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

[Geron Raveneye]

The answers seem kind of obvious to me. They don't actively encourage it (because they figure if you want it, you'll do it, and if you don't, they don't force it). It could be done more (because people like getting rewards for being in character).

Is it a good idea to do it more for D&D? I'm not convinced of that at all. Like I said, it limits the stories you can tell. My Ravenloft character shouldn't get a +8 to save the princess he's in love with. My Eberron character probably shouldn't, either, nor should my Dark Sun character. But my "Romantic France" character probably should, my Authruian Knight probably should, too. But my Ravenloft character maybe should get a bonus for turning against the town that encourages him, and my Eberron character should get a bonus for performing a neat stunt (which is done with Action Dice), and my Dark Sun character should maybe get a bonus when he's well-fed. Though giving King Arthur a bonus because he's well-fed seems...odd, to say the least.

Genre supplements would be a solid place for this, as are campaign settings. The Core Rules....I'm not convinced.

Easy solution...put in half a dozen of general feats in that reward a roleplaying aspect that appears in most fantasy stories and legends, and leave the addition of more, respectively the modification of them to the specific campaign world to the campaign books. That's what the core rules do for most other factors, too...they focus on a few genre tropes, and leave the specific details and changes to either the players, or supplements. More the latter, recently.

After all, melee is not the same for a heavy-plate mail fighter on a bloody battlefield as it is for the agile and unprotected martial artist swaying on a high bridge as it is for the pirate boarding a ship or the sahuagin barbarian trying to eat your behind in an underwater cave...and yet we have heaps of feats and general rules trying to describe each.

FFZ has something of a benefit for being in love as a defining character trait, but (a) it's meant to emulate some romantic cinematic scenes and (b)it's broad enough to apply to a variety of truly dedicated character archetypes. D&D doesn't nessecarily want to do that. It wants to kill goblins and get their goods.

Hmmmm, I guess here's our point of disagreement, because while that may be D&D's most quoted motto, it has been, and tries to be, quite a lot more as a roleplaying game. Just that the attempt isn't necessarily always equal to a successful execution.

Simply pointing out that rules that encourage roleplaying still can't make people roleplay. So why would rules that don't reward plot involvement STOP people from roleplaying? The case is that they wouldn't, they couldn't, and they don't. People who want to edge out mechanical benefits will do so, and people who want to play a role will do so, and the system doesn't nessecarily need to cater to that. D&D doesn't inhibit roleplaying any more than some story-heavy system inhibits lack of roleplaying.

It's not about directly inhibiting or forbidding roleplaying, or not. It's about encouraging it, or not.

The more general the roleplaying rules, the better the system is at emulating a variety of fantasy. D&D was able to be Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Hollow World, Birthright, and Ravenloft all in the same ruleset. The only more adaptable single ruleset that I know of is GURPS (which had a supplement for every style) or True20 (which is even vaguer and less defined on role playing than D&D is).

Funny, but all those campaign settings were AD&D 2E, a ruleset that encouraged tactical combat as much as it encouraged roleplaying...not really that much. Now both sides of the coin, the heavy roleplayers as much as the heavy tacticians, had to do "their stick" because they wanted it in their game, not because they got mechanical bennies from it.

You've seen the extensive alignment discussions on these boards? The conflicts, the opinions, the "Can my paladin kill goblin children?" questions? The most reliable answer is that the true answer to these is subjective, and will depend upon the campaign. D&D tried to avoid that option as much as possible, and when it does include it, it is so difficult that some people just drop it entirely, often in favor of (yes!) a more general and less specific sysem.

I think Alignment is a perfect example of one of the few places where D&D does try to foster roleplaying, and how many people reject that attempt.

D&D isn't for everything, but it's still far to generic to treat even a concept like "love" in a consistant way from campaign to campaign.

Yeah, well...that's because in contrast to combat mechanics, the alignment mechanics are an exercise in nebulosity. I guess if they had created "alignment feats" that went like

Protector of the Helpless
You are a stalwart protector of the weak and helpless
Prerequesites: Good alignment
Benefit: Whenever you fight to protect somebody who is obviously helpless (bound, paralyzed, held, completely unarmed and unarmored, etc.) and who is attacked by a superior aggressor, you gain a +2 moral bonus to attack rolls against that aggressor until it surrenders, flees, or is vanquished. This bonus can be used against a single opponent as well as a group, as long as all members of that group attack the same target. You also don't become Disabled at 0 hit points, and don't drop unconscious below, but remain able to stand and fight. As soon as you reach -10 hit points, you are dead.

...the whole alignment issue would have been made a bit clearer, in a practical and mechanical manner than it is right now.

