Combat vs. Role-playing

[Lord Zardoz]

Here's an inherent problem with D&D with 3.x and most likely with 4e as well. The game tries to emulate everything you can possibly do. While this is nice from a play balance point of view, being able to make rolls for just about every situation or challenge means it's easier to do so, and thus, people are more likely to do so.

I would say this statement is very inaccurate.

What I do think is a more accurate characterization of the goal of the D&D rules is that they try to provide a rule for every action where a Player and Dm may disagree about the likelyhood of that actions success or failure. I wont pretend that the rules that have been created are always good to have around, or that they even always make sense. But for the most part, many of the rules that exist are quite reasonable, at least in the abstract.

Going to the core of playing 'make believe', adding the mechanics of Dice and Armour class rules out arguments of "I shot you / no you didn't". Adding HP rules out arguments about when someone is dead.

Many of DM's do not like the addition of rules that they feel takes control of certain aspects of the game out of their hands. The Diplomacy skill is a great example of such a rule. However, I will contend that even having a broken diplomacy rule is better than having no rules of that sort at all.

If you remove the diplomacy skill, than it falls to the DM to decide of the players are ever able to talk someone into doing something they might not be inclined to do. For old school dungeon crawls, this is not a big deal. But certain problems can crop up.

- The players have a random encounter with some Ogres on their way to kill the Big Bad Guy and take his stuff. The Dm wants to soften the players up before the big bad guy gets to them. The players do not want to risk using spells that will alert the big bad guy near his fortress, and arrive at the idea of bribing the ogres to attack the big bad guys fortress, giving the players some cannon fodder, or at least a good distraciton. The DM knows that if this plan succeeds even as a distraction, his climactic fight will be a push over. Left solely to the DM's hands, this action will probably fail for reasons of 'providing a better overall game experience'.

- The DM has set up a scenario where the players must infiltrate a heavily guarded enemy fortress and retrieve this weeks McGuffen. The place has all sorts of magical wards and traps that make simply using Polymorph / Magic Jar / Scrying ineffective. The DM has notes accounting for the players trying to get in by force, and for standard Rogue type stealth approach (lock DC's, patrol routes, time of day differences, etc). The players instead opt for a social engineering approach using Disguise, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Forgery to get in. Assuming success, the players are in a position to simply walk in, ask for the item, and have someone hand it to them. About 8 hours of gaming is reduced to 30 minutes, and the DM's notes do not yet cover what happens next. With the rules in place, the DM is more likely to anticipate this approach, and at the worst, can adjudicate it fairly. Left to the DM's hands, this plan will almost certaintly fall apart at some point and change gears to 'entry by force'. But what if the players chose to argue the point with the DM?

Anything that gives me as the DM a means to avoid an argument with a player over the outcome of a given action is a good thing.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Mallus]

I disagree. Again, the rules can never account for everything and knowing when the rules don't fit the circumstances is critical. But that isn't turning them off, it is just knowing when you are outside the normal parameters.

I'm talking about really turning the rules "off" in specific situations. Like when a player needs to make a DC 25 Diplomacy check in order to accomplish a task and the DM just declares success based on what the player actually said. That kind of thing.

 

[apoptosis]

I'm talking about really turning the rules "off" in specific situations. Like when a player needs to make a DC 25 Diplomacy check in order to accomplish a task and the DM just declares success based on what the player actually said. That kind of thing.

What i have always found a bit wonky with many social resolution rules like say diplomacy skill is that it rarely works both ways.

The guards never use diplomacy to convince the PCs not to bother entering the castle.

 

[RigaMortus2]

What I DON'T like about how 3.x works is that you can gain a tactical advantage in combat by doing things you would NEVER do in a real fight, like running around your foe, or moving into a weird tactical position just so that your buddy gets a flanking bonus. I prefer to at least try to roleplay during combat and have my character act as I believe he or she would. I accept that not everyone can get past the rules and always go for the pure tactical advantage.

