Rules Never Prevent RPing? (But Minis Seem To Do So?)

[I'm A Banana]

Isn't it more like saying "Man, I wish I could make the horse whinny when I move it around," when playing chess? Nobody is saying the Players have to roleplay. Well, I'm not. Some people don't want to. But, to complain that you feel hampered by miniatures when roleplaying is more akin to complaining that you can't make the fun sounds in chess. You can do that if that's what you want.

Like he said, Just because chess doesn't reward you for neighing like a horse doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. If it's fun, and no one has problems with it, do it all you like.

This allows a solution to Philotomy's squire problem - a character can have the skills of a squire on his sheet without the taking of those skills impacting in any way on the character's ability to develop other skills that are more central to the main action of the game (like combat skills). D&D makes this harder, because of the extremely limited number of skill points, which makes it hard for a fighter to have more than 3 or 4 skills of any significance on the sheet - so developing Profession (Squire) (which is a cross-class skill for a fighter) would preclude being able to Ride or Handle Animals (both of which are skills that a squire ought to have).

The thing with this example is that it's an error in perception. Profession (Squire) lets you care for horses, prepare saddles, oil up armor....any character without a negative Dex can Ride pretty well (and we'd all agree that a clumsy squire would be a bad squire), at least well enough to get from point A to point B, so he doesn't need the points there. And handling an animal is different from the usual horse grooming tasks that a Squire does, because it involves training them, raising them, and pushing them -- things that would be more appropriate to a horse trainer or breeder than a Squire.

In D&D there is a lot of "description assumption." You don't NEED 100 or more skills because a 12 Charisma and taking 10 and choosing to do it will get a result from a common scenario 90% of the time. There are more ways than purchasing Ride ranks to ride a horse. You don't need the Run feat to be able to run.

I find this misconception common amongst those who believe that D&D's rules somehow limit their roleplaying. "I can't ride a horse withuot ranks in Ride" is false, just as the idea that Squires need Handle Animal is. You don't need Power Attack to attack with power, just to get a mechanical benefit from it. The idea that D&D prevents role playing because it doesn't directly reward it is similarly misguided. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way, I'm just saying feeling that way isn't D&D's problem. It's not the cause.

Let's not talk about D&D for a bit. Imagine a game where the rewards aren't kewl powers or increased kick-assedness; instead, the rewards allow you (the player) to have more influence on the story. That kind of "XP" reward would be valuable to the story guy.

This kind of thing already exists. Take an acting class. Do some improv. This kind of thing is all over the place, just not with d20's.

D&D embraces that concept by not using d20's to play out this effect. In other words, by not having rules for that which doesn't really need rules. If you want to have more influence on the story, you role play an element of your character (say, his vendetta against a classmate at fighter community college), the DM takes note of it, and it comes up more in the story. You don't need a new game or a rules change to do that, just a perceptive DM. The advice in the DMG is basically "Find what your group has fun doing and do it a lot." If there is a story guy, hook him with story.

"Evil Dude is my father!" "No, he's not." "Yes, he is."

"The evil army approaches." "My guy brandishes his sword and cuts them all down!" "Dude, that's lame." "Well, that's what happens." "No, it's not."

You need some way to agree on what's going on. Tampering with those rules will just as easily piss off your story guy.

D&D already has a mechanic for this. "What the DM says, goes." A player says "Evil Dude is my father!" the DM says "Yes" or "No" and everyone follows that ruling. A smart DM takes this into account -- the player wants evil dude to be his father, so finding his father is important to him, and his father better be somehow key to the plot or he won't have a lot of fun.

And when the DM says "We're going to need to get specific in this combat, time to break out the battlemat," everyone follows that ruling, too. And when more peices show up because it was dark and shadowy, everyone follows that ruling (though it would be dirty pool in a wargame).

 

[Raven Crowking]

And when the DM says "We're going to need to get specific in this combat, time to break out the battlemat," everyone follows that ruling, too. And when more peices show up because it was dark and shadowy, everyone follows that ruling (though it would be dirty pool in a wargame).

Agreed.

Of course, sometimes I think it would be better to let the grid go, and just get some knotted string.....

