D&D 5E [+] How can 5e best handle role playing outside of combat?

[Musing Mage]

What 5e can benefit from is a passive reaction chart. Most of the interactions in 5e are based on the skills of Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation... which are fine as far as they go but always imply an active intent of some kind.

Fortunately the 2nd Ed reaction charts are easily ported over to 5e and work very well on top of what's already there. A chart based on how players are acting - Friendly, Indifferent, Threatening, or Hostile.... using the base charisma adjustment to determine the baseline of how a creature or NPC reacts. This can be further affected by active use of Persuasion, Intimidation, or Deception.

In days of yore, Charisma was often treated as the dump stat. This is primarily because many DMs didn't understand how to use it, and ergo didn't. But if you familiarize yourself with the Encounter Reaction charts, and apply them liberally, you'll see the role playing element of the game blossom. The key is not to disregard a result that seems counter intuitive, rather embrace it and make it work. IE: The group has returned from a successful adventure, done everything that was asked of them, and yet the dice offer a hostile response from the Lord/Noble/King etc... how do you justify it? What happens? Why? THIS is where truly interesting things can spring up to surprise you and take the game in unexpected directions.

 

[HammerMan]

That depends on for whom the game is designed, and why; how the rest of the game is designed around them

I am assumeing the growing D&D community, where (In my experence) the social has been growing in importance and the Combat has been shrinking with newer players (and mind you that isn't me...I am in my 40's and have been playing more of my life then I didn't, I am old school not new school at all)

(ex: if there are ignorable castle&leadership rules, but if you ignore them fighters have little gains past name level); and even whether these rules might add confusion rather than subtract from them (particularly for the 10-12 year olds for whom this game is also designed).

Great example... back in the day when I was a teen playing 2e I LOVED fighter... but I HATED how many DMs didn't like the whole leader of men thing... not once did I get to build a castle.

Maybe that is why I loved 4's Warlord so much I could FEEL like a leader of men without building the castle.

Also where the rules are placed. Feats and multiclassing are theoretically optional, yet I have incredible trouble finding people who play without them (to the point of having seen people in threads call it Tyrannical DMing to disallow them).

Same, I feel like they ARE NOT optional, but just have that tag for some reason. I can't imagine why multi classing was called out, I atleast understand why feats might be.

While I'm less than duly impressed with the amount of non-combat rules provided in this edition, I won't stand behind a universal more-is-better,-you-can-always-ignore-some position either. There aren't universals on this, IMO, and you always need to understand the context. I've certainly seen games where trying to cover everything ended up being detrimental to the brand (late GURPS 3e and some of the more expansive Hero Systems, IIRC).

Okay, but I think GURPS did what 5e promised (remember dials) I think a 4th "main" book full of optional rules would be great... even if you pulled feats out of the PHB and into this book of dials and knobs...

 

[Lyxen]

No, you really don't. It isn't hard for a Warlock, Bard, or Sorcerer to make a combat optimized character that is still optimized for social interactions. It's not so easy for the Fighter or Monk.

It is exactly just as easy, especially if you add exploration to the mix of activities. The Monk is good at that, the fighter has lots of feats, just tailor the character that you want to play. Once and for all, 5e has NO expectation in terms of character combat power, any non-stupid character is going to be efficient enough to have fun (unlesss of course, the intent is to be better than others and to compare yourself, but it's not the basic intent of the game). Then, of course, if you are at a table where this matters very much, you have choices to make, but it's because of your table choices, not the game.

 

[Lyxen]

What 5e can benefit from is a passive reaction chart.

Why do you need a chart ? Why do you even need rules? And the game allows for passive anyway, which I quite often use very easily when the party is meeting strangers, just combine the description done by the player of his character's attitude with a passive persuasion/deception/intimidation/simple charisma passive.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

If I make a Fighter I have to go out of my way to make him good at socializing.

"Warlord" Battlemaster with a decent Charisma, the Inspiring leader feat and Commanding presence/Rally for maneuvers. Enjoy

 

[Fanaelialae]

So to expand the original question, which was obviously not as clear as I thought it was. Then I was on a plane to Madrid so couldn’t clarify!



This was the quote that caught my attention. Is everything not-combat in 5e, filler until the next fight comes along as this poster seem to suggest.

Can you have a meaningful, enjoyable, challenging (not necessarily risk of death) session in D&D without inserting CR/level appropriate fights. If so, are there any specific techniques or rules you would use to do so?

If your answer is “yes, obviously” but you don’t want to talk about the how, the thread probably isn’t for you.

If your answer is “no, 5e can only ever be improv outside of combat” then the thread also probably also isn’t for you.

@vincegetorix gets if. Thanks for that list. I’ve never seen plot points before. It sounds like something that could take roleplaying encounters to a new level of engagement.

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been addressed.

