Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6466646" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>In real life, a big part of wilderness exploration is foraging, hunting, finding water and making maps/charts. There are no rules for any of these things (other than the combat rules once you actually encounter game) in either OD&D or AD&D (before the WSG).</p><p></p><p>That is not a criticism of those games. It is simply to make the point that the sort of "wilderness exploration" that they focus on is (as I said upthread) very particular.</p><p></p><p>I am familiar with Diplomacy. Many of the people I have played RPGs with, including two members of my current group, are skilled Diplomacy players.</p><p></p><p>But playing D&D (including in its original version) is not much like playing Diplomacy, unless you confine yourself to player-to-player interaction. When PCs are negotiating with NPCs, the dynamics do not resemble Dipomacy at all - for instance, the GM has no position to defend, no <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-for-tat style incentives to hold his/her NPCs to agreements, etc.</p><p></p><p>The reference to Diplomacy does, however, reinforce my point about the significance of alignment rules in D&D play. Once the game starts to be built around an assumption of Good PCs engaged in heroic play - which begins some time in the early-to-mid-80s - then play is not going to resemble the amoral, realpolitik world of Dipomacy. The orcs aren't another sovereign nation to be bargained with; they have been reframed as a threat to life and to morality, who have to be defeated, or at the least held off.</p><p></p><p>Basing your whole social system on the Diplomacy model has other (not dissimilar) consequences too. For instance, it is going to support only a very narrow form of social roleplaying. Just to give one example - it makes the play of romantic love (whether between PC and NPC, or between two PCs whose players are not in love in real life) virtually impossible. If you want to play a game of essentially amoral self-aggrandising soverign entities (the individual correlates of the Westphalian/Clausewitzian nations one plays in a game of Diplomacy) then a Diplomacy-style approach will give you that. For good measure, make character advancement contingent on taking loot out of the dungeon!</p><p></p><p>But if you want other sorts of characters and other sorts of play, you need different social rules from that. Early D&D itself recognises this by way of its henchman loyalty rules - henchmen aren't free to stab at wil like a Diplomacy player, but can be bound to loyalty by non-self-interested factors manifested through a loyalty mechanic. But as I've noted upthread that mechanic is incomplete (eg how long does a successful loyalty check last?) and there is no robust framework for extending this to other contexts, nor to PCs (except via enchantment magic).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6466646, member: 42582"] In real life, a big part of wilderness exploration is foraging, hunting, finding water and making maps/charts. There are no rules for any of these things (other than the combat rules once you actually encounter game) in either OD&D or AD&D (before the WSG). That is not a criticism of those games. It is simply to make the point that the sort of "wilderness exploration" that they focus on is (as I said upthread) very particular. I am familiar with Diplomacy. Many of the people I have played RPGs with, including two members of my current group, are skilled Diplomacy players. But playing D&D (including in its original version) is not much like playing Diplomacy, unless you confine yourself to player-to-player interaction. When PCs are negotiating with NPCs, the dynamics do not resemble Dipomacy at all - for instance, the GM has no position to defend, no :):):)-for-tat style incentives to hold his/her NPCs to agreements, etc. The reference to Diplomacy does, however, reinforce my point about the significance of alignment rules in D&D play. Once the game starts to be built around an assumption of Good PCs engaged in heroic play - which begins some time in the early-to-mid-80s - then play is not going to resemble the amoral, realpolitik world of Dipomacy. The orcs aren't another sovereign nation to be bargained with; they have been reframed as a threat to life and to morality, who have to be defeated, or at the least held off. Basing your whole social system on the Diplomacy model has other (not dissimilar) consequences too. For instance, it is going to support only a very narrow form of social roleplaying. Just to give one example - it makes the play of romantic love (whether between PC and NPC, or between two PCs whose players are not in love in real life) virtually impossible. If you want to play a game of essentially amoral self-aggrandising soverign entities (the individual correlates of the Westphalian/Clausewitzian nations one plays in a game of Diplomacy) then a Diplomacy-style approach will give you that. For good measure, make character advancement contingent on taking loot out of the dungeon! But if you want other sorts of characters and other sorts of play, you need different social rules from that. Early D&D itself recognises this by way of its henchman loyalty rules - henchmen aren't free to stab at wil like a Diplomacy player, but can be bound to loyalty by non-self-interested factors manifested through a loyalty mechanic. But as I've noted upthread that mechanic is incomplete (eg how long does a successful loyalty check last?) and there is no robust framework for extending this to other contexts, nor to PCs (except via enchantment magic). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.
Top