Expanding D&D adventures past mere combat

[Frostmarrow]

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...

I've never thought of that before. Some years ago we made it a point to role-play every single encounter with every single NPC at the market. And that's why! We were pretty anal about our equipment. Nowadays we figure seasoned adventurers know to bring the stuff they'll need and so automatically does so - in an attempt to cut down on the paperwork. Bad move apparently.

In NWN, at least when designing your own modules you need to find ways to tell the players the story without being in the game. This is pretty limiting. -Please bear with me. In order to tell the story of the Little Red Riding Hood you need to add books and letters that can be found in grandma's cottage or the hunter (the PCs) will simply slay the wolf and be done with it. If there are books and letters at grandma's, the hunter can sit down and read about Little Red Riding Hood, her mother, the wine and bread, and so understand what has taken place here. -That Red has been told several times not to stray into the woods but wouldn't listen, that grandma is a vino, and so on. So, when designing NWN-modules you need to add the story via these channels. In an RPG you can simply tell the PCs what's going OOC if you need to. This is why I love handouts in RPGs. Handouts are evidence of a story unfolding.

I have this idea of how to add a system to the role-playing experience. Any PC or NPC in the game belongs to a social class. People will only be open with people of their own class unless they are friends or family. Any party consists of commoners, clergy and nobles just to be able to get along with, gather information, from just anybody. A peasant will divulge secrets to a druid but not to a knight. By the same token a king might be interested in talking to a paladin but not a priest. In any pre-written social encounter there will be information of which social classes are represented and how much they are willing to say to PCs of their class and to PCs of other classes. This way each player is served NPCs with information that is only accessible to them.

 

[MonsterMash]

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...

So true, not every single shopping transaction needs to be played out, but just turning the game into killing things and taking their stuff on its own is where I can see the comparison with a computer game coming in, as its the roleplaying interactions that the CCRPG can't really handle and that create a lot of the verisimilitude.

I personally find the 3.5 mechanics to be basically sound, but a bit too overlaid with options - everything has a rule for it, it seems rather than all encompassing rather than just moving it back to - 'ok make a will/fort/ref save'.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[Frostmarrow]

I agree...to a point. Most gamers absolutely don't need rules to role-play. But it seems to me that the converse is true: the role-play in D&D needs the rules, if only to give it equal footing, equal effectiveness, with combat tactics.

In Savage Worlds, you could conceivably create a character that can reduce others to Jello with a clever torrent of withering Taunts, just as the combat-oriented characters cut down their prey with Greataxes.

D&D's rules are specifically designed to make this sort of concept difficult to realize. Bards are there, but do their Charismatic abilities rival those of the Fighter or Warmage? Seems to me they are more of a support class, but I could be wrong.

I like this aspect of D&D. The unavoidable combats. It's even worse in NWN. There is no end to the far-fetched fights you must endure on your high road to adventure. -And I like it that way.

I also like the talking bit of RPGs. The making plans, interviewing of NPCs, and the silly displays of temporary insanity.

I don't like the third part of RPGs. The part where you roll dice to go to the bathroom, ride a horse of make a meal. I don't think skill checks adds to the game aspect of RPGs or the social experience of them.

Since combat is such a good system to resolve conflict in D&D I like it when you need to destroy a famine spirit to end a draught, destroy a fire-elemental to stop a forest fire, fight a flight of harpies to climb a mountain. That sort of thing.

So basically, I don't see the point of having a character so glib combat will never occur because the game is about tactical combat in the first place.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[diaglo]

For D&D to claim to be all about the options, it sure doesn't seem to give you many once the initiative dice have been rolled.

you need to play OD&D(1974).

 

[I'm A Banana]

In NWN, at least when designing your own modules you need to find ways to tell the players the story without being in the game. This is pretty limiting. -Please bear with me. In order to tell the story of the Little Red Riding Hood you need to add books and letters that can be found in grandma's cottage or the hunter (the PCs) will simply slay the wolf and be done with it. If there are books and letters at grandma's, the hunter can sit down and read about Little Red Riding Hood, her mother, the wine and bread, and so understand what has taken place here. -That Red has been told several times not to stray into the woods but wouldn't listen, that grandma is a vino, and so on. So, when designing NWN-modules you need to add the story via these channels. In an RPG you can simply tell the PCs what's going OOC if you need to. This is why I love handouts in RPGs. Handouts are evidence of a story unfolding.

I think that the comparison between this kind of text and exposition in a movie is apt. In some cases, you can't avoid it. At the begining of the first Lord of the Rings movie, the audience NEEDS some sort of exposition to set it up.

However, when most of an adventure's story is told through exposition, it seems rather omre like reading a book than playing a game. In a game, like with writing, it's best to SHOW rather than TELL. If Red had been told several times not to go into the woods, it would be apt not just to tell them that, but to have several encounters where the PC's save Red in the woods, and send her home, only to have her come out again. If Grandma is a vino, it's apt to have the PC's have to seek out some rare wine in the town o satisfy her needs.

Handouts can be useful, but IMHO, they shouldn't tell the whole story.

A perfectly valid preference. I just wish destruction wasn't the only way to prevail in D&D. It might be fun to talk to the Famine spirit, find out why it's ticked off, and repair the situation. Or challenge the Harpies to a singing contest for the privilege of ascending their mountain (it is, presumably, their mountain after all).