Beacuse there is no possible way that D&D can tell you how a certain emotion/passion/motive should play out in even the majority of campaigns. D&D is not specific enough for that (this is, I believe, a good thing). The alignments are generic enough that some are even attempted to apply them to the real world (Hitler was Lawful Evil!, etc.), and are broad enough that they fit any style of heroic play. And even then, they are consistantly considered an unnessecary burden by a large part of the player base, who would do away with the system entirely or change it to a broader, more flexible one.

Love in Ravenloft is a werewolf away from tragedy. Love in Dark Sun is a luxury few can afford. Love in Planescape is as likely to be for political or entirely philosophical reasons. It'd be insane to give someone in Ravenloft a +8 save bonus for helping thier lover -- the POINT is that the lover not only dies, but is raised as something horrible and goes for the former affection. A +8 save bonus would destroy that feel. The same is generally true in any horror campaign.

Love might mean a +8 bonus to saves in "generic" fantasy campaigns. In the Ravenloft sourcebook, you'd find that this is especially true for those that are still alive, but if your love has been turned into one of the undead, the +8 bonus will be diminished to a +4, but now will help YOU to resist your former love's attempts to charm person you, if you want to resist it.
Modifying a few feats that are meant for a general fantasy campaign to fit a specific setting is the job of the setting books, no?

It's always easier to add than subtract rules, and since D&D is very general (not the most generic or general, but still surprisingly broad), and is good that way, it shouldn't try to be more specific than it feels it has to be. It's perfect for genre supplements (heroes of romance!) and for campaign settings (eberron's action dice are also very much a role playing tool), but rather poor in the core rules, which struggle to encompass an immense variety of genres, styles, and settings (giving each an injection of D&D).

Favored enemy is a flawed example, too, as it is not dependant on emotions or events, but merely on that nebulous "knowledge and training" that all characters gain.

I don't see it as flawed at all...it represents the fact that one sort of creature is so much of a foe for the ranger that he undergoes special training to learn all the weak spots, gets plenty of bonuses to skill checks when he deals with those special enemies, and thus will be more effective when he combats them. Hence, you have a roleplaying motivation ("My ranger HATES those pesky goblins and orcs!") that directly translates into specific bonuses against those opponents.
If I wanted to turn that around, I'd call the ability Favored Ally, give the character a morale bonus to attack and saves against Fear while fighting together with his favored allies, and a bonus to Diplomacy, Sense Motive and all Knowledge checks pertaining to is ally's kind. Is not THAT hard to do, specific enough to not engender hours of discussions and hundreds of threads, and pretty nicely fits into the D&D frame of rules.
By the way...I perfectly agree that it is always easier to add rules than to subtract them...I'd not mind a few of the combat rules to be reduced to "optional" status, and see a few roleplaying rewards be added to the core rules at all.

This seems to be an overly cynical perspective. I've never said that it CAN'T be done, and I don't believe any designer would say that it can' t be done. The question, to steal a phrase, isn't whether or not we can, but whether or not we SHOULD. 3e has a VERY could reason for not doing it, a reason that I support in core D&D -- it should be general, flexible, and not subject, as much as possible, to the whims of individual DM's.

Once upon a time, nearly all "cool" combat maneuvers were up to the whim of the individual DM. Then 3E came around and tried to codify nearly everything in a framework of feats, skills and special abilites. With that, it encouraged tactical combat and cool, complicated melee maneuvers by giving out DM-independent benefits for them.
What's so difficult doing so for the most common motivations that pop up in plenty of fantasy stories and legends? And what would be the reason for not doing so? It would give plenty of players the tools to enrich the game by coloring their characters in even more varied tones.

Combat is encouraged because it's more objective and less changable, and also because the core story of D&D is and has been "kill things and take their stuff." 50 feet is 50 feet whether in Barovia, Tyr, or Sigil, and no matter where you are, there will be monsters to fight, treasure to win, and fame and power to be had.

Love isn't love in three different countries, in three different languages, in three different people, or even on three different days of the week. Fear isn't fear in different genres. Emotions change focus and purpose constantly. Rules that forced them to be one way would be limiting to the game.

Fear is exactly the same in D&D, no matter where you are, except if the setting book modifies the effect.

FEAR
Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. In most cases, the character makes a Will saving throw to resist this effect, and a failed roll means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.
Shaken: Characters who are shaken take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
Frightened: Characters who are frightened are shaken, and in addition they flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can. They can choose the path of their flight. Other than that stipulation, once they are out of sight (or hearing) of the source of their fear, they can act as they want. However, if the duration of their fear continues, characters can be forced to flee once more if the source of their fear presents itself again. Characters unable to flee can fight (though they are still shaken).
Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can. Other than running away from the source, their path is random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.
Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.

