Heroes of Battle and Defining Roleplaying

[ThoughtBubble]

D&D isn't really set up for politics. It's not really set up for inter-personal relationships, economic conquest, or finding more profitable trade routes. Heck, it'll probably get some people angry but, as the system goes, it's not even set up for development of a character's personality, or playing a character who is separate from the player. It doesn't even have methods for using character backgrounds as a part of the creation process.

Does that mean you can't have a game with political intrigue, personal relationships, economic conquest, trade routes, character development, character backgrounds, or separated characters? Of course not.

What it means is that having those in the game means you're doing so without the support of the rules. Now, for a lot of people, that's not a big deal. For a lot of people though, it is a big deal. Some people are dependant on utilising a set of rules to keep their gameworld consistent. And sometimes, it is very hard to compare just how important a 5% tax increase is to the Duke vs. the duty he feels to his estranged nephew vs. the looming threat to the north vs. improving the trade roads.

And it's only harder without guidelines, something the core D&D books don't really define for us. So, it's left up mostly to DM arbitration and somehow taking into accout the players' diplomacy rolls and arguements.

So, it really just comes down to how comfortable players and DMs are in walking away from the 'safe' bounds of what's covered in the core rules.

 

[buzz]

Also, this whole line of argument basically ignores the existence of Eberron. The post-war relations of the fivae nations, the ultimate destiny of the Cyrran people, the machinachions of the dragonmarked houses, and the status of the warforged as citizens (and their role in society), are central to the setting. All these arguments about WotC solely caring about dungeon-crawling pretty much go *poof* in light of this.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

D&D isn't really set up for politics. It's not really set up for inter-personal relationships, economic conquest, or finding more profitable trade routes.

So all these skills, like diplomacy, gather information, sense motive, knowledge, appraise, and so on, aren't there?

Sure, the PHB doesn't have page after page about political intrigue. But does it really need it?

 

[buzz]

So all these skills, like diplomacy, gather information, sense motive, knowledge, appraise, and so on, aren't there?

They are. But compare that Diplomacy gets a few paragraphs in the PHB to the many pages devoted to combat and spellcasting, and a trend becomes evident. I don't think it's dsiparaging the game to say that its primary focus lay elsewhere... thought really it's all about you and your group.

Sure, the PHB doesn't have page after page about political intrigue. But does it really need it?

Nah. It can be done. And if you want page after page, you can get the Ennie-award-winning Dynasties & Demagogues.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

They are. But compare that Diplomacy gets a few paragraphs in the PHB to the many pages devoted to combat and spellcasting, and a trend becomes evident. I don't think it's dsiparaging the game to say that its primary focus lay elsewhere... thought really it's all about you and your group.

I rather thing it's because we ourselves don't know too much about these things. The average guy doesn't know how to disarm someone properly, how to trip him, or how to cast a spell (and what spells there are). We need guidance in those thigns, as we are out of our element here.
But we usually have good fundamentals for diplomacy: We can talk and usually know how to ask to improve our chances to get what we want. We're not all masters of intrigue, but it is easier to grasp - and to resolve - than when someone hits for how much damage.

On some level, you're right: D&D is firmly in the genre of action-packed RPG with a solid amount of combat. But I think the ruleset can handle different styles pretty well, too.

 

[Ranger REG]

Wizards never published Birthright.

Technically, you're correct. But WotC did assimilated what pool of TSR's game designers into the company fold to set up R&D Group.

IIRC, Birthright co-designer Richard Baker is still employed at WotC.

If you guys want a Birthright "feel" without the "BR" label, check out Fields of Blood: The Book of War, which in addition to being a mass combat rulebook, it also include a realm management system. Hex lovers should feel right at home with this product.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

So all these skills, like diplomacy, gather information, sense motive, knowledge, appraise, and so on, aren't there?

Well, as by the obvious fact that they exist, they are, in fact there. I'm just going to assume that any sarcasm I'm hearing is all on my end.

Now, if I assume that you're just trying to ask me to clarify my position, it's that the rules and mechanics for those skills are pale enough (compared to the wealth of information and examples on combat) that consistant, fair, deep and fun rulings on them can be difficult. Thus it falls to arbitration.

What's the DC on convincing the princess to run away with me and leave the life of the court behind? Should it be a series of rolls over time? How many? Does it make a position stronger or weaker if a character character is a dazzlingly hansome guy who all the ladies swoon over? How about if I saved her from a dragon? How much can gifts help? Is there a direct cost/influence ratio somewhere that can be used to see how impressed she is with the elven diamond necklace?