I love slam-bang combats too, but I also like options. For D&D to claim to be all about the options, it sure doesn't seem to give you many once the initiative dice have been rolled.

From what I know, these are *posssible*, just not given drastic preference by most groups, and so is largely glossed over in the rules.

I think, in fact, that all of this is contained in the Diplomacy skill and what the DM sets the monster's attitude at. If the critter is Hostile, diplomacy is ineffective. If the DM makes use of other attitudes (unfriendly, neutral, etc.), Diplomacy becomes a useful tool to avoid combat as a minute talking can improve the creature's attitude and make them want to help, or can convince them to not attack and take another course of action.

That's not a lot of variety and it's not very dynamic, compared to combat. IMHO, there is a vacuum that can be filled by additional rules for things like this. As far as other kinds of skill contests go, that is some advice that isn't offered very prominantly in the DMG, but that is also kind of in the hands of the DM. Planting arly clues about the harpies' vanity, or the fact that they conquered the mountain to hear their own voices echo, or that harpies often pay more respect to a lovely voice than a powerful sword, are all startegies a DM can use to ensure that the PC's try other tactics.

 

[The Shaman]

In Savage Worlds, you could conceivably create a character that can reduce others to Jello with a clever torrent of withering Taunts, just as the combat-oriented characters cut down their prey with Greataxes.

D&D's rules are specifically designed to make this sort of concept difficult to realize. Bards are there, but do their Charismatic abilities rival those of the Fighter or Warmage? Seems to me they are more of a support class, but I could be wrong.

The Negotiator AdC in d20 Modern has such an ability...

Talk Down
A Negotiator of 4th level or higher can talk his or her way out of trouble. Either prior to the start of hostilities or during combat, the Negotiator can talk down a single opponent within 15 feet of his or her position or otherwise able to hear the Negotiator's voice. The target must be able to understand the Negotiator. That opponent immediately stops fighting and reverts to an indifferent attitude regarding the Negotiator and the situation in general. Any hostile action by the Negotiator or by one of the Negotiator's allies directed at the opponent allows the opponent to act as he or she sees fit.

To initiate this talent, the Negotiator must spend a full-round action talking to his or her opponent. The opponent makes a Will saving throw. The DC is equal to 10 + Negotiator's class level + Negotiator's Charisma bonus. If the save fails, the opponent stops fighting. If the save succeeds, the opponent continues as normal.

At 7th level, a Negotiator can talk down a number of opponents equal to his or her Charisma bonus within 15 feet of his or her position or within 15 feet of a television, radio, or telephone broadcasting the Negotiator's message.

At 10th level, the range extends to 30 feet and covers all opponents who can hear and understand the Negotiator's voice.

This could become a feat chain in D&D, if someone was so inclined - it's a pretty powerful ability, so I would make the pre-reqs significant before importing into D&D, however.

 

[nothing to see here]

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.
.

I think the above quote by Remathilis sums up the big cleavage in play styles I've notied. Everything he says is correct. And for a roleplay heavy group, an additional emphasis on mechanics outside of combat would detract from their fun.

But then you have the other groups where somebody who lacks the personal charisma dramatic flair to play a charismatic character, would like to play such a character anyway...without giving them some sort of mechanics to pull this off the game limits its escapist appeal.

 

[MerricB]

Where I think the point gets lost is in what makes a challenge and requires a task resolution system.

Having diplomatic skills to resolve "going to the market" is a resolution system for something that isn't a challenge - and thus there's no need of it. Of course, there can be specific challenges in a market, but for the vast majority of cases, that's not the point. (This isn't D&D: the Haggling)

Having diplomatic skills to resolve a petition before the Emperor to send aid to a beleagured garrison is another matter entirely!

The "let's jump into combat" mindset - from both players and DM - is more of a problem than the "we can't use Diplomacy during combat" issue.

I just wish destruction wasn't the only way to prevail in D&D. It might be fun to talk to the Famine spirit, find out why it's ticked off, and repair the situation.

That is an issue of adventure design, not the D&D rules - in other words, the entire point of this thread. (Consider that you get XP in D&D for overcoming a challenge, not for killing it in combat; then consider how often you see that occur).

As the Shaman notes, non-combat encounters also need what makes combat interesting: meaningful choices.

If you talk to the old man in the town and he just reels off everything you need to know without any interaction, what fun is that? Obviously, some basics need to be given so that the adventure will move along regardless of how the players act, but there should be rewards for those who dedicate the time to the encounter.

I ran a Living Greyhawk adventure yesterday in which there was one encounter that, based on the players' choices, could either have the NPCs attack the party, offer their aid, or just leave them alone. The first two options required effort from the PCs. (Well, not that much effort for the combat, given how players normally treat unknown situations...) The result of that encounter was the NPCs left the player's alone - and as a result, the subsequent encounters were much harder than they could have been, and their reward for the adventure was substantially reduced.

Having such an encounter, which not only is interesting of itself, but affects the adventure afterwards, is fantastic.

There are aspects to adventure and campaign design and structure that need to be examined on more than the single encounter level.

Cheers!