Mearls: Playing with the core (of D&D)

[Griego]

Also, I don't need no steenkeen rule book to tell me how to role play. Why all the talk of needing rules for RP? Makes not a lick of sense to me. I tell my DM what my character says and does, and the DM, having prepared in advance, knows what his or her NPCs will do in reaction to what I say and do, and tells me the result. End of story. No edition of D&D ever need tell me how to role play. To roll play, maybe. But not to role play.

 

[Mercurius]

Also, I don't need no steenkeen rule book to tell me how to role play. Why all the talk of needing rules for RP? Makes not a lick of sense to me. I tell my DM what my character says and does, and the DM, having prepared in advance, knows what his or her NPCs will do in reaction to what I say and do, and tells me the result. End of story. No edition of D&D ever need tell me how to role play. To roll play, maybe. But not to role play.

I completely, 100% agree with you, Griego...for me. But some say they like social rules, so if 5E really had a "complexity dial" approach then I don't see a problem with including more intricate social rules that are optional, say part of the "Advanced" game.

 

[Wiseblood]

How is 4e any more complex than 3e? Specially now, with Essentials classes, character creation is very fast. By using mostly minion monsters, you can "dial down" combat and intead invest more game time into exploration and roleplaying.

I don't think 4e is more complicated. I want to take my turn on my turn. I can't think of another turn based game that has so many inroads to interruption. When it's not my turn I want to get up and get a drink or a bio break or flip through a rulebook. 4e does not like this and punishes players who do it. There's more but I hope you understand.

I already bought 4e and got tired of it's shtick before essentials came out. It is the main conceits of the game that bother me. Buying essentials is just throwing money down the drain IMO. I'm not mad. (except about the money thing) I also hold out hope that you and others here do not take offense at my words. The internet doesn't translate the tone in my head well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hmmm...

Prolly should've noticed this thread before I posted this.

Ah, well! I'll blame Mike for that, too.

Anyway, we're eerily on the same page, and I'm interested to see where this goes.

Oh, and he forgot Investigation, but perhaps that was intentional.

 

[Klaus]

I don't think 4e is more complicated. I want to take my turn on my turn. I can't think of another turn based game that has so many inroads to interruption. When it's not my turn I want to get up and get a drink or a bio break or flip through a rulebook. 4e does not like this and punishes players who do it. There's more but I hope you understand.

I already bought 4e and got tired of it's shtick before essentials came out. It is the main conceits of the game that bother me. Buying essentials is just throwing money down the drain IMO. I'm not mad. (except about the money thing) I also hold out hope that you and others here do not take offense at my words. The internet doesn't translate the tone in my head well.

Well, unless you take many "Immediate" powers, the only out-of-turn action you have is the Opportunity Attack, which 3e already had.

But I see your point about wanting a more "casual" (for lack of a better word) game experience. I still think that can be achieved with 4e (heck, I've DMed for my wife and another couple, with 3 kids aged 3-9 running around the house).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Also, I don't need no steenkeen rule book to tell me how to role play. Why all the talk of needing rules for RP? Makes not a lick of sense to me. I tell my DM what my character says and does, and the DM, having prepared in advance, knows what his or her NPCs will do in reaction to what I say and do, and tells me the result. End of story. No edition of D&D ever need tell me how to role play. To roll play, maybe. But not to role play.

I agree and disagree. With a fair DM and players deep into RP, you don't need rules for RP -- players just do it, and the DM makes a ruling about the outcome, and you continue.

But for less experienced players, or for players whose social skills are at a significant disconnect with their characters' social skills, it helps to have some rules to handle the resolution of roleplay. That tests the *character's* skills, not the player's.

In a "modular" rules approach, I'd make RP resolution optional ("basic"), so you can do without, but provide a resolution mechanic (like the current Diplomacy, Bluff or other Charisma checks) for when you want granular resolution ("Advanced").

I prefer to DM a mixed approach, myself. If the player says "I use diplomacy", they have to roleplay it out. But no matter how well or poorly the *player* RPs the situation, the *in character* outcome is determined by the die roll (though with a potential +/-2 modifier for my assessment of good/bad RP contribution). So the buffoon player playing the suave character isn't handicapped, and the suave player playing the buffoon character comes off that way as well. And sometimes the dice hate you and you put your foot in your mouth.

Oh, and he forgot Investigation, but perhaps that was intentional.

Add puzzle solving, while we're at it. It's a historical part of D&D, though admittedly one that is very difficult to pull off well. In fact, I'd submit that a good puzzle is the hardest thing for a DM to pull off, as you need to simultaneously provide a challenge that is both appropriate for the players as well as their characters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Add puzzle solving, while we're at it. It's a historical part of D&D, though admittedly one that is very difficult to pull off well. In fact, I'd submit that a good puzzle is the hardest thing for a DM to pull off, as you need to simultaneously provide a challenge that is both appropriate for the players as well as their characters.

I've included puzzle solving in investigation as revealing knowledge. But I'd let players use d20 rolls to have their characters solve puzzles that they can't, 'cuz that's how I roll.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Also, I don't need no steenkeen rule book to tell me how to role play. Why all the talk of needing rules for RP?

You need rules for practically nothing. All we had when we started playing was the Red Box, paper, pencil, and dice so poorly balanced (and only one set of any size not d6) that we supplemented them with chits drawn out of a cup.

You can use rules for all kinds of things that you don't need. For some people, this includes more formal methods of structuring roleplaying--and not just for beginners, either. The BW Duel of Wits is challenging, fun, and sometimes a laugh riot.

Roleplaying game rules--even the ones directed at roleplaying, are tools. Having a variety of tools to pick from is often helpful.

 

[Wiseblood]

Well, unless you take many "Immediate" powers, the only out-of-turn action you have is the Opportunity Attack, which 3e already had.

But I see your point about wanting a more "casual" (for lack of a better word) game experience. I still think that can be achieved with 4e (heck, I've DMed for my wife and another couple, with 3 kids aged 3-9 running around the house).

I think casual fits pretty good. Not so much casual game or casual gamer but casual attention span requirement.

I certainly shouldn't blame the system as much as I do. With the right group I would probably like 4e. Cheers. Hopefully your kids and mine will want in on the pen and paper rpg experience someday.

 

[WheresMyD20]

But what would you have for a codified set of RP rules?

I think if RP rules were tailored for very specific purposes it could enhance the game. The rules for running dominions in BECMI are a good example of this.