Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[Desdichado]

For what it's worth, I think there need to be some rules on social interactions. I get a bit hot under the collar at folks who say "just roleplay it." That leads to the uncomfortable situation in which the real-life charismatic folks are always doing well socially in game even if their characters shouldn't be charismatic. It also leads to a popping of tension when you can just put your real life charismatic guy up front for any negotiation or other such thing and have a lot of confidence that he'll be able to pull it off just based on his "roleplaying ability."

And I say this as a person who considers himself to be a real life charismatic person -- and I'm a buyer professionally, so I do have some skill and ability in this regard. But it's not good for the game, even if it is good for me personally.

But I think the skill checks system is adequate to cover it -- I don't really need more rules than I've already got. And, I could use fewer combat rules, all things considered. But I don't really have a gripe with d20 combat anyway.

 

[generalizeddice]

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 agree that someone reading the core rulebooks would gain a strong familiarity with the mechanics of combat. However, I don't agree that the presentation somehow emphasizes combat over other methods of solving problems. The combat section is longer, has more examples, etc. because combat is necessarily more regimented and complex than social interaction (in RPG terms). Everyone (well almost everyone) knows how to talk without learning any rules at all. Lack of a detailed presentation of the combat system would just lead to a tabletop game of cops and robbers.

In addition, the core books (in particular the DM's Guide) have lots of notes and suggestions concerning varying styles of play as well as sample adventure hooks that are clearly not of the "kick in the door and kill the monsters" variety.

It's not at all clear to me what additional information might be presented to clarify the roleplaying aspect of the game.

 

[kengar]

For what it's worth, I think there need to be some rules on social interactions. I get a bit hot under the collar at folks who say "just roleplay it." That leads to the uncomfortable situation in which the real-life charismatic folks are always doing well socially in game even if their characters shouldn't be charismatic. It also leads to a popping of tension when you can just put your real life charismatic guy up front for any negotiation or other such thing and have a lot of confidence that he'll be able to pull it off just based on his "roleplaying ability."

hear, hear!

I have a very vocal player who consistently puts an 8 in CHA then tries to lead the party and be the spokesman. Fortunately, the other very vocal player is playing a high-CHA sorcerer with the Leadership feat and generally slaps him down without my interference.

 

[Chris Tavares]

Keep in mind, I'm 33, and mostly game with couples - men and *gasp* women.

So by 10 minutes into a combat, the ladies are getting restless, on the whole, and would rather go back to journeying and citytalk.

I'm 33 as well, and our group has three men and three women (male GM).

The women are the biggest hack & slash powergamers of the bunch. If we're not killing something, after 10 minutes or so one of them starts saying "bored now" and tries to kill NPC's.

 

[reapersaurus]

2 things:

1) I can't imagine how anyone with a straight face could stand by the statement, "Women prefer combat over roleplay."

Sorry. I'll never agree with that generalization.
I appreciate input from people saying "the girls I game with are powergamers!", but come on - there's no way you'll convince me that that's the norm for the majority of female players (as rare as they are.)
You guys aren't actually suggesting that, are you?

2) I don't know how to phrase this, but my point is not that the majority of the rules are for combat, OR that there should be more emphasis on roleplay.

I'm pointing out that I believe Wizards UNDERVALUES the roleplaying aspects of the rules, from a mechanics standpoint.

My 2 examples were
a) the half-orcs excessive penalties just because they got a +1 to hit and damage.
and b) the rogue getting such an amazing advantage in roleplaying mechanics (# of skill points and selection of skills).

Both of these examples (one is directly from a quote about WotC's approach to 3.5E) show how they overvalue combat mechanics, and undervalue rules that allow a character to shine out of combat.

Maybe their approach is like some of you have mention:
They believe that rules are not needed for roleplaying non-combat encounters.
Just have the players talk thru what they want to happen.

Sorry.
No dice.

They have skills now in 3E, so my conclusion is that they simply have a skewed estimation of how little the non-combat stuff impacts a game.

Your thoughts?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

...they simply have a skewed estimation of how little the non-combat stuff impacts a game.

Your thoughts?

That about sums up my opinion in the matter.

Consequently, I've a female gamer in my group of 4, and neither she nor the other 3 are impressed with constant combat situations, prefering in-depth plot and immersive tales that take months to complete. Heck, we've got one storyline that's easily on its fourth year and likely has another 4 years to go (if not more!).

 

[barsoomcore]

Wow. It looks like quite a few of us are stuck in the 70's. I chose (as I see most people have) "Exactly equal" -- reapersaurus's imprecations aside, I simply don't care. I get bored with too much of either. More combat! More social interaction! More scared bunnies murdering midget limpets!

This is an amusing discussion.

And props to JD for packing so much tedium into such a brief post! Cheers mate! Well done!

 

[Wormwood]

They have skills now in 3E, so my conclusion is that they simply have a skewed estimation of how little the non-combat stuff impacts a game.

Your thoughts?

The 'social' skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate) are broad enough to cover all 'non-combat/roleplaying' situations.

Since the remaining stats/skills/systems are generally used for combat, I'd say that D&D is primarily a combat oriented game.

So while I agree with your premise, I disagree that it indicates a failing on behalf of the system or WotC as a whole.

In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

 

[barsoomcore]

I can't imagine how anyone with a straight face could stand by the statement, "Women prefer combat over roleplay."

Sorry. I'll never agree with that generalization.

Will you agree with the opposite generalization?

Sheesh. You offered an anecdote about how 10 minutes into a combat, the women in your group are bored, and a bunch of other posters have offered equally useless anecdotes about how the women in their groups really relish combat. Big deal.

Sorry.
No dice.

Hey, that sounds like a good solution!

They have skills now in 3E, so my conclusion is that they simply have a skewed estimation of how little the non-combat stuff impacts a game.

Obviously you're not paying much attention to the results of your own poll. It's abundantly clear that role-playing is NOT the focus of most players, that it is NOT preferred over combat by most ENWorld posters.

So my conclusion is that you simply have a skewed estimation of how little the non-combat stuff impacts most games.

It's nice to see people posit a theory, look for evidence, discover evidence that COMPLETELY DISPROVES their theory, and continue to insist their theory is true. It amuses me.

 

[beta-ray]

Hrrrmph. The thread title gave me visions of Lidda with an afro and Krusk in a leisure suit.

What a let down!

You and me both Jeremy!

And the game here isn't stuck in the 70s, but the players are.