Impact of mechanics on roleplay

[Halivar]

So, why have combat rules then? Wouldn't it be better to leave all those delicate decisions how to value some power or spell to the human brain? If combat is not as complicated as social interaction it should be easy to handle. And if combat is more complicated than social itneraction, why can't one handle the later with rules if one can handle the former with rules?

The flaw I see here is dismissing non-combat mechanics.

Non-combat mechanics do not give you XP outside of 4e skill challenges. Even in 3e games where my DM would give RP XP, it came nowhere near as much as we would receive from combat kills. Therefore, to advance in the game, you are encouraged to have an "optimal" character. Taking levels of "Profession: Cartographer" is a fun thing to do, but its reward is only in the fun you get out of it. Meanwhile, you are forced to take away ranks in spot, listen, stealth or other skills that have an actual bearing on your character's advancement.

Typically, I've had to choose: will I have an interesting character, or will I have a viable character? I'd rather have an interesting character, but they invariably die because they're sub-optimal (we run some deadly stuff). In games where advancement mechanics (like combat) are kept separate from roleplay mechanics (which, TBH, can either exist or not exist, as far as I'm concerned; from a narrative perspective, rules are circumscribed limitations), I can have my cake and eat it, too. And believe me... I like cake.

 

[apoptosis]

So, why have combat rules then? Wouldn't it be better to leave all those delicate decisions how to value some power or spell to the human brain? If combat is not as complicated as social interaction it should be easy to handle. And if combat is more complicated than social itneraction, why can't one handle the later with rules if one can handle the former with rules?

The flaw I see here is dismissing non-combat mechanics.

Many games do this (which i know you are aware of but easier to intro my thoughts this way). Where "loyal to allies", cooking, and spear-wielding can have similar potency in the game. In some of these games within combat "loyal to allies" and spear-wielding can have the same potency.

Those types of games though are not focused on dungeon-delving. The farther you get away from dungeon-delving the less successful 4E will be.

In 4E all non-combat abilities are just not as important and combat abilities. This was pretty true in all editions though with 3E there was a lot of detailed material (due to the sheer amount of mechanical material existing) to support noncombat activities (eg prestige classes, skills, misc. material).

 

[buzz]

The farther you get away from dungeon-delving the less successful 4E will be.

Amen.

I can't see any reason to fault 4e (or 3.5, 3.0. 2e, 1e, Basic...) for not giving, say, basket-weaving skills a lot of in-game weight. D&D just isn't about that. It has a focus, and it stays true to that focus. If you want a game where basket-weaving and sword-fighting are of equal weight (even unequal in basket-weaving's favor), there are a bunch of great RPGs out there that will suit you just fine.

There is no one way that all RPGs should follow. You just need to find an RPG that has the same goals your group does.

 

[Cadfan]

So, why have combat rules then? Wouldn't it be better to leave all those delicate decisions how to value some power or spell to the human brain? If combat is not as complicated as social interaction it should be easy to handle. And if combat is more complicated than social itneraction, why can't one handle the later with rules if one can handle the former with rules?

The flaw I see here is dismissing non-combat mechanics.

Go read my post again.

Non combat rules (an imprecise term, but I'm talking about things like background and social relations) have three attributes that make them work poorly with hard coded rules.

1. Nigh infinite inputs. How many possible backgrounds would the game need to define to be complete? The FR backgrounds article had dozens and dozens, and didn't get close to exhausting the possibilities. It didn't even touch on important matters like the ability to craft or run a shop!

2. Nigh infinite outputs. Not only do you need one output for each input, you need to be able to differentiate them by degree. The hardworking blacksmith's son and the lazy blacksmith's son probably shouldn't have the same skill in blacksmithing. And of course that leaves out the weaver's son, etc, etc, etc.

3. Soft logic. Background skills and histories often involve social relationships, personal interaction, and other matters of fairness. For example, how much advantage should one get to social skills if one is a noble? How much of a penalty should you take when dealing with the resentful working class? Shouldn't these answers depend on how well you or your family has ruled?

Fortunately, while these issues make these matters tough to adjudicate by rule (or by computer), they're all things that the human brain is well equipped to handle. The brain is a calculating engine that is best suited for questions of social interaction and fairness. And with only a relatively small amount of information, it can create "good enough" outcomes for questions that a computer or a ruleset couldn't begin to anticipate or contemplate.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

So, why have combat rules then? Wouldn't it be better to leave all those delicate decisions how to value some power or spell to the human brain? If combat is not as complicated as social interaction it should be easy to handle. And if combat is more complicated than social itneraction, why can't one handle the later with rules if one can handle the former with rules?

