Expanding D&D adventures past mere combat

[Simplicity]

YES! Someone else understands!

Perhaps Dungeon magazine editors will consider strictly limiting or abolishing the DM Background section for instance; there are far too many adventures which still seem arbitrary and unjustified to the players even when they're completed, with no hint of what happened and why (excellent idea, your Player Revelations section, though in theory the entire adventure should sort of be that in most cases). DM Background of Mr X did Y to Lich Z 30 years ago and setup setup setup the otherwise arbitrary-seeming plot put all the pieces into place so it makes sense to the DM and not the players is all too common...

I think the DM Background section is important. I know that as a DM, I need to know all that info. But, I think (especially in Dungeon) it is essentially the *selling* point of the adventure. It's the hook that snares the DM into playing the adventure and thus buying the magazine. It also helps the DM switch to on-the-fly-mode when players do something unexpected.

It would be nice if the adventure made the appropriate relevations, but I think without some kind of format restriction, it's hard to do. Dungeon right now *requires* sections like the DM Background. It forces the writer to think in those terms. If there was a section to force the writer (and the editors) to think of the player, it might go better.

 

[Sargon the Kassadian]

This is a page and a half late, but:

"Yet reading a novel and playing D&D both require the use of imagination, while playing a computer game does not."

No offense, but this is a generalization. While videogames may use much less of your imagination, they also require suspension of disbelief and therefore use of imagination. Until videogames truly leave "nothing to the imagination" (ie Virtual Reality), there is still that element (however small or large).

 

[tetsujin28]

Who ever said combat is 'mere'?

 

[tetsujin28]

I think for a lot of people the game isn't segmented into combat and roleplaying, but rather it is all interwoven. When you separate combat from roleplaying, IMO, it presents the two as if there needs to be a choice between them.

I concur. War and fighting have produced some of the greatest human drama. How are these things uninteresting and 'not' roleplaying?

 

[wedgeski]

I think the DM Background section is important. I know that as a DM, I need to know all that info. But, I think (especially in Dungeon) it is essentially the *selling* point of the adventure. It's the hook that snares the DM into playing the adventure and thus buying the magazine. It also helps the DM switch to on-the-fly-mode when players do something unexpected.

Yes I agree with this. As a DM I *need* to know what's has gone before and what is going on - in background - right now, because that's the only way I can fill in the blanks or answer awkward questions from the PC's (via my NPC's). I don't actually mind if the adventure leaves it up to me how I foreshadow or reveal this information, and sometimes it'll kind of tumble out onto the gaming table without any real finesse. A lot of times though, once you've internalised that info, you can bring it out into the game in all kinds of surprising and subtle ways.

 

[S'mon]

I concur. War and fighting have produced some of the greatest human drama. How are these things uninteresting and 'not' roleplaying?

D&D 3e combat can be tactically interesting, but the rules do not support anything that could be described as drama, IMO. I have experienced drama as a result of D&D combat in the Midnight setting - eg when my PC decided to surrender to the Legates to try to save the life of her beloved - but it wasn't the square-counting tactical play that was dramatic, the same drama could have been reached by a far simpler, faster combat system.

 

[MerricB]

One of the best role-playing experiences I've had was in the computer game Baldur's Gate II - I refer to the romance with Jaheira.

While it was scripted, and the options were limited, it did give me meaningful choices to make, and the result was me caring very much for this imaginary character.

This was a PC-NPC relationship that is difficult to achieve in D&D, but by no means impossible.

I think for a lot of people the game isn't segmented into combat and roleplaying, but rather it is all interwoven. When you separate combat from roleplaying, IMO, it presents the two as if there needs to be a choice between them.

I do agree with that; I just note that some games emphasise the combat so much that everything else gets lost - even the rationale for the combat!

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Just a note:

I contend that the impact of individual encounters (combat or non-combat) is diminished when they aren't part of an ongoing relationship with the world and other characters.

The structure of a game requires something that can't be given purely through combat.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

Just a note:

I contend that the impact of individual encounters (combat or non-combat) is diminished when they aren't part of an ongoing relationship with the world and other characters.

The structure of a game requires something that can't be given purely through combat.

Cheers!

and i will add that is why some referees and groups require players to count the items they are carrying (encumb), the amount of food & water (rations), the amount of gold, the amount of spell components, etc...

b/c finding or using these things tactically also means roleplaying acquiring them. like asking the NPC shopkeep where to buy an iron spike or where to pick a holly berry in the local woods, or how well have the crops done this year, or...

when groups, and i'm not saying this is wrong, cut to the chase... and just start going room to room to kill things and take their stuff... and then just divide up the items for half price for quickness so they can get to the next encounter and just skip going back and forth to town to sell them... it does take the roleplay away.

you need to build relationships with NPCs so the world becomes alive. you need to figure out the seasons or weather so you can tell players they can't find the flower of the juju plant in the middle of the desert... b/c it ain't the right season or right location...

 

[Animus]

To address the other point: YOU DON"T NEED RULES TO ROLE-PLAY. You need them for combat and task-resolution. Theoretically, Regdar and Mialee don't need stats to parlay, to solve a puzzle-plot, or to chat about the weather, the need them to search for secret doors and beat the snot out of each other. WotC I think realized the a Good PC/DM can role-play for hours without thier intervention, but when they fight, they want clear rules and quick resolution.

If I have a character with an 18 dex, and max ranks in balance/jump/tumble, I don't need a feat to call him "acrobatic" and say he grew up in a circus trapeeze troupe, but secretly fears heights; I need a feat to give me a +2 to balance and tumble checks. Thats why few feats do not provide some tangible bonus/ability and why flaws are not part of the STANDARD game. (You're character is ugly; here's your free feat).

I guess its why I get so frustrated with the assumption that 3.x = combat; it doesn't any more than 2e or 1e. Combat is a crucial element in all forms, but role-playing is its own reward. (This is why I don't hand out XP for role-playing, its subjective and counter-productive.)

So, I'm glad D&D is hands-off on RP and only really concerned with combat/task resolution; I can handle the RPing without any rules, but need rules for combat.

I totally agree with you. I love the fact that 3e/3.5 has a standarized set of rules for combat and task resolution. The crunch is what I need the system for. The fluff is for me to deal with. The way that I've always looked at it was that roleplaying, in its most simple form, is playing cops and robbers with using dice instead of toy guns.

Just a note:

I contend that the impact of individual encounters (combat or non-combat) is diminished when they aren't part of an ongoing relationship with the world and other characters.

The structure of a game requires something that can't be given purely through combat.

This is also true. In my homebrew (which I've run almost exclusively for the past ten years now), I always try to tie the PCs in to the local area through NPCs, be it allies, enemies, patrons, or whomever. They enjoy it because they're not fighting those orcs to take their stuff; they fight because Milly the seamstress lost a son to those orcs and is tired of paying tribute. I'm not saying it's like that all of the time, but I do enough to make it a more enjoyable experience.

I think the DM Background section is important. I know that as a DM, I need to know all that info. But, I think (especially in Dungeon) it is essentially the *selling* point of the adventure. It's the hook that snares the DM into playing the adventure and thus buying the magazine. It also helps the DM switch to on-the-fly-mode when players do something unexpected.

Agreed. Also, some mentioned that there is no way that this stuff is written in so that the PCs know something about what's going on. I say take a clue from Tolkien (like someone else mentioned earlier) and use the NPCs/new PCs as vessels of some of this information. A patron NPC is usually the perfect person for this, as they typically have more knowledge and/or power than the PCs currently do.

Sorry for the long post, but I just read this whole thing and wanted to keep it simple with one reply.