officeronin
First Post
Wormwood said:
I second that sentiment. D+D is a level-based system, where PCs quickly become super-heroes, and no one ever cares very much about whether Superman can barter effectively with Joe the Shopkeeper.
OfficeRonin
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?
- Thread starter reapersaurus
- Start date
I second that sentiment. D+D is a level-based system, where PCs quickly become super-heroes, and no one ever cares very much about whether Superman can barter effectively with Joe the Shopkeeper.
OfficeRonin
generalizeddice
First Post
Balance Anyone?
Like many of the issues raised here, I think that this one boils down to a debate about styles of play that I find a bit perplexing. I’ve never understood why those that feel strongly about the importance of the social interaction/in-character dialogue component of RPGs somehow feel like the presence of detailed combat rules (or in some cases even combat itself) detracts from the game.
In 18+ years of playing in various campaigns covering varying genres using various systems, all of the games that I’ve really enjoyed had one element in common – balance. To put it a bit differently, if I wouldn’t have enjoyed reading a novel about the characters and their exploits, I didn’t have much fun in the game itself. I think that most people would agree that a good fantasy novel has elements of both action and character development. I agree that nameless characters with no background going from room to room killing the inhabitants and stealing their treasure is boring. However, I find spending an entire session sitting in ye olde castle, speaking to ye olde baron, in ye bad English accents makes me yearn for death’s sweet embrace.
Like many of the issues raised here, I think that this one boils down to a debate about styles of play that I find a bit perplexing. I’ve never understood why those that feel strongly about the importance of the social interaction/in-character dialogue component of RPGs somehow feel like the presence of detailed combat rules (or in some cases even combat itself) detracts from the game.
In 18+ years of playing in various campaigns covering varying genres using various systems, all of the games that I’ve really enjoyed had one element in common – balance. To put it a bit differently, if I wouldn’t have enjoyed reading a novel about the characters and their exploits, I didn’t have much fun in the game itself. I think that most people would agree that a good fantasy novel has elements of both action and character development. I agree that nameless characters with no background going from room to room killing the inhabitants and stealing their treasure is boring. However, I find spending an entire session sitting in ye olde castle, speaking to ye olde baron, in ye bad English accents makes me yearn for death’s sweet embrace.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
diaglo said:As he could in the other editions sans skills.
it was called reaction adjustment in 1ed.
Or, heck, he could do it without any rules at all, if you play "let's pretend."
SemperJase
First Post
I'm the DM for a group that meets bi-weekly. Two weeks ago, I ran a city based mystery adventure that was 90% roleplaying. Half-way through my wife was the one that wrote me a note saying "We had better get to fight something soon."
At the end, I through in a tussle with the thieve's guild to keep them satisfied.
Last night, I ran an adventure where they faced a total of 44 orcs, 2 hill giants, and a weretiger who befriended then betrayed them. It went over much better than the previous session.
As an aside, there was a point where the PC's stopped at a roadside temple to Farlaghn (sp?) for the night. Later they came back to it hoping for a respite from some battles they had faced, only to find it burnt out with evidence of a battle around it. The look on all 5 players' faces were priceless. My best DM moment...ever.
At the end, I through in a tussle with the thieve's guild to keep them satisfied.
Last night, I ran an adventure where they faced a total of 44 orcs, 2 hill giants, and a weretiger who befriended then betrayed them. It went over much better than the previous session.
As an aside, there was a point where the PC's stopped at a roadside temple to Farlaghn (sp?) for the night. Later they came back to it hoping for a respite from some battles they had faced, only to find it burnt out with evidence of a battle around it. The look on all 5 players' faces were priceless. My best DM moment...ever.
kengar
First Post
Re: Balance Anyone?
As I mentioned in my post earlier in this thread, I think that an overemphasis towards combat in the rulebooks colors the perception of how the game is "meant" to be played. I have actually had an experienced player (10+ years of gaming under multiple systems) tell me that 3e is not a "roleplaying" game; but a "combat simulation" game.
