Give me choices!

[Majoru Oakheart]

Totally disagree here. Combat certainly gets the lionshare of the rules, and maybe even gametime devoted to it...but if combat is the "typical" experience for D&D ( which is a gross generalization IMHO) we wouldn't have anything but combat feats, no diplomacy, bluff, gather information, knowledge skills, profession or craft skills, no spells that can't be used in combat, etc.

As I've said and other people as well, it isn't the totality of the game, it's just most of it. Probably about 75%. That doesn't mean you don't need feats for the 25% of the game that isn't combat, it just means that they are less useful. So, they need to be in the game so that you're not just making stuff up during the non-combat situations.

My 75% number is gotten from my average play session as well as the hundreds of games I've played in Living Greyhawk, Mark of Heroes, Xen'drik Expeditions, and Legacy of the Green Regent. Almost all the RPGA games (as well as my home game that I run and the one I play in) are all 4 hours to 4 and a half hours long. Combats normally take about an hour each. 3 combats get done in about that time.

In my experience (which I believe is fairly extensive in terms of the sheer variety of people and types of games I've played in: Tournament games at conventions, RPGA events, home games in 3 different countries with easily over 300 different people as I tended to jump from group to group for a while and we lost players and gained new ones often in our group), that although the amount of combat DOES very from group to group, it rarely drops below 50% of the game, and it almost always averages around 75%. I've actually only played in 1 group ever who had sessions that consistently dropped below half the session. The DM specifically warned everyone that his game was extremely political and even purposefully threw in a almost all combat session just to appease his players now and then.

How you choose to play the game is exactly that...how you choose to play. The typical group IMHO, doesn't exist. D&D can have a focus but that isn't the totality of gameplay...at least I hope not otherwise I would see no reason to play D&D as opposed to Descent produced by Fantasy Flight Games.

My experience heavily differs. I admit that the volume of house rules varies greatly from group to group as does knowledge of the rules themselves. In my experience the people who played the most role playing intensive games (the ones closer to 50% combat instead of 75%) were also the people who either large amounts of house rules or who had a very poor grasp of the rules so just made stuff up(I really don't mean to insult anyone by saying that, just stating my experience).

If you've read the article on Quests for 4th Edition, it states pretty much my experience with D&D in the past...which is that quests are there to give you an excuse to go into a dungeon and kill things or explore an ancient castle and kill things. The game wouldn't be fulfilling if it didn't have a world and a story to wrap around the killing and I certainly wouldn't want to play a game where the DM said, "You're in a hallway, you don't know what you are doing there...what do you do?"

I like knowing who my character is and why he's exploring dungeons and killing monsters for sure. That is very much part of the game, and an important part. However, my concern is whether the beholder turns me to stone or not or if the dragon kills me with his breath weapon. It is not really so much about whether my brother's shop back in Greyhawk is doing well.

 

[Imaro]

As I've said and other people as well, it isn't the totality of the game, it's just most of it. Probably about 75%. That doesn't mean you don't need feats for the 25% of the game that isn't combat, it just means that they are less useful. So, they need to be in the game so that you're not just making stuff up during the non-combat situations.

My 75% number is gotten from my average play session as well as the hundreds of games I've played in Living Greyhawk, Mark of Heroes, Xen'drik Expeditions, and Legacy of the Green Regent. Almost all the RPGA games (as well as my home game that I run and the one I play in) are all 4 hours to 4 and a half hours long. Combats normally take about an hour each. 3 combats get done in about that time.

In my experience (which I believe is fairly extensive in terms of the sheer variety of people and types of games I've played in: Tournament games at conventions, RPGA events, home games in 3 different countries with easily over 300 different people as I tended to jump from group to group for a while and we lost players and gained new ones often in our group), that although the amount of combat DOES very from group to group, it rarely drops below 50% of the game, and it almost always averages around 75%. I've actually only played in 1 group ever who had sessions that consistently dropped below half the session. The DM specifically warned everyone that his game was extremely political and even purposefully threw in a almost all combat session just to appease his players now and then.

You know, this actually sheds light on why our play experiences may be so different...I have gamed with a fairly consistent group through D&D 3e and D&D 3.5. If combat was all or even the majority of the focus in our games...I don't think we would have continued gaming (or at least playing D&D in particular). It would have gotten boring real quick.

My experience heavily differs. I admit that the volume of house rules varies greatly from group to group as does knowledge of the rules themselves. In my experience the people who played the most role playing intensive games (the ones closer to 50% combat instead of 75%) were also the people who either large amounts of house rules or who had a very poor grasp of the rules so just made stuff up(I really don't mean to insult anyone by saying that, just stating my experience).

If you've read the article on Quests for 4th Edition, it states pretty much my experience with D&D in the past...which is that quests are there to give you an excuse to go into a dungeon and kill things or explore an ancient castle and kill things. The game wouldn't be fulfilling if it didn't have a world and a story to wrap around the killing and I certainly wouldn't want to play a game where the DM said, "You're in a hallway, you don't know what you are doing there...what do you do?"

I like knowing who my character is and why he's exploring dungeons and killing monsters for sure. That is very much part of the game, and an important part. However, my concern is whether the beholder turns me to stone or not or if the dragon kills me with his breath weapon. It is not really so much about whether my brother's shop back in Greyhawk is doing well.

