Expanding D&D adventures past mere combat

[MerricB]

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.

In truth, I find role-playing to be less important than the role-assumption element of the game. Although scenes like:

Cirrem: "Greetings noble majesty! I am charmed and delighted to see you again. I had heard there may be some matter needing my attention?"

may be great, there is also the other important approach of:

Merric: "Cirrem greets the Queen. He asks what the problem is." (Diplomacy check)

From there, the actual questions the player asks are important, regardless of the way the questions are delivered - acted or not.

Cheers!

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I could be off base here, but it sounds like conflict resolution (in addition to task resolution) could be useful here.

Conflict resolution involves setting the stakes for success/failure for a given situation, and using the die roll to determine if those stakes are won or not. That's usually how Diplomacy is used (with the stakes being "Do I improve their reaction, or worsen it?"), but you could use any skill or characteristic roll to generate an outcome. You can either ad-lib the DC needed, or roll against whatever skill the NPC they're pitted against is using.

That's pretty much how we ran D20 when I ran it. Outside of combat, there were lots of dice being rolled for different skills and characteristics.

We also decided to have narration rights go like this: The loser goes first, then the winner. It lets you do a lot of roleplaying to explain the outcome, rather than justify it.

 

[S'mon]

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.

It would be nice though if roleplaying/drama was supported _as part of combat_ - in movies and comics there is often extensive chat during the combat, both between allies and ally to enemy. AD&D's 1 minute combat rounds allowed (though didn't specifically support) this, whereas 3e and its tight restrictions on what can be done in a combat round, its only-on-your-action mentality, actively discourages this I think. I'd like to see more characters yelling taunts (Intimidate as a free action), Bluffing, Diplomatising etc, though only if the players are willing to roleplay it; treating it purely as a source of mechanical advantage - "I Initimidate him" - would just makes things worse.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Although I like combat, I agree with this. 3e's combat rules are incredibly detailed, while its non-combat interaction rules are sketchy and often unworkable as written, so without any satisfying way to determine victory in a singing contest everything tends to default to combat. I can handle the non-combat interactions OK in 3e but basically by ignoring the rules and winging it, maybe with occasional skill checks for support.

Edit: One reason for the quick resort to combat in 3e is that 3e's combat rules give a big first-mover-advantage and tend to penalise unsuccessful parley attempts.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I actively try to prevent this IMC - if a player is truly uncharismatic, their embarrassing attempt to play a dashing swashbuckler greatly reduces my enjoyment of the game. Plenty of shy people can roleplay charismatic characters pretty well (I'd include myself in this group) but some people just can't, and IMO shouldn't.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I actively try to prevent this IMC - if a player is truly uncharismatic, their embarrassing attempt to play a dashing swashbuckler greatly reduces my enjoyment of the game. Plenty of shy people can roleplay charismatic characters pretty well (I'd include myself in this group) but some people just can't, and IMO shouldn't.

Perhaps you are right. It depends on the group I guess. In my group, and we have been playing for years, the charismatic characters may vary. However, the leaders are the same couple of blokes anyway. Sometimes they cooperate, sometimes they compete, and sometimes they even relinquish command but we all know who the bosses are. This goes to say that real charisma will always shine through and if you lack it, bad for you.

But as always: If you can't play a dashing swashbuckler you can always be a mysterious one.

 

[nothing to see here]

In truth, I find role-playing to be less important than the role-assumption element of the game. Although scenes like:

Cirrem: "Greetings noble majesty! I am charmed and delighted to see you again. I had heard there may be some matter needing my attention?"

may be great, there is also the other important approach of:

Merric: "Cirrem greets the Queen. He asks what the problem is." (Diplomacy check)

From there, the actual questions the player asks are important, regardless of the way the questions are delivered - acted or not.

Cheers!

But what if your player wants his PC to be known as the "best talker of the empire"...there's not much rules-wise (in the core) to allow him to distinguish himself so. His buddy who wants to play the "best swordsman in the empire" get's a plethora of options.

As an aside, here is an area where the OGL has come through big...the core rules keep off 'social mechanics' to avoid alienating groups that like roleplaying free of dice rolling...while a couple of third party publishers have filled in some of that space. This is what made, Atlas games "Dynasties and Demagogues", one of the fie or six most used books at our game table.

 

[nothing to see here]

I actively try to prevent this IMC - if a player is truly uncharismatic, their embarrassing attempt to play a dashing swashbuckler greatly reduces my enjoyment of the game. Plenty of shy people can roleplay charismatic characters pretty well (I'd include myself in this group) but some people just can't, and IMO shouldn't.

That's essentially what our group talked about doing as well. Fortunately our groups were all socially well adjusted young professionals so it wasn't really a factor. However, like you said, somebody could be shy in real-life but want to play a charming character and under the core rules that shy person has no mechanical means to have their character be something that, in real life, they're not. Meanwhile one of my players (who weighed all of 150 lbs soaking wet) was playing a Conan-esque barbarian with ease.

The (lack of) rules in the core restrict a few options in the name of ease of play for the majority of players...which is certainly a valid decision...just one that also has some baggage.

 

[Frostmarrow]

That's essentially what our group talked about doing as well. Fortunately our groups were all socially well adjusted young professionals so it wasn't really a factor. However, like you said, somebody could be shy in real-life but want to play a charming character and under the core rules that shy person has no mechanical means to have their character be something that, in real life, they're not. Meanwhile one of my players (who weighed all of 150 lbs soaking wet) was playing a Conan-esque barbarian with ease.

The (lack of) rules in the core restrict a few options in the name of ease of play for the majority of players...which is certainly a valid decision...just one that also has some baggage.

I don't see what is such a big deal. As soon as we discuss whether skill checks are appropriate for social situations this example person is mentioned. Why must the entire game cater to this guy? It's sort of like demanding tour de france bicyclers all should use training wheels just because some dude wants in, without the appropriate skills.

 

[nothing to see here]

I don't see what is such a big deal. As soon as we discuss whether skill checks are appropriate for social situations this example person is mentioned. Why must the entire game cater to this guy? It's sort of like demanding tour de france bicyclers all should use training wheels just because some dude wants in, without the appropriate skills.

It's about inclusion really. I find your metaphor a little forced. The Tour de France is an elite-level cycling competition. D&D is a recreational co-operative passtime. In the former, the participants must strive to meet the standards of the event. In the latter, the event should strive to make as many participants as welcome as possible.

If you don't want "this guy" in your campaign, than don't invite him. Problem solved. If however we're serious about enhancing the experience for people playing D&D, perhaps we should, at least, give them some baseline rules that let them create and run the kind of characters they want.