Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[alleynbard]

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

What do we have for VB, Johnny? How about a weeks vacation in the Bahamas...
​

This is exactly the feeling I get from 4e. The roleplay is thankfully back in the hands of the DM and players and not in the numbers on the character sheet.

If you as a player have put in your background that you're the son of a blacksmith and until taking up the adventuring life, you were doing the same. Then I, as the DM, should make adjustments that make sense in relation to that background and the game world. If the player asks something as simple as what is the quality of this sword, I can make an in-game adjudication taking his background into consideration and give him a reasonable assessment. Do we really need mechanics for that? I don't think so.

However, more guidelines for DMs to help them think in that manner would probably be helpful.

Well said to both you and VB.

This is one of the major things that attracted me to 4e. If Wizards were to introduce a traits system, I might take a look at it before using it. But right now, backgrounds are about as far I need to go in my games.

Rituals, some utilities, and even some attack powers have enough out of combat versatility that I don't see much need beyond those and my relationship with my players to handle almost anything the players throw at me.

 

[mlund]

I think the key principle that goes overlooked is that Classes are a vehicle to Restrict characters - not Empower them. I think people get caught up in the names too much and allow the combat suite of powers to start dictating the role the character plays outside of combat. This leads to concepts of out-of-combat roles conflicting with combat roles due to class clashes.

For example, the holy warrior of an elven deity who favors the bow, uses animals as enforcers, and has nature as a domain. His or her chosen warrior-saints could largely play in combat as Rangers and Druids. From an out-of-combat role, the character is a Paladin or Cleric. If you insist on the character taking "Paladin" as the character class his or her combat shticks completely cross up his out-of-combat motif.

This is why a character should not have all (or even most) of his out-of-combat functions tied to his battlefield role (IE - character class).

One of the keys elements of role-playing is understanding boundaries. Character sheets and printed mechanics make boundaries easier to establish. This assures players that their bright ideas are fair game and likewise give the DM a simple means of arbitration as well as broad grounds to deny anything that slips off the rails of mechanics. However, I find that most significant role-playing demands the training wheels of "roll-playing" come off. It puts extra demands on the DM to be interactive, adaptive, and consistent, something that may not fit the bill for every DM and every table.

That's why, in the end, you are stuck when it comes to core rules on role-playing. You either leave things extremely free form or you wind up piling up restrictions on the characters or the DM with mechanics.

Guidelines are good. The "Rule of Cool," is something that can't be emphasized enough. Ever time I hear a DM say something like, "The rules don't say anything about being able to use a fire spell to ignite paper. You can't do that," or "The rules say you need [Trait X] and [class Y] doesn't get [Trait X] so you can't do [mundane task Z]," it just inspires me to frown.

- Marty Lund

 

[Rechan]

I see a bit of disconnect/talking past eachother here. Because I think there are two different kinds of roleplaying, as far as folks are advocating here.

1) Out of combat dice-rolling. You have a large suite of non-combat related skills, spells, and class abilities. Each mechanical aspect has parameters, and semi-defined limits and strengths (Charmed person, for instance).

As far as this camp is concerned, there's just not enough options in 4e.

2) Out of Combat Interaction. The character's stats only influence the roleplaying as far as "I have a 10 int, so I'm not going to act too smart". Everything else is just describing and acting what your character does.

As far as this camp is concerned, 4e has the same options as any other edition because roleplaying has little to do with direct mechanics; it's what you describe your character doing or how he acts.

 

[Rechan]

I'm torn on this. Partially because I don't think heavy non-combat stuff is fit for what D&D is. I don't like heavy non-combat stuff in my D&D. In other games, it's fine, but I like to keep my D&D in a separate box from other styles.

On the other hand, I can - and do - understand the desire for non-combat stuff. If I'm not a very charismatic player, but I want to play a charismatic character, I should be able to, and I should be able to make things happen and work successfully.

WHen it comes to non-combat mechanics, games I love are the Indie, hippy-dippy "Narrative control" games, where the mechanics encourage the narrative. Something like Prime Time Adventures, or Spirit of the Century, where Combat and Non-Combat Situations are treated and resolved in roughly the same way.