RC

 

[LostSoul]

This kind of thing already exists. Take an acting class. Do some improv. This kind of thing is all over the place, just not with d20's.

Yep. Dogs in the Vineyard doesn't use d20s.

My point is that there are RPGs that do this sort of thing using rules.

D&D embraces that concept by not using d20's to play out this effect. In other words, by not having rules for that which doesn't really need rules. If you want to have more influence on the story, you role play an element of your character (say, his vendetta against a classmate at fighter community college), the DM takes note of it, and it comes up more in the story. You don't need a new game or a rules change to do that, just a perceptive DM. The advice in the DMG is basically "Find what your group has fun doing and do it a lot." If there is a story guy, hook him with story.

Um... I need to think about this more. There's something in there I have issues with but I can't explain it yet. Something about leaving it all up to the DM.

D&D already has a mechanic for this. "What the DM says, goes." A player says "Evil Dude is my father!" the DM says "Yes" or "No" and everyone follows that ruling. A smart DM takes this into account -- the player wants evil dude to be his father, so finding his father is important to him, and his father better be somehow key to the plot or he won't have a lot of fun.

My point was that story telling does need rules, even simple ones like, "The guy in the funny hat gets to decide if what we say is true or not."

 

[Mark CMG]

Um... I need to think about this more. There's something in there I have issues with but I can't explain it yet. Something about leaving it all up to the DM.

Something about the level of guidance being given to DMs regarding how to roleplay and how to encourage it in their players? Something about, even if there aren't rules, per se, there could be a lot more written in the rulebooks about it? And about how it relates, directly and indirectly, to the games mechanics of the rules? And how the two can be interchangeable dependant upon a situation, mood, or set of players?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Like he said, Just because chess doesn't reward you for neighing like a horse doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. If it's fun, and no one has problems with it, do it all you like.

Sure.and I bet nobody will look at you like you grew a second head when you do that...as long as you're playing solitary chess against a computer, or with your best buddy who doesn't mind your little eccentricies.

Try to do so in a chess club, and the second time you do it, the guy on the other side of the board will ask you, in varying degrees of polite depending on the individual, to shut the hell up and stop breaking his concentration.

You see, certain games are played a certain way. Exceptions are just that...exceptions, agreed upon beforehand by the players. Because every game fosters and encourages a certain way to play it. Some are more loose, like your typical family entertainment tabletop game, and some are more tight, like games of strategy and tactics.

And D&D 3.x, through it's mini-centered rules, examples and combat, encourages to play a game of 5' steps, counted squares to avoid Attacks of Opportunities, and a kind of chess-mentality that tries to plan ahead a few moves to get ahead of the opponent. Some people pepper it with roleplaying, but there's nothing in the game rules that actually encourages roleplaying. I'm not even talking about mechanical rewards here...although it is telling that there's plenty of mechanical awards for playing the mini-game, while there is none for playing a roleplaying game during combat...I'm talking about the fact that the whole combat section is completely structured according to the mini-game rules, and so are spells and feats, and to a lesser degree, skills. It's not an option for the more tactical-minded, it's the baseline. And it's gotten more and more prevalent with 3.5E.

And yes, if people wanted, they could just as easily put a veneer of roleplaying over it. But to some, it's apparently easier to switch to mini-mode when combat brings out battlemap and minis, because it's how the rules operate, and what gives them more mechanical advantages. And the rules encourage it. Now, each to their own brand of fun, I'm not saying it's bad that people have fun with D&D that way. I'm simply saying that the game is slanted towards a certain style of gaming, and people follow that.

In how far that can be called "forcing" is a whole different matter, but I doubt it can be easily called "free will" either.

 

[LostSoul]

Something about the level of guidance being given to DMs regarding how to roleplay and how to encourage it in their players? Something about, even if there aren't rules, per se, there could be a lot more written in the rulebooks about it? And about how it relates, directly and indirectly, to the games mechanics of the rules? And how the two can be interchangeable dependant upon a situation, mood, or set of players?

Yeah, that sounds about right.



I think that if you had rules and mechanics and stuff, and it wasn't just up to the DM, those "story things" you do and the "roleplaying things" you do would have a lot more impact.