True, D&D does limit, say, a greatsword to be one thing. Or a Red Dragon. But these things only change superficially with genre, requiring little in the way of rules change. Even a Barbarian-class Human can be Conan without sacrificing much in the way of genre tropes.

Wrong, especially with the Dragon. If you go east from France, all the way to Japan, you'll find as many different kinds of dragons as you find cultures. D&D took the most prominent in the western world, color-coded it for different abilities, and made it the standard for D&D. I fear that was a flawed example for unchanging things. The same goes for plenty of the classes, actually. Or the assumptions behind the equipment tables. Or the feats. D&D as it stands, is a very specific genre that has borrowed a LOT from western fantasy and legends, and little from anywhere else. Borrowing a few of the genre-typical effects of great passion and emotion doesn't seem so out of place to me, as well as modifying them in setting books to the flavour of that setting.

I don't believe so, neither in this example, nor in general. I live in the USA. Is not paying me to vote discouraging me from voting? I have a job that pays me not to vote. Am I not encouraged to vote?

No, if I wanted to vote, there's nothing stopping me. There is, however, nothing in it other than the benefit of having voted.

The principle is as flawed there as it is in the example of game rules. By giving you a bonus with Greataxes I'm not saying "Don't fall in love with an NPC!" Not by a long shot.

If voting and not voting has equal incentives, people will simply go with what they feel is "right". If voting is encouraged by handing out benefits, not voting is not encouraged, the whole thing is slanted to the voting side. If voting is not encouraged, while not voting would be encouraged with benefits, the thing is weighed towards the not voting side. Encouraging one while not encouraging the other always tips the scales towards the one side that is encouraged. The effect is the same as discouraging one side with punishment, but not discouraging the other.
If you're one of those people that goes against the trend, more power to you, but that doesn't invalidate the general principle.

By playing D&D as a minis game, you play it "against the grain." Many people simply don't do that. If you present them with a D&D game, they will play their character, and if you present them with chess, they will move pieces around. The rules make it clear how to be fair and have fun, and D&D combat rules and examples make it abundantly clear that it is at heart meant to have exciting, dramatic combats. So many players will play it as such when all the pieces are on the table.

I hope you see the difference.

Sure...just that you're arguing beside my point. Which simply means we'll have to agree to disagree. I've stated more than once that, to me, D&D is presenting combat as a mini game inside of a roleplaying game. While the game is about roleplaying, as soon as combat comes up, it turns into a more elaborate version of chess. So while players will roleplay while they are presented with a roleplaying game, many will move pieces around when the battlemat and minis come out. Mind you that I'm not saying ALL players do it. I simply say that those that do are influenced by the rules and the presentation of the combat rules to do so. Yes, they could do differently with a little force of willpower. Ever seen a smoker in the morning before his first fag? Habit can be a pretty harsh mistress to snub.

No, it's a fault of perception if people see D&D as a mini game. Just like it's a fault of perception if people are colorblind, or don't believe they can ride a horse without the Ride skill, or if you can't see both a vase and two faces. The truth is that D&D is not a minis game, there is a difference between red and green, you can ride a horse without the Ride skill, and there is both a vase and two faces.

It's equally a fault of perception to think me claiming ALL of D&D a mini game. I'm specifically mentioning combat. The "truth" is (as far as it's in the eye of the beholder), that you are talking about D&D as the complete package, while others here, me included, are talking about what happens when combat rolls around and people put up the battlemat and the minis. A game can be whole while still consisting of different parts, and D&D is definitely not a seamless game. The tripstones are where the roleplaying goes over to mini gaming, and many players trip there. It's like your vase example. It can be a vase, it can be two faces, it's one picture. Same way can D&D be a roleplaying game, a tabletop mini game, and still be one whole game. Is that also a fault of perception not to see it?

By the way, I apologize for always cutting up your posts like that, but you manage to bring up so many different and valid points that I'd like to answer that I couldn't easily manage it in one coherent post.

 

[pemerton]

Geron Raveneye and pemerton: Fantastic posts!

Thanks Raven.

Geron Raveneye and pemerton have shown, I believe, very strongly that D&D's assumption is not that "you will play the role because playing the role is it's own benefit" but rather that you play the role because each role has its own mechanical benefits if the designers thought that role important to the game. And the argument, as I understand it, boils down to a simple question: Did the designers think broadly enough when deciding what roles were important?

I'm not arguing that D&D should have these rules elements - just that its lack of them does make a difference to the way in which D&D supports roleplaying.

To some extent I therefore agree with Kamikaze Midget:

Is it a good idea to