I agree with your comments on balance, and I stand by what I said earlier in that the system can support many styles of play as is. However, the rules as written do slant things towards more combat and less RP, IMHO.
generalizeddice said:
As I mentioned in my post earlier in this thread, I think that an overemphasis towards combat in the rulebooks colors the perception of how the game is "meant" to be played. I have actually had an experienced player (10+ years of gaming under multiple systems) tell me that 3e is not a "roleplaying" game; but a "combat simulation" game.
I agree with your comments on balance, and I stand by what I said earlier in that the system can support many styles of play as is. However, the rules as written do slant things towards more combat and less RP, IMHO.
Celebrim
Legend
Well, to be perfectly frank, I think that this is one of those complaints based off totally false assumptions.
The assumption being made is that the reason that there is alot of combat rules and not alot of social interaction rules is that the game tries to emphasize combat.
That's actually irrrelevant. People will emphasize or deemphasize combat as they please. The real evidence that the game engine encourages combat is that it is fairly consistantly survivable, NOT that it has detailed rules for it. Even games which don't emphasize combat spend the better portion of thier rules on combat and are much more likely to tightly regulate access to combat abilities than other skills.
The reason that there is not alot of crunch regarding social interaction is that it would unnecessarily slow the game down and wouldn't improve the enjoyment of the game.
It is perfectly possible to create just as detailed rules for social interaction, internal emotional struggle, and so forth as we have for combat.
Who would want them? Who would enjoy slowing every conversation to a crawl as you rolled dice to resolve every characters contribution? Who wants to roll ten dice and consult 5 different tables to find out whether there character can overcome thier shyness, fight off thier apathy, calm thier emotions, temper thier price, and charm the princess enough that the princess accepts the invitation to dance over that of your rival? Such a system would be interesting as a case study in simulated personality, but would not be that interesting as a game.
I've had characters go several sessions without drawing a weapon in combat. But one thing I have learned is that when it all boils down to it, if the antagonist wants to insist on being totally ruthless all the wit in the world isn't going to do anything but temporarily amuse him as he does whatever diabolical thing he does. If you can't contribute to combat, you are going to have a hard time contributing to any story which features at least some unresolvable conflicts.
The assumption being made is that the reason that there is alot of combat rules and not alot of social interaction rules is that the game tries to emphasize combat.
That's actually irrrelevant. People will emphasize or deemphasize combat as they please. The real evidence that the game engine encourages combat is that it is fairly consistantly survivable, NOT that it has detailed rules for it. Even games which don't emphasize combat spend the better portion of thier rules on combat and are much more likely to tightly regulate access to combat abilities than other skills.
The reason that there is not alot of crunch regarding social interaction is that it would unnecessarily slow the game down and wouldn't improve the enjoyment of the game.
It is perfectly possible to create just as detailed rules for social interaction, internal emotional struggle, and so forth as we have for combat.
Who would want them? Who would enjoy slowing every conversation to a crawl as you rolled dice to resolve every characters contribution? Who wants to roll ten dice and consult 5 different tables to find out whether there character can overcome thier shyness, fight off thier apathy, calm thier emotions, temper thier price, and charm the princess enough that the princess accepts the invitation to dance over that of your rival? Such a system would be interesting as a case study in simulated personality, but would not be that interesting as a game.
I've had characters go several sessions without drawing a weapon in combat. But one thing I have learned is that when it all boils down to it, if the antagonist wants to insist on being totally ruthless all the wit in the world isn't going to do anything but temporarily amuse him as he does whatever diabolical thing he does. If you can't contribute to combat, you are going to have a hard time contributing to any story which features at least some unresolvable conflicts.
kengar
First Post
Celebrim said:
I agree.
My concern isn't the lack of rules regarding RP, but rather the lack of information. The books spend practically no time at all on explaining the roleplaying facet of the game. If these are supposed to be books that a person new to the hobby can pick up and learn to play with, then what are they learning? Primarily combat.
I think that if the PHB and DMG had simply each included a short chapter on the roleplaying aspects of the game (and no, I don't think PHB Chapter 6 "Description" really counts) it would have gone a long way towards balancing things. To be fair, there is some of that information scattered throughout the books, but it isn't really presented in a format that a player (or DM) new to the hobby would find terribly useful. Maybe we'll see something added in the 3.5 books, but I'm not holding my breath.
All this is IMHO, YMMV, etc., etc. of course.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