Maybe that's just me, but I'd like to see some change on the sheet (mine or an NPC's) when my PC finally breaks down and says that he loves the princess, or that Evil Dude is now my father, or whatever. Something that can effect the d20 rolls - then it's like, "Wicked, I've got You're my girlfriend and I'm in love with you, so I get a +8 bonus to this roll!"

So because of all that, because I'm in love with my girlfriend, the evil succubus can't Suggest that I stab my girlfriend in the face as easily. It's the relationship that's been developed through roleplaying (which may or may not be acting in character) that makes the difference, not only the GM's fiat.

Or maybe, you know, I decide to "buy off" those two feats for some other ones. What does that say? And when the evil succubus Suggests that I stab my girlfriend in the face, and I fail the save because I decided some other feats were more important to me...

That just seems like cool stuff to me.

I dunno. I only want to roleplay stuff that actually matters. I could care less about roleplaying the shopping trip, or getting a room in a tavern, or picking up a wench, or whatever. But when it matters, when something happens that I really don't want or I really want something to happen (ie. two characters are in conflict), that's what I want to roleplay.

And I don't want the GM to just decide what's going to happen. I want him to push me as hard as he can to see if I'll break. I want him to kick me in the nuts and say, "Had enough?" And when I stand up and spit in his face - yeah, wicked.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Yeah, that sounds about right.



I think that if you had rules and mechanics and stuff, and it wasn't just up to the DM, those "story things" you do and the "roleplaying things" you do would have a lot more impact.

Maybe that's just me, but I'd like to see some change on the sheet (mine or an NPC's) when my PC finally breaks down and says that he loves the princess, or that Evil Dude is now my father, or whatever. Something that can effect the d20 rolls - then it's like, "Wicked, I've got You're my girlfriend and I'm in love with you, so I get a +8 bonus to this roll!"

So because of all that, because I'm in love with my girlfriend, the evil succubus can't Suggest that I stab my girlfriend in the face as easily. It's the relationship that's been developed through roleplaying (which may or may not be acting in character) that makes the difference, not only the GM's fiat.

Or maybe, you know, I decide to "buy off" those two feats for some other ones. What does that say? And when the evil succubus Suggests that I stab my girlfriend in the face, and I fail the save because I decided some other feats were more important to me...

That just seems like cool stuff to me.

I dunno. I only want to roleplay stuff that actually matters. I could care less about roleplaying the shopping trip, or getting a room in a tavern, or picking up a wench, or whatever. But when it matters, when something happens that I really don't want or I really want something to happen (ie. two characters are in conflict), that's what I want to roleplay.

And I don't want the GM to just decide what's going to happen. I want him to push me as hard as he can to see if I'll break. I want him to kick me in the nuts and say, "Had enough?" And when I stand up and spit in his face - yeah, wicked.

That sounds like advantages like the Kharmic Tie from L5R. I handed that one to two of my players after their characters went through all the hubbub to play out, and convince their superiors that it's OK, the reluctant relationship between a Scorpion shugenja and a Phoenix bushi who got the task to protect the Scorpion from his dying cousin.

I think creating roleplaying-based feats instead of tactical-combat-based feats would be a nice addition to D&D indeed.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Sure.and I bet nobody will look at you like you grew a second head when you do that...as long as you're playing solitary chess against a computer, or with your best buddy who doesn't mind your little eccentricies.

If you want to roleplay during combat, and the rest of the group doesn't, that is a far cry from the minis preventing you from doing it. That's a group issue, no different than any other social contract issue. If your play styles differ significantly, perhaps it is time to find a new group.

I think we've got two completely different scenarios going. This isn't a debate on the pros and cons of whether roleplaying in combat is good or bad. I think the thread, by its nature, implies that this is a good thing, or at least that those participating want to do it. The question is one of people wanting to roleplay, but feeling hampred by miniatures. Not wanting to roleplay but being hampred by other group members.

 

[pemerton]

Profession (Squire) lets you care for horses, prepare saddles, oil up armor....any character without a negative Dex can Ride pretty well (and we'd all agree that a clumsy squire would be a bad squire), at least well enough to get from point A to point B, so he doesn't need the points there. And handling an animal is different from the usual horse grooming tasks that a Squire does, because it involves training them, raising them, and pushing them -- things that would be more appropriate to a horse trainer or breeder than a Squire.