It's funny because I wasn't particularly thrilled with the "quests" article, but I won't go into that here. My players play to create a good story, explore their characters in the presented world and level up. Combat really has just become one of multipe aspects of the game for my players (some of which have no great fondness for it, while others relish it).

 

[Simon Marks]

In what way do the D&D rules support what your players do?

 

[Imaro]

In what way do the D&D rules support what your players do?

Uhm...were you asking me?

 

[The Little Raven]

"Fantasy Co-operative Story Time" is D&D from the beginning.

Yes, but it didn't have rules for things outside of killing dudes and jacking their shinies. In fact, I recall someone stating on this very forum that Gygax wrote that he didn't make social interaction rules and only focused on combat because social roleplaying was boring.

I'd rather D&D remained an RPG without designer decided combat limits.

D&D has always been an RPG with designer-decided combat limits. That's what levels are all about: limitations on your character's development.

 

[howandwhy99]

How is it limiting?

See the Venn diagram... Anthing that needs to be included in 3 groups is inherently limited in regards to any one unless that one is consumed within another. TRPGs aren't.

1e had essentially no rules for non-combat situations other than the reaction tables (wacky) and the secondary skills table (useless). Nonweapon proficiencies in late 1e and 2e really didn't measure up, being essentially tacked-on rules that were highly unlikely to come up in gameplay. So instead, 1e went for challenging the players rather than the characters when it came to non-combat encounters. In 3e, you can actually craft a *character* who can excel at diplomacy, answering difficult lore questions, and so on, which expands options for role-playing, since the player can run a *character* who can do these things rather than the DM and player hashing it out directly between themselves with no regard for the character's implied personality and abilities.

I'm really thinking you missed the boat when you played early D&D. You don't believe DMs and Players have regard for a character's implied personality and abilities? This is roleplaying.

It seems to me that the elephant in the room is that challenging players rather than characters is game system neutral.

Hardly. Rules have an enormous effect on players' ability to immerse themselves in character. Or, like feats & talents, constantly pull them out of character.

I can use 1e's riddles, puzzles, whatever just fine in 3e (and I do!).

I'm happy you've decided to have some roleplay at your games. But why not roll for these too and throw out everything?

The issue is that social interaction, wilderness survival, interactive trap scenarios, and so on are much harder to run in 1e because the DM has to make up the rules as he goes,

Not in the least. Could you imagine codifying rules for everything imaginable before the Referee ever received them? That's why he's a referee. He judges each case based on what he knows of the real world. Even 3e doesn't deny the necessity of this.

meaning that the players have no real idea what outcomes are going to look like...

Of course they have real ideas. These aren't newborn infants playing the game. No real ideas come when you don't even consider how you lied to the guard 'cause all you did was roll.

which, if you are risk averse, means you'll avoid those sorts of scenarios in favor of combat,

Unless of course you enjoy roleplaying and have some inkling to what acting in character means.

where you *know* what your character is capable of.

Knowing by experience from your own life and previous play vs. 45% / 55% on a roll.

Having rules for non-combat scenarios gives groups tools to *facilitate* such scenarios.

Enormously hampers human interaction by putting a codification upon what is allowed. Sometimes to the point where no roleplaying happens at all.

It's not a limitation, it's an expansion of possibilities.

"As long as we stay in the lines, there is no limit to what we can do."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In what way do the D&D rules support what your players do?

I assume you are asking me. The rules support it on a number of levels.

Mostly, I suggest that if you buy the 3 core books then purchase one of the printed adventures(like, say Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, etc) and then tell people to make up characters using the rules in the book without any changes and run it the way it's written then you end up with a game that has a tone exactly as I described.

It is possible for the DM to add a little more focus to the small details. If the book says, "If the PCs succeed in a DC 24 Diplomacy check the bartender will tell them what they want to know" it is possible for the DM to extend that one sentence into a 4 hour long session. However, it's one sentence in the book and most of the adventures would take years and years with the PCs gaining nearly no experience at all if run that way. And would have to be mostly made up by the DM since it is likely the adventure doesn't give you more than a couple of sentences about what the bartender knows.

 

[The Little Raven]

Enormously hampers human interaction by putting a codification upon what is allowed. Sometimes to the point where no roleplaying happens at all.

This same argument can be turned against having combat systems and stats in a game.

"My roleplaying concept is 'greatest swordsman who ever lived,' but my low BAB and lack of feats are impeding my ability to roleplay my character, so we should just scrap them."

"As long as we stay in the lines, there is no limit to what we can do."

Games have rules. If you abandon rules, you're simply doing improv storytelling.

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D has always been an RPG with designer-decided combat limits. That's what levels are all about: limitations on your character's development.

Out of combat levels had no effect. Maybe combat prowess, but you had to show off for that. None of this advancement of non-combat skills because your level went up.

 

[The Little Raven]

Out of combat levels had no effect.

So, level has no effect on your ability to cast teleportation circle (mass teleport, whatever) out of combat?

None of this advancement of non-combat skills because your level went up.

So, you're saying that combat-related characters should be limited by stats, but non-combat stuff shouldn't be? Limit one character type while giving another free reign to ignore low Charisma or whatever, simply because the player is good at persuasion?