On Behavioral Realism

[Reynard]

One thing to consider is that just because combat takes up more page space in the books doesn't mean it's more important in the game. It means that the designers thought it is more difficult to effectively model on the table than other aspects of play.

And if you DO believe page count is indicative of import, then obviously the only thing that matters in D&D is magic.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

One thing to consider is that just because combat takes up more page space in the books doesn't mean it's more important in the game. It means that the designers thought it is more difficult to effectively model on the table than other aspects of play.

And if you DO believe page count is indicative of import, then obviously the only thing that matters in D&D is magic.

Re. designers and what they model and why: although it's impossible to know exactly what an artist had in mind when they created a thing it is possible to take some educated guesses. If a designer thinks that modelling combat is difficult and requires a great deal of detail I would say that's because they're thinking hard about combat and all the minutiae of it. If that same designer then covers all social activity with a single dice roll that is compared to a chart that gives some very broad and poorly defined results then they are not thinking all that hard about the minutiae social activity.

(please for the love of dog don't accuse me of hating combat heavy systems or any such crap. I play HERO, I love overly complicated combat systems.)

Given this I think page count does imply how much import a given aspect of RPG has in a given system. It's not everything in determining how players wind up playing, probably not even a majority of it (I suspect the majority of it will be the table(s) people play with.) But I think when a person reads a rule book they will find their play-style drawn towards that which the rule books draw the most attention to.

So yes, magic is very important in DnD. No, it's not everything to the game, just as it's not every page in the rule books. But it's a very big part of the game, just as it's a very big part of the rule books. Likewise combat. And social activity... isn't as much.

Can players play against this inferred (see, I'm not even suggesting that it's designer implication) style? Yes, one can certainly do that. I do that all the time. But doing so encounters what I called "resistance" in my previous post. Perhaps inertia would have been a better word. To go against the inertia, one (as a GM or player) has to go to various efforts. Exactly what efforts will depend on the types of inertia being encountered. Maybe you need house rules. More Session 0 discussion. Constant reminders while playing to stick to/avoid a given style of play. Different types of dice. More caffeine. Ear plugs to block out the whining.

So yes, one an play anything one wants with any system one wants (even LARPs!) But different games give more or less weight to different aspects of RPGs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think if you want to know what a game is about as presented, you look at what actions are rewarded in play. So for D&D, what is that? What activity is promoted by the rules in the form of XP for the characters?

Generally, killing monsters or NPCs.

Sure, this can be tweaked or alternate activities can be rewarded or whatever else...yes. But when you do make changes, are they okay on their own? Do you need to change other parts of the system as a result?

So if I want my D&D game to focus on courtly intrigue, and I decide that the PCs will earn XP by furthering their goals through manipulation and spying and deception, but then I have all the activities resolved by individual skill checks....I don’t know if that’s all that compelling. Such a game may be fun to the group if they’re invested in it and if the GM really does a good job with it and narrates well and has interesting scenarios.

But as far as mechanics go....”I want to trick the count into thinking I’ll support his bid for power....I roll Deception....I got a 17” isn’t all that compelling on its own.

D&D is malleable, for sure. But there may be other systems that can get the desired effect more easily. Or perhaps a few rules or concepts from those games can be ported to D&D. There are different ways to approach it based on what the GM and players may want.

In the case of the OP, it sounds like they’re not looking for a new system by any means. The GM would just like if the characters behaved like actual people would.

This doesn’t require a new system. It needs a conversation to get everyone on the same page and then maybe some minor tweaks to get things to work.

 

[Lwaxy]

Luckily,most of my players behave like normal people (of their race) would do. So you may find the goblin and the kobold,and maybe the wood elf, camping outside the city, but the rest would happilypay for an inn.

 

[Maxperson]

Luckily,most of my players behave like normal people (of their race) would do. So you may find the goblin and the kobold,and maybe the wood elf, camping outside the city, but the rest would happilypay for an inn.

I think if you have a goblin, kobold and wood elf all camping together, they already aren't acting like normal members of their races.

 

[Reynard]

I think if you have a goblin, kobold and wood elf all camping together, they already aren't acting like normal members of their races.

I know you were being cheeky, but those are very different things. Adventurers are already outliers. I wouldn't expect them to generally act like conformists, just like people.

 

[Lwaxy]

Hehe in my world, there is a lot less good vs evil,most people are neutral and this group has a very good reason to be together, that is, preventing an ancient undead evil no one else believes in to return.

 

[chaochou]

One thing to consider is that just because combat takes up more page space in the books doesn't mean it's more important in the game.

Presumably you also feel the reverse is true, then?

A game made up of dozens of pages of social rules and a small section on how to adjudicate a dice roll for combat would - in your opinion - be giving both elements of play equal importance.

 

[pemerton]

One thing to consider is that just because combat takes up more page space in the books doesn't mean it's more important in the game. It means that the designers thought it is more difficult to effectively model on the table than other aspects of play.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, because it's a bit of a tangent to your OP; but I think anyone who thiks that combat is more difficult to effectively model than social interaction and conflict is mistaken. Combat can be modelled by single opposed checks (qv Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest) or even by free narration (qv Cthulhu Dark).

