Is D&D 3.5 a board game?

[Piratecat]

Feh. We only use miniatures when we have to, about half the time, and it's never a problem.

 

[Zander]

This one is easy. D&D is a roleplaying game that can sometimes have a muteable board. Why Roleplaying? Because you are "supposed to" have a character and assume that roll, playing pretend, as it were....

Even in games like Clue where you have a "character" with a name, you don't actually interact with the other players in a rollplay situation. you simply run from room to room trying to be the first to find out "whodunnit".

What if you have a "character" with a name and different abilities from the other "characters"? What if you do interact with the other "characters" by sharing information, exchanging items and developing joint tactics? Is it still a board game?

What if you're playing 3.5 but don't do any role-playing, i.e. you don't talk or act in character? Are you still playing a role-playing game? It seems that you could play 3.5 that way. Strictly speaking, all social interactions in 3.5 can be resolved using the d20 system with no in-character speaking. Doesn't that mean that 3.5 isn't a role-playing game?

 

[Orius]

As a DM, I prefer to use minis. I like them because they help to avoid the usual arguments about where everyone is during combat, and players generally put more thought into their combat actions when they can see who the fight is laid out.

Unfortunately, I haven't run face to face games since 2e. Right now, my campaign is an Internet game, so I can't really use minis. I basically ignore rules like AoO, because they're to much of a pain to rule on without minis.

However, suggesting that 3e or 3.5 is a mini game can be a bit ludicrous. Minis have always been a part of D&D to some degree. It's part of the game's wargaming roots. I think the current rules simply address the fact that some players use them, and they make some effort to include that in the rules. Before 3e, 2e seemed to ignore minis (except for Combat and Tactics). I don't know how earlier rules addressed mini use, but I'm guessing they adapted wargaming conventions back in the old days.

And of course, WotC wants to encourage the use of minis from a business standpoint. After all, they produce a mini line for D&D, naturally they're going to want people to by them to use in their games.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's neither.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 is a toolkit to make... well, whatever you want, really.

Don't limit yourself by thinking of it as one thing or another. I cross systems, use systems for things they were never meant for and such all the time. The only thing you need to ask yourself is "Is this fun?"

Game on.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yeah, because it's the players' god-given right, NAY obligation to try to break the DM's precious story at every turn, and cry foul if they can't.

Actually, it is. Without the players, there is no game. Without the characters, there is no story. The story should move where the characters move, and the DM should not force his will upon the players by limiting their character's opportunities, especially when the players are trying to drive the game.

The best games I've ever run are the games that don't go the way I plan, and I find myself letting the players do most of my work for me.

 

[jasamcarl]

What if you have a "character" with a name and different abilities from the other "characters"? What if you do interact with the other "characters" by sharing information, exchanging items and developing joint tactics? Is it still a board game?

What if you're playing 3.5 but don't do any role-playing, i.e. you don't talk or act in character? Are you still playing a role-playing game? It seems that you could play 3.5 that way. Strictly speaking, all social interactions in 3.5 can be resolved using the d20 system with no in-character speaking. Doesn't that mean that 3.5 isn't a role-playing game?

No, it means the group in question is using it as a boardgame. That doesn't change the fact that it has everything neccessary to support a more longterm, narrative structure. The game supports both. Again, you assumption that 'if it can act as a boardgame, it can't be a rp game' is pretty stupid.

 

[Harlock]

What if you have a "character" with a name and different abilities from the other "characters"? What if you do interact with the other "characters" by sharing information, exchanging items and developing joint tactics? Is it still a board game?

What if you're playing 3.5 but don't do any role-playing, i.e. you don't talk or act in character? Are you still playing a role-playing game? It seems that you could play 3.5 that way. Strictly speaking, all social interactions in 3.5 can be resolved using the d20 system with no in-character speaking. Doesn't that mean that 3.5 isn't a role-playing game?

Please see "supposed to" in previous post. That is all.