Again, I agree with you. But I often disregard the how and why of these situations. I find it best to do that to uphold your suspension of disbelief (belief?)

 

[Plane Sailing]

Yes, it is good stuff.

Now, keep it up for 20 combat rounds in a row, and see how that goes.

I've noticed that once past 4th level we never have fights lasting more than 4-8 rounds anyway!

 

[Zweischneid]

I disagree. Again, the rules can never account for everything and knowing when the rules don't fit the circumstances is critical. But that isn't turning them off, it is just knowing when you are outside the normal parameters.

Still, rules set the pace and the direction.

Example:
Stop giving out xp for fighting, killing and looting. Period!

Start giving out xp for role-playing, flavorful conversation in the local tavern or any other type of in-character behaviour in social situations.

Changes the premise on which people game very quickly.

Also note that on this premise, elaborate combat rules become less and less needed and more elaborate social rules to judge "fairness" among players as to their role-play achievments are likely to develop.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

For example, with the interaction skills, such as Bluff and Diplomacy in 3.x, it's far easier to just make a roll than to roleplay it out. Not only that, even if you do roleplay it out, some DMs make you roll anyway, so what's the point of doing the roleplaying?

Roll the dice and act out what happens based on the rolls?

 

[Dormammu]

A big part of the reduction in role-playing is the reduction in realism. Of course, realism in a fantastic setting is often a touchy subject as not everyone agrees what level of realism makes sense.

1E had a very brutal sense of realism (whether it was truly realistic or not). The number of things that could easily kill you was legion. Poisons and diseases were brutal and omnipresent. The number of hazards like slimes, molds, rot grub and throat leeches, that could completely demolish a character for touching the wrong thing, was astonishing. While some might see this as capricious, it had too great effects:

First, it forced players to learn caution. Caution in the face of danger is more realistic and, in fact, is more in line with the stories that inspire FRPG. You do not want to make a mistake in old D&D. You are slow and methodical and cautious.

And this informs the second effect... it drew you into the world. When you were exploring a room in some dungeon, you had to pay attention to the details given by the DM. You were really on edge expecting traps, ambushes or, hopefully, hidden riches.

The map focus of modern D&D is incredibly destructive to realism as well. Giving players that level of omniscient environmental awareness makes them behave in a very "tactical wargame" fashion. All sorts of unrealistic fighting tactics evolve from having the bird's eye view (as well as the often assumed player knowledge of monster abilites).

The big thing 4E is doing in this regard is balancing classes beyond the bounds of realism. Removing the immunity to sneak attacks from various monsters is an example of this. Letting Rogues do über damage in every combat situation is now more important than Rogues being role-played as non-fighters. I wish they were still called Thiefs.

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: D&D is moving toward Mordheim; if you don't think that game would be a fun roleplaying game, then you already realize there is a point where combat-orientation is taken too far. Will 4E cross that invisible line? Maybe for some people, yes.

 

[Dormammu]

Example:
Stop giving out xp for fighting, killing and looting. Period!

Start giving out xp for role-playing, flavorful conversation in the local tavern or any other type of in-character behaviour in social situations.

Or give some for fighting, but don't be so formulaic. It works well to assess key encounters less as "X monsters x Y CR = Z xp" and more in terms of the relevance to the story. Defeating a key foe warrants xp, as does convincing the Duke to send aid to the beleaguered town, and helping the townsfolk prepare their defenses so they survive a seige. Etc...

 

[Zweischneid]

Or give some for fighting, but don't be so formulaic. It works well to assess key encounters less as "X monsters x Y CR = Z xp" and more in terms of the relevance to the story. Defeating a key foe warrants xp, as does convincing the Duke to send aid to the beleaguered town, and helping the townsfolk prepare their defenses so they survive a seige. Etc...

A more sensible approach.. true. I just picked the most "drastic" variant to highlight how rules shape presumptions and dynamics of a game to counter argumentations along the "rules are irrelevant to roleplaying as roleplaying happens outside the rules anyways " line.