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

[Bolares]

I think the big problem in this thread is that people are having difficulty in understanding different players and groups have different needs. It may seem strange that something is not enough for others when it has been working fine in yours for years, but it happens, and the opposite is also true. Maybe something is completelly lackluster to you, but is just right to provide joy for other people...

 

[HammerMan]

In the 4e era there were complains about everything. I can understand someone not liking skill challenges because they can feel a little to mechanic/robotic if the DM is not carefull and maleable in its aplication. But in my table it solves a lot of problems in a efficient and fun manner.

skill challanges needed work (and they got better as the edition went on)
throwing them out instead of working on them was one of the BIGGEST mistakes 5e made, and I hope 5.5/6/anniversary edition fixes that

 

[HammerMan]

I think the big problem in this thread is that people are having difficulty in understanding different players and groups have different needs. It may seem strange that something is not enough for others when it has been working fine in yours for years, but it happens, and the opposite is also true. Maybe something is completelly lackluster to you, but is just right to provide joy for other people...

my go to answer is it is always better to have a rule (at least an optional one) you can ignore if you don't need it then it is to not have a rule you may need'

 

[Bolares]

skill challanges needed work (and they got better as the edition went on)
throwing them out instead of working on them was one of the BIGGEST mistakes 5e made, and I hope 5.5/6/anniversary edition fixes that

yeah, and the port to 5e IS SO SIMPLE. It would be no work at all for them to make it official. At this point I think the designers decided skill challenges are not a part of the game and moved on from it...

 

[Bolares]

my go to answer is it is always better to have a rule (at least an optional one) you can ignore if you don't need it then it is to not have a rule you may need'

It depends on how you present this rule. If you give it to much emphasis you may make someone who won't like it the impression that it's vital to the game, but I agree that there should be at least some optional rules that gave more depth to the other pillars.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

yeah, and the port to 5e IS SO SIMPLE. It would be no work at all for them to make it official. At this point I think the designers decided skill challenges are not a part of the game and moved on from it...

Aren't group checks pretty similar to skill challenges?

 

[R_J_K75]

Did you use character abilities or was it you all talking? Would the game have proceeded exactly the same way without it being D&D? Can you put some meat on the bones?

This was a long time ago so I only remember so much. I think I read one of the short 1-2 page mini adventures out of the Book of Lairs while the players made characters so I had a general idea of where the adventure was supposed to go. We started in the obligatory tavern and never left it. It was all talking and environmental interaction. So at that point I suppose it could have been any fantasy RPG but then again their classes, secondary skills and NWP defined some of the outcome of the game, so it sill felt like D&D. Before we started delving more into the rules we were using auto success for that session at least. It was myself and 2 players so I think if it had been a larger group things would have been harder to do that and keep players attention without them wanting to start rolling dice and kill stuff. It set up our next adventure which was all I was hoping to do.

 

[TwoSix]

Also, this is still about mechanics, not about roleplay, which can come on top of mechanics but which do not require them at all.

Yea, but I don't love that either, because it's still conflating "roleplaying" with "talking". Making any mechanical decision with the intent of developing and displaying characterization is still roleplaying, to my mind.

 

[MGibster]

I agree about this, but first this is only partially linked to roleplaying, and second even though some people are complaining that D&D does not have enough of a social situation mechanism, the DMG clearly has one, in Chapter 8, section "Social Interaction".

Who reads the DMG? I kid. Sort of. When it comes to social interactions in D&D, the biggest obstacle I find is that some character classes just aren't very good at it. Me? I don't really care whether or not my character is optimized to be good at persuading, deceiving, or otherwise communicating with other sentient beings. I will have my characters engage with NPCs at almost every opportunity because it's just so much fun. But over the years, I have encountered many situations where a player didn't participate in the social aspects of the game, in part, because their character class wasn't built for it. And that's a crying shame. D&D is a class based system that encourages niche protection and a somewhat narrow focus on abilities. And when it comes to social skills, not all classes are equal.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Would you even require a system for everything besides the combat you do to get the exact same experience and support for it?

Yes, a system was definetely needed. I'll expand about what I wrote above.

In a totally freeform system, action resolution would be "hey, I am a knight, I grew up with nothing to do besides jousting with other knights, shouldn't I be able to recognize this coat of arm if it's from somewhere close?" and the DM would say yes or no. Here, we're trying to mobilize two gaming elements: the raw power of the character (stat bonus) pertaining to the task & a reason to claim proficiency. The game aspect is important even if it's light in our group. Without it, we wouldn't have the impression of /playing/, we'd just have fun talking. Hence, we adopted all the rules that allowed for farming for proficiency (background and tool, in a non-limitative way) and we use skills with any stats when appropriate. Refereeing a boxing match is WIS+athletics.

The enabler of a fight-llight game are also in the hand of the DM. Only he decides that a fight happen. Most of the opposition can react to officers of the Watch like you or me in the real life react when a police officer pulls us over: minimal manslaughter is expected. Playing in an urban settings help: the things the opposition cares for would be lost and killing a single Watchman won't solve the problem ; on the other hand, the players are beholden to not kill citizens unless there is very much no other choices. It doesn't mean you can't engage with NPCs, including hostile NPCs. Action scenes can happen without ending in a fight, even (hence a house rule adaptation of skill challenge, that I regretted seeing dropped after 4e). It makes fight, where the tension escalate to life-threatening proportion, all the more important (and I try to make them memorable, which I think I couldn't do with the number of encounters per day I'd have to design with the default ruleset).

Even doing published adventures doesn't require much change to be adapted to something my group will like.



[TBH, with regard with magic being rule light as well, I also regret the Incantations rules from 3.5 were never refined into a full-fledged system]