As far as 4e is concerned, what I absolutely do not want is them to flood books with new non-combat powers and feats. The classes, the roles, were constructed so that everyone contributed equally (but in different ways) to combat. Replacing combat powers with non-combat powers means that you're sacrificing combat effectiveness for non-combat effectiveness, and thus watering down the entire intention of the design in the first place. I do not believe that players should have to sacrifice combat effectiveness for non-combat effectiveness.

What I think would be best, is basically to design non-combat roles that function similar to classes. A non-combat role is like a template that fits on over your regular class. The same way you have Encounter/utility/daily powers, your non-combat Role would grant you Out-of-Combat powers that fit in with that role. The various Out-of-Combat powers would interact with the Non-Combat system.

 

[mlund]

I see a bit of disconnect/talking past eachother here. Because I think there are two different kinds of roleplaying, as far as folks are advocating here.

1) Out of combat dice-rolling. You have a large suite of non-combat related skills, spells, and class abilities. Each mechanical aspect has parameters, and semi-defined limits and strengths (Charmed person, for instance).

As far as this camp is concerned, there's just not enough options in 4e.

See, the problem here is that I don't perceive those mechanics as options so much as restrictions.

2) Out of Combat Interaction. The character's stats only influence the roleplaying as far as "I have a 10 int, so I'm not going to act too smart". Everything else is just describing and acting what your character does.

Well, actually you can easily utilize Stat-checks if you really need to throw dice at a problem due to conflicts. However "describe and acting what your character does," overlooks the core element of problem solving. I don't think that solving all a character's important problems with dice is necessarily an indicator of a good game system.

Frankly, no matter how robust the game system it can never really compensate for the fact that such interaction really requires a robust DM rather than a wealth of tables, classes, and abilities.

Dice are an engine of randomization. When you deal with a task that doesn't warrant the dramatic tension and randomness of a die roll (like researching in an ordinary library or breaking down a door without a time constraint) then pulling out the dice isn't really adding anything to the game, IMO.

 

[Rechan]

See, the problem here is that I don't perceive those mechanics as options so much as restrictions.

I don't understand this.

How is, for instance, Charm Person a restriction?

 

[Imaro]

See, the problem here is that I don't perceive those mechanics as options so much as restrictions.

I'm curious, no stark intended, but do you consider 4e's combat powers as restrictions?

Well, actually you can easily utilize Stat-checks if you really need to throw dice at a problem due to conflicts. However "describe and acting what your character does," overlooks the core element of problem solving. I don't think that solving all a character's important problems with dice is necessarily an indicator of a good game system.

Frankly, no matter how robust the game system it can never really compensate for the fact that such interaction really requires a robust DM rather than a wealth of tables, classes, and abilities.

Dice are an engine of randomization. When you deal with a task that doesn't warrant the dramatic tension and randomness of a die roll (like researching in an ordinary library or breaking down a door without a time constraint) then pulling out the dice isn't really adding anything to the game, IMO.

And yet, going by this logic... combat should be an exercise in problem solving that is best handled by descriptive players and a robust DM rather than a wealth of powers, feats, and abilities.

I guess I'm not seeing the difference between roleplaying a great swordsman and having it supported mechanically (so I can actually do the things in game that a swordsman can do and not look the part of the fool when I roll) or wanting to be a great gambler and have it mechanically supported in a game (so I don't look like a goofball instead of a cool gambler when I roll against others or NPC's).

 

[Rechan]

I'm curious, no stark intended, but do you consider 4e's combat powers as restrictions?

He said as much in the post above mine.

 

[Imaro]

He said as much in the post above mine.

Yes, but he only addresses classes, as a whole, specifically... he kind of dances around the point of whether powers in and of themselves are restrictions or whether he considers the grouping of them into particular classes as the restricting part..

 

[Ariosto]

A rule is by definition a restriction of options. The only way a specific rule can "open up" options is as an exception to a general rule that limits them.

That's not inherently good or bad, just a fact of life. A game is necessarily defined by rules -- at issue is where and by how many.

There has been a tendency for a while in D&D to take as a starting point the rule that something is prohibited unless a written rule explicitly permits it.

That, and the nature of the pile of rules, definitely shapes how players address combat situations. It shapes how sane characters, at least, are role-played.