The complaint you quoted is reminiscent to me of the adage, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I've seen the equivalent argument raised on multiple occasions, but I think it fails to consider a few things.

Namely that, the D&D toolkit does in fact contain tools other than "hammers". It's like arguing that a toolkit doesn't contain screwdrivers because it doesn't contain a power drill. When the reality is that a toolkit that contains (unpowered) screwdrivers is, in fact, comprised of tools other than hammers. An individual might prefer a power drill, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's clearly incorrect to claim that a toolkit containing basic screwdrivers and hammers contains nothing but hammers.

D&D can certainly handle "roleplaying" outside of combat and do so well. It may rely on the DM more than some other systems to do so, but I see this as a matter of preference. Some groups will enjoy the curated experience of crunchy rules, whereas others may prefer the freedom that comes with a more relaxed framework.

 

[Lyxen]

"Warlord" Battlemaster with a decent Charisma, the Inspiring leader feat and Commanding presence/Rally for maneuvers. Enjoy

Yes, for me it's a really good approximation of a Warlord, without some of the things that I annoyed me in 4e like the fact that it made the warlord some sort of healer on top of the rest.

 

[Krachek]

Should I understand that interesting role play is only when you succeed a charisma check?

 

[Bacon Bits]

I am dumbfounded by the statement of said player, I don't even know where to begin to try and understand it. So if I turn to page 187 of the PHB its going to tell me when I can and cant have fun? Does page 187 say, "Fireball is an amazing spell, but its not one to cast if you want to have fun"?

That's not really what is meant by that statement.

"The rules define the fun," means that the rules contain all the assumptions about what the designers expect the players to do in order to achieve the objectives of the game. That's as true for a board game or a TCG as it is for and RPG. The question, "How do I play?" really does mean, "How do I have fun?"

If, for example, an RPG contained rules for scoring the structure, rhythm, and rhyme of a stanza of iambic pentameter, you should expect that writing poetry would be a way to have fun and rewarding experience playing the game. If you don't writing writing poetry, you wouldn't say that you play the game without the poetry. You'd just say you don't like that game because it involves too much poetry.

In general, D&D contains rules for: Creating a fantasy adventurer and fighting combat with weapons and spells. That's not just because the overwhelming proportion of every rule in the game is dedicated (often exclusively) to the combat subgame. It's also because combat very clearly represents the overwhelming proportion of development effort as well. It's very clear that the designer expectation and intention for 5e D&D is that you will use combat a lot. You will use combat to overcome challenges, and you will spend a lot of time during the game using combat. "The rules define the fun," means that if the game is one that is to your liking you should expect that combat is one of the most fun and rewarding aspects of the game as a whole.

If, on the other hand, you don't have a fun or rewarding experience using the rules of the game, then perhaps either you don't enjoy that game or the game is simply badly designed.

 

[Lyxen]

In general, D&D contains rules for: Creating a fantasy adventurer and fighting combat with weapons and spells.

Actually no. This is simply not true, even with the PH, and especially with the DMG added into the mix. Out of a 300+ pages PH, you have:

• Creating a character: 165 pages
• Using Ability Scores / Adventuring: 13 pages
• Combat: TEN pages. Repeat after me, TEN PAGES ! Less than 3% !!!
• Spells: 90 pages, a large number of which can be used outside of combat.
• Various: 20 pages

So no, sorry, it is simply not true even with the PH alone, and it's even less about combat if you add the DMG.

That's not just because the overwhelming proportion of every rule in the game is dedicated (often exclusively) to the combat subgame.

And as demonstrated above, it's simply an untrue premise. This is not 4e where every single power of every class was almost only usable in combat, or even 3e with extremely involved combat rules. In 5e, the actual combat rules are about 3% of the PH.

It's also because combat very clearly represents the overwhelming proportion of development effort as well. It's very clear that the designer expectation and intention for 5e D&D is that you will use combat a lot.

No, it's not, sorry. Even with combat being more complex that other phases, especially with a rules-light 5e, it is still factually totally untrue to say this.

You will use combat to overcome challenges, and you will spend a lot of time during the game using combat.

Again, totally untrue. There are a lot of examples including on this thread of people who spend the majority of their time OUTSIDE combat.

"The rules define the fun," means that if the game is one that is to your liking you should expect that combat is one of the most fun and rewarding aspects of the game as a whole.

Nope, sorry.

If, on the other hand, you don't have a fun or rewarding experience using the rules of the game, then perhaps either you don't enjoy that game or the game is simply badly designed.

Actually, I've found that it's mostly the combat enthusiats who have a problem with 5e, because the rules are fuzzy, because the DM is at least as much a storyteller as a referee, etc. People who play CaS and who enjoy the RAW are perpetually frustrated by 5e and end up playing a very different game with tons of house rules, etc. They should be the ones questioning whether this is the edition for them.