Combat is easier to formalize in a balanced, fun, and believable way than social interaction.

I don't know that we can usefully characterize social interaction as "more complicated" or "less complicated" than combat, not without some precise definition of complexity, which is likely to obfuscate the issue at hand.

 

[Fenes]

Amen.

I can't see any reason to fault 4e (or 3.5, 3.0. 2e, 1e, Basic...) for not giving, say, basket-weaving skills a lot of in-game weight. D&D just isn't about that. It has a focus, and it stays true to that focus. If you want a game where basket-weaving and sword-fighting are of equal weight (even unequal in basket-weaving's favor), there are a bunch of great RPGs out there that will suit you just fine.

There is no one way that all RPGs should follow. You just need to find an RPG that has the same goals your group does.

I found it years ago: House-ruled 3E.

 

[buzz]

Non combat rules (an imprecise term, but I'm talking about things like background and social relations) have three attributes that make them work poorly with hard coded rules.

There are lots of RPGs that work swimmingly well with "hard coded" non-combat mechanics:

HeroQuest
Burning Wheel
The Shadow of Yesterday
FATE/Spirit of the Century
Sorcerer
Dogs in the Vineyard
Primetime Adventures
Houses of the Blooded
InSpectres
PDQ System (Truth & Jsutice, Dead Inside, etc)
Don't Rest Your Head
...and just about anything else you can buy at IPR.

It's not an issue of whether non-combat mechanics "can" or "can't"; it's dependent on the implementation. And plenty of games have implemented them well.

 

[Engilbrand]

I change the amount that I roleplay and the focus based on which game we're playing.
When it comes to "craft"-type skills in 4th edition:
At the very beginning, I told my players to give me something specifically background related. Is the character the son of a jeweler? Did he grow up on the river? A miner?
These are backgrounds skills. You don't need to put anything into them. As time goes on, you can improve them through roleplaying. In general, though, they give you special options and the opportunity for skill checks that others can't make.
Example: The characters arrive at a castle. They're trying to convince a baron to help them out with something. We have Jake Jewelerson and Frank Farmerson. If Frank decides to try to make something that would impress the baron, it's going to come out looking like crap. Not interested. Jake, on the other hand, might decide to spend some time creating a beautiful and interesting ring for the baron. He grew up with this sort of training, so he can do this. It gives him a bonus to convincing the baron to help.
4th edition is a very open and focused edition. Why should Jake be worse at talking to people because he's had training making jewelry? I submit that part of the reason that his skills are increasing is that he's spending time in certain areas convincing jewelers to show him new techniques and designs, and they're also giving him other information.
This stuff hasn't really come up yet, but it's going to start with the next game.

 

[apoptosis]

There are lots of RPGs that work swimmingly well with "hard coded" non-combat mechanics:

HeroQuest
Burning Wheel
The Shadow of Yesterday
FATE/Spirit of the Century
Sorcerer
Dogs in the Vineyard
Primetime Adventures
Houses of the Blooded
InSpectres
PDQ System (Truth & Jsutice, Dead Inside, etc)
Don't Rest Your Head
...and just about anything else you can buy at IPR.

It's not an issue of whether non-combat mechanics "can" or "can't"; it's dependent on the implementation. And plenty of games have implemented them well.

I will say though that there is less granularity in terms of what such mechanics usually encompass vs combat mechanics.

Basically combat tends to have detailed task resolution in most games.

BW which has lots of crunchiness in the non-combat mechanics is many times not very granular. DOW of course a huge exception and it tends to play out similar to combat.

TSOY can have the conflict become granular though the rules supporting the conflict are not necessarily finely detailed. Of course this is true for combat as well.

It might be a case of hard-coded vs granular level of detail in the mechanics. You I think can definitely have granular detail in non-combat mechanics but probably requires a game that really focuses on that idea.

hopefully this made sense.

 

[pemerton]

many aspects of role-playing are not based on mechanics, and they don't need to. Character motivations are not statistics on your character sheet. If you want to care greatly about the well-being of your family and your home village, you don't need a mechanic representing it.
If you want your character to fall in love with an NPC, you can do so without rolling a "fall in love" chance.
If you want your character to be a greedy bastard, you don't need a "Greed" attribute telling us how greedy he is

There can be good reasons for creating mechanics for these, and some games can even benefit from it. But they are not required.

I'm glad you recognised that some games (eg HeroWars, The Riddle of Steel) do handle these sorts of issues in a mechanical fashion.

D&D has also tried to, from time to time, via the alignment mechanics - never fully successfully, in my view.