is demonstrably false.

Indeed - and that's not what I was saying.

A game either allows for/utilizes freeform roleplaying or it doesn't. Allowing for/utilizing freeform roleplay doesn't mean that such play is the entirety of the game, it merely means that at times when freeform roleplay makes sense (e.g. pretty much any low-or-no-stakes in-character conversation with an NPC or any conversation between PCs) the game system neither gets in the way nor has any say as to the outcome.

And yes, I'll posit that a system that doesn't allow these conversations/nteractions to happen without inserting itself, by doing so makes itself a poorer RPG.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And yes, I'll posit that a system that doesn't allow these conversations/nteractions to happen without inserting itself, by doing so makes itself a poorer RPG.

I assume that there's an unstated ending to that last sentence ... for you. A poorer RPG for you.

I am not a big fan of social mechanics in D&D, but I've played games that require social mechanics (and have no combat), and they can be excellent RPGs. Whether a game is better or worse for having more mechanics is certain aspects of the game is a matter of taste and preference, not a universal requirement.

 

[Lanefan]

i'm of the opinion that just because you're in the social character roleplaying part of the game it doesn't mean the mechanics should all just fall away, down that path is ultimately the attitude of 'let me tell the story of my special character happening exactly how i say it does.'

If there's signficant stakes in a social interaction then perhaps mechanics might have to get involved as a last resort. Other than that, however...

why do the rules change when you're talking to that guard as opposed to when you're climbing that cliffside? i don't get to describe my guy climbing the cliff without a check just because i described it really well so why does yours get to skip the check because you were particularly eloquent? you're giving that speech and i'm climbing that cliff, now we've both got to put our dice where our mouths are for the action to succeed.

...the difference is that climbing the cliff always has to be abstracted (most DMs don't have a rock-climbing set-up in the gaming room) while social interactions, assuming all involved are roleplaying their characters in good faith, generally don't require such abstraction to nearly the same degree, if at all.

 

[Lanefan]

I assume that there's an unstated ending to that last sentence ... for you. A poorer RPG for you.

I am not a big fan of social mechanics in D&D, but I've played games that require social mechanics (and have no combat), and they can be excellent RPGs. Whether a game is better or worse for having more mechanics is certain aspects of the game is a matter of taste and preference, not a universal requirement.

I'll concede this; though here I've been speaking of D&D, to which the bolded doesn't really apply.

 

[hgjertsen]

I assume that there's an unstated ending to that last sentence ... for you. A poorer RPG for you.

I am not a big fan of social mechanics in D&D, but I've played games that require social mechanics (and have no combat), and they can be excellent RPGs. Whether a game is better or worse for having more mechanics is certain aspects of the game is a matter of taste and preference, not a universal requirement.

Firmly agree but I think it comes down to your definition of role-playing game after a point. Is counter strike a computer role-playing game because I am playing the role of a terrorist trying to plant a bomb at a nuclear power plant? I mean, maybe, but with most things it eventually comes down to whether or not you're acting like a specific person, whether or not you're telling a story, and whether or not you get to play that role meaningfully rather than within extremely strict outcomes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'll concede this; though here I've been speaking of D&D, to which the bolded doesn't really apply.

Fair, but I can understand why there are people that want (more) social mechanics in D&D. It's perfectly fine to advocate for your own preference (as we all do), but it's always helpful to remember that other people have different, WRONG preferences!

(I kid! Unless they are disagreeing with me.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Firmly agree but I think it comes down to your definition of role-playing game after a point. Is counter strike a computer role-playing game because I am playing the role of a terrorist trying to plant a bomb at a nuclear power plant? I mean, maybe, but with most things it eventually comes down to whether or not you're acting like a specific person, whether or not you're telling a story, and whether or not you get to play that role meaningfully rather than within extremely strict outcomes.

I agree, but I am not the police of "TTRPGs." In a certain sense, it's like trying to define science fiction ... we all know what science fiction isn't, but there's a lot of disparate things that fit into what it is.

So while I am comfortable saying that Monopoly and Counterstrike aren't TTRPGs, I am perfectly happy saying that other games, from Fiasco to Phoenix Command to Ten Candles ... are.

 

[Minigiant]

point of discussion: should a Human-Halfling crossbreed be called a quarterling or three-quarterling?

The obvious answer is both. The Quartering and Three-Quarterling are both different forms of Human Halfling crossbreed.

 

[Oofta]

i'm of the opinion that just because you're in the social character roleplaying part of the game it doesn't mean the mechanics should all just fall away, down that path is ultimately the attitude of 'let me tell the story of my special character happening exactly how i say it does.'

why do the rules change when you're talking to that guard as opposed to when you're climbing that cliffside? i don't get to describe my guy climbing the cliff without a check just because i described it really well so why does yours get to skip the check because you were particularly eloquent? you're giving that speech and i'm climbing that cliff, now we've both got to put our dice where our mouths are.

In my games you only need to roll if the result is uncertain. While I may have people roll if I want the player to be uncertain in cases of things like insight, if the player makes a convincing enough in their argument I may not call for a roll. They don't have to be eloquent about it, they can just bullet point it. I'm making a judgement call because I'm roleplaying the NPC, deciding what their motivations and needs are. Perhaps the NPC isn't afraid of getting caught taking a bribe and feels underpaid. On the other hand perhaps they're concerned about getting caught but a big enough bribe (or the right bribe) might convince them, then there's a roll to resolve the uncertainty.

That may not work for some people, it works for me and my group.