 

[Theron]

Actually, it is. Without the players, there is no game. Without the characters, there is no story. The story should move where the characters move, and the DM should not force his will upon the players by limiting their character's opportunities, especially when the players are trying to drive the game.

The best games I've ever run are the games that don't go the way I plan, and I find myself letting the players do most of my work for me.

There's a world of difference between letting the story follow the character and accusing the DM of cheating to "protect his precious" plot just because he doesn't use minis. The latter smacks of KoDT style confrontational play rather than a cooperative effort to build a campaign.

I was, I thought, rather clearly responding with sarcasm to an extreme and ill thought out statement. Obviously, I wasn't clear as I thought. Apologies.

 

[BryonD]

Strictly speaking, all social interactions in 3.5 can be resolved using the d20 system with no in-character speaking. Doesn't that mean that 3.5 isn't a role-playing game?

My answer to this question is absolutely 100% NO.

You are missing (either truly or in a mildly trollish manner, not certain) the significance of the entire term "role-playing game". You are trying to make it be a general role-playing exercise instead of specifically a game.

When kids play cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, soldier, whatever, they are role-playing. But they are not playing a game. Instead they are role-playing a collaborative drama of sorts. One kid yells "Bang, You're dead!" and the second kid either complies or does not. There are little, or frequently NO rules.

A gaming group could easily sit around a table doing the same thing in a fantasy setting. Each player takes on a persona and the describe their actions to each other. They can either have a game master as an arbitrary resolver of disputes, or they can just work it out for themselves. The wizard guys says he throws an exploding ball of flame at the enemy and either the rest of the people acknowledge the effect or they dispute it. They may say it is only slightly effective, or they may say that the wizard is simply not powerful enough to do such. With no rules, it would depend completely on group agreement. I suppose that might be fun. It would certainly be less expensive than D&D. It would be role-playing. It would not be a game.

On the opposite extreme is the old choose-your-own-adventure books or true board games like Dungeon Quest or Talisman. While you technically COULD role-play these things, there is not expectation or demand for role assumption. You just take on a simple mechanical model of abilities and win or lose.

Neither of these items match D&D or other role-playing games. A role-playing games includes BOTH a mechanical model for conflict resolution and an expectation of some degree of role assumption.

Yes, you can just say "I persuade the guy." *roll d20* "Does a 28 work?". You can also play baseball without outfielders and just call all hits that get past the infield a double. Just because a free individual can elect to modify a game away from its expectations does not mean that the game does not deliver as promised.

If D&D could NOT handle social interactions mechanically then it would NOT be a role-playing game when it came to those instances. It would go back to simply being collaborative drama. Role-playing – yes. Roll-playing GAME – no.

Certainly many people do play D&D in a manner that reduces or eliminates the mechanics for social interaction. I am not saying that there is anything bad about that or that it is in any way inferior. Whatever makes the game fun for the group is key. But if you just act it out and the DM makes a call, then you are not truly playing a game at that point. You are back to collaborative drama. And I think most cases where people play this way, it is more a shade of gray. A player makes his best dramatic pitch. The DM is impressed but says “Nice, but your character only has a +6 diplomacy, so he just can’t convince the king. The player replies, “No! You are thinking of my old character. I have a +17 diplomacy.” And the DM goes “Oh, well then you do convince him after all.” There is a mechanical adjustment to account for the character, rather than a static assessment of the player’s personal effectiveness. But it is still an arbitrary and subjective assessment of drama in place of a game mechanic of rolling a die.

 

[Zander]

Again, you assumption that 'if it can act as a boardgame, it can't be a rp game' is pretty stupid.

What if a game can act as an rpg, can it still be a board game?

The reason I ask - indeed one of the reasons I started this thread - was that I don't see much difference between D&D 3.5 and the new Dungeons & Dragons Board Game except that the former is far more complex.

BryonD has helped to answer this in part. I would welcome any other opinions. BTW I'm not trolling. This is a genuine attempt to classify games, or even to ask if such a thing is possible.