Now, more importantly, how does count SomeguyIDon'tLike take the rumors that I've been doing this, and does it spur him to take a political offensive and fall into my trap of showing that he's actually charging an extra 2% tax and pocketing it? Or is he more likely to make an alliance with Marquis GuyWhoHatesMe, or undermine my alliances?

Sure, the PHB doesn't have page after page about political intrigue. But does it really need it?

If I wanted to use D&D as a political intrigue game, yes.

In case you missed it:

Some people are dependant on utilising a set of rules to keep their gameworld consistent. And sometimes, it is very hard to compare just how important a 5% tax increase is to the Duke vs. the duty he feels to his estranged nephew vs. the looming threat to the north vs. improving the trade roads.

And it's only harder without guidelines, something the core D&D books don't really define for us. So, it's left up mostly to DM arbitration and somehow taking into accout the players' diplomacy rolls and arguements.

So, it really just comes down to how comfortable players and DMs are in walking away from the 'safe' bounds of what's covered in the core rules.

Or, to serve as an example, my current DM does stuff within the rules. He's uncomfortable with things outside it because it's hard to know how to deal with them. If I got him a copy of "The DM's Guide to Politics: How to icorporate politics smoothly into a D&D game" he'd try using them. But without some sort of guide, it's hard to even know how to begin to convince the king that he needs to go to war against this other evil kingdom when you're just some wandering vagabond. So we'd probably need a player's guide too, at least if it was going to work within my group.

Also, if I slap some other petty noble across the face and challenge him to a duel, is it a diplomacy roll, a bluff roll, an intimidate roll or what? How about if I insult his clothes and lineage while I'm at it?

Begin making the real point
So, to recap my position. Having consistent, well spelled out rules with examples makes it easier for players and DMs to consistently resolve actions. D&D lacks these sorts of things in the forementioned areas. Thus, it's not as easy as it could be to use these areas in a game.
End making the real point

Now, if your group is comfortable with politics in D&D, more power to you. I know that as a player, I'd be more comfortable knowing that there was something helping out my DM figure just what is affecting what. This may be part in parcel with my expierences with this group (see above).

While I'd love to play in a political game, things like block sheets for motivations, agendas, plots, and deals would be really nice. Hm... Now I've got a side project to think about.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

And Buzz goes and says everything I wanted to much more consicely.

KaeYoss, I always figured that combat was explicitly spelled out because that's the primary area of contention. The depth of the politics and political skills are perfect for a backdrop/supplement/purpose to more standard D&Disms. D&D is a well designed system, and the fact that it goes so well across so much shows it. However, as you step away from distinct resolution methods, it becomes more Role-Playing and less Game. How an individual or group feels about that is up to them.

 

[Ranger REG]

Or, to serve as an example, my current DM does stuff within the rules. He's uncomfortable with things outside it because it's hard to know how to deal with them. If I got him a copy of "The DM's Guide to Politics: How to icorporate politics smoothly into a D&D game" he'd try using them. But without some sort of guide, it's hard to even know how to begin to convince the king that he needs to go to war against this other evil kingdom when you're just some wandering vagabond. So we'd probably need a player's guide too, at least if it was going to work within my group.

Also, if I slap some other petty noble across the face and challenge him to a duel, is it a diplomacy roll, a bluff roll, an intimidate roll or what? How about if I insult his clothes and lineage while I'm at it?

Let me guess, your current DM is allergic to research?

Not all role-playing situations will be covered in the rulebook, otherwise we have a rulebook that is 1-mile-thick.

If you're a commoner and you slapped a noble thinking you can issue a challenge to a duel, the noble have no obligation to answer except to throw you in jail. Unless you're a fan of the movie Knight's Tale.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Not all role-playing situations will be covered in the rulebook, otherwise we have a rulebook that is 1-mile-thick.

I agree. It is simply impossible to charter all possibilities and nuances of political machinations, or social machinations in general. That woul probably take up the space of all 3.5 D&D books released so far and that wouldn't be enough.

On the same lines, it is impossible to have all possibilities and nuances of combat, either.

So the game makes everything much simpler than it is in real life, so it is a game.

To be accurate, combat would have to have different stats for every weapon, including their exact reach, speed factor, the advantage of larger limbs in addition to more personal dexterity, real damage and a system to target parts of the body, parrying, bleeding, exhaustion and so much more.

It's not just politics and social interaction that is covered by the rules only in simplified terms, it's everything.