Fair enough. But then there is really little wrong with Philotomy's approach, of letting a player call his/her character as a squire without having that affect the sheet - because (according to the above) you really need very little on the sheet to mark a character as a squire (I'm not sure a rank of Profession is even needed to be able to oil armour, prepare saddles and care for horse in a basic way - the latter two things I know from experience can be done by a 10 year old boy with a pony, and surely oiling armour comes (implicitly) with the armour feats, given that most GMs aren't having the armour of all fighters rust, except for those with ranks in Profession (Squire)).

If you want to have more influence on the story, you role play an element of your character (say, his vendetta against a classmate at fighter community college), the DM takes note of it, and it comes up more in the story. You don't need a new game or a rules change to do that, just a perceptive DM. The advice in the DMG is basically "Find what your group has fun doing and do it a lot." If there is a story guy, hook him with story.

D&D already has a mechanic for this. "What the DM says, goes."

Right. But this is not the only possible mechanic, and it's not necessarily the best mechanic for encouraging roleplay.

I think that if you had rules and mechanics and stuff, and it wasn't just up to the DM, those "story things" you do and the "roleplaying things" you do would have a lot more impact.

Maybe that's just me, but I'd like to see some change on the sheet (mine or an NPC's) when my PC finally breaks down and says that he loves the princess, or that Evil Dude is now my father, or whatever. Something that can effect the d20 rolls - then it's like, "Wicked, I've got You're my girlfriend and I'm in love with you, so I get a +8 bonus to this roll!"

So because of all that, because I'm in love with my girlfriend, the evil succubus can't Suggest that I stab my girlfriend in the face as easily. It's the relationship that's been developed through roleplaying (which may or may not be acting in character) that makes the difference, not only the GM's fiat.

Or maybe, you know, I decide to "buy off" those two feats for some other ones. What does that say? And when the evil succubus Suggests that I stab my girlfriend in the face, and I fail the save because I decided some other feats were more important to me...

That just seems like cool stuff to me.

I dunno. I only want to roleplay stuff that actually matters. I could care less about roleplaying the shopping trip, or getting a room in a tavern, or picking up a wench, or whatever. But when it matters, when something happens that I really don't want or I really want something to happen (ie. two characters are in conflict), that's what I want to roleplay.

And I don't want the GM to just decide what's going to happen. I want him to push me as hard as he can to see if I'll break. I want him to kick me in the nuts and say, "Had enough?" And when I stand up and spit in his face - yeah, wicked.

Lost Soul - I don't know if you saw my post on page 2 (at 40 posts per page) above, but what you describe is (as far as I understand it - I haven't actually played the game) exactly what The Riddle of Steel does with its Spiritual Attributes. And that's just why I mentioned it - it's a mechanical system that encourages roleplaying, by putting dynamic roleplaying power in the hands of the players.

I also suggested a Fate Point mechanic, which would allows player rather than the GM to decide the (inevitably indeterminate in the GM's campaign notes) scene details.

HARP has, as part of its talent mechanics (= feats, in D&D terminology) a talent that can be taken at 1st level that makes a character a noble, or an heir to nobility. Again, a mechanic that influences roleplay. HARP also allows a 1st level character to use development points (approximately = skill points, in D&D terminology) to buy magical equipment. This also makes a difference to roleplay, because the player is likely to invent a story about where the equipment came from (family heirloom, gift from mentor, whatever).

When one looks at the way different games approach the mechanics of character creation, action resolution, giving different people at the table the power to call scene details, etc, it seems hard to deny that mechanics can have a very big effect on roleplay.

 

[LostSoul]

Lost Soul - I don't know if you saw my post on page 2 (at 40 posts per page) above, but what you describe is (as far as I understand it - I haven't actually played the game) exactly what The Riddle of Steel does with its Spiritual Attributes. And that's just why I mentioned it - it's a mechanical system that encourages roleplaying, by putting dynamic roleplaying power in the hands of the players.

Cool, I have now! The Riddle of Steel looks pretty cool, I have to say.