Maybe a lot of weight is being carried by the word effectively? But then we're back to focus and emphasis - if a modelling of combat isn't effectivei for a group unless it includes positions that change over the course of resolution (in D&D versions this is a concern that peaks with 4e, but is clearly very present in 5e with all its rules for both chosen and forced movement and positioning) then that tells us something about where the group's interests lie.

If what a group enjoys about the more detailed combat resolution process is the sense of unfolding and compelling fiction that it generates - We're going to be overrun? No, thank heavens, the mage saved us with that Web spell - then that might be transferable to other topics of fiction that are compelling in their resolution. If what a group enjoys abuot the more detailed process is its tactical or wargaming component, then maybe not - it's possible to have tactical social resolution rules for a RPG (eg Duel of Wits, or the action point rules of the original HeroWars) but they may be a bit less :natural" or appealing than tactical combat rules.

How different is an opposed fellowship roll to an opposed Charisma roll? Is it modified by past interactions and some sort of score that represent the relationships involved? There are DMG rules that can be used to do the same thing, or it can be kept even easier and just create a downtime activity for the joust that includes a roll to gain the favor of the crowd, a new paramour, or gain the sponsorship of an existing paramour. The two knights would compete in that one roll, and then go about the joust. The sponsorship would literally be one success or failure in a series of tests to see how well they do in the joust.

Prince Valiant is similar to (and predates) HeroWars/Quest, in that many activities can be resolved via single opposed checks or via a series of checks, based on pacing considerations as much as in-fiction considerations; so the fiction of the situation can evolve through play, which changes the context of each check and the fictional framing and components that feed into it.

Rolemaster is a very different game, but the way its Influence static manoeuvre chart is set up can tend to produce re-rolls with a modification before producing outright success - so likewise in play it can produce the dynamic of a scene that unfolds over time, with new action declarations and associated fiction feeding into each check. (RM doesn't do PC vs PC influence very well, though - the resolution procedure assumes PC vs NPC.)

Someone else woudl have to judge the best way to get 5e to produce this sort of outcome. For PC vs NPC a skill challenge-like framework might work. For PC vs PC social "hit points" might work. But I think it can be worth thinking about how to give the desired fiction "heft" and just plain duration in the resolution process.

But knights founding a chivalric order? That is...classic D&D? I mean, I can’t imagine that not happening in a game with the same themes as Prince Valiant.

<snip>

Absolutely no rule in 5e D&D actually pushes you toward dungeons, or worrying about treasure, or being homeless. For goodness sakes, your background can be Noble, or Knight, right in the PHB.

I think that a focus on "treasure as PC build" which is an element of 3E and 4e, and perhaps of some 5e play given what has come out in this dicussion, can be something that pushes play away from the direction the OP is interested in.

I think the 6 to 8 encouters per day pushes towards dungeons - or similar situations that contrive a relatively high rate of encounters - which is why upthread I canvassed a change to recovery rates as a possible thing.

I also think the 6 to 8 encounters per day can push towards a high level of GM curation over how the plot of the game unfolds - so as to ensure the reality or at least the threat of that number of encounters - and I think that can push against a certain sort of spontaneity or "levity" in play which (I think) can be more conducive to some of these human-oriented plotlines, which also by their nature probably need to be driven more by the players than the GM.

As far as military orders are concerned, I don't have a good sense of how common that is in D&D but I don't see many posts about it. There tends to be an assumption that a paladin's horse is something of a liability or at best a "ribbon" because horses don't work in dungeons; and there doesn't seem to be a lot of mechanical support for military leadership as a focus of play. (The 4e DMG even pushes against that with its remark that "allies" tend to refer to a small group of 8 or so rather than larger mlitary units; I don't know if the 5e DMG replicates this approach.)

But I think the issue of military leadership and forming warbands whose exploits are a focus of play withoutt the game turning from RPG into tabletop wargame is probably another thing that is a bit tangential to the OP.

 

[Reynard]

I don't want to spend too much time on this, because it's a bit of a tangent to your OP; but I think anyone who thiks that combat is more difficult to effectively model than social interaction and conflict is mistaken. Combat can be modelled by single opposed checks (qv Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest) or even by free narration (qv Cthulhu Dark).

That would actually be a nice little D&D sidebar: Conflict as an Opposed Check or something, that explicitly lays out that not every fight needs to be a square by square, hit point by hit point slog. I know lots of GMs do this in some form or another, but having the designers tell them it is okay would go a long way to avoiding some of the pitfalls combat encounter design. Not that I think you should only ever engage in full tactical combat when the fight is "important" but sometimes you just want to move on. I could almost see a mechanic like the Journey mechanic from TOR/AiME where it even models a little of the resource expenditure on such a fight.

Of course, I also want a robust social conflict system that is as deep and granular as the combat system. I built one once but my players revolted (the same group by and and large that inspired this thread, now that I think about it).

Anyway, good tangent. probably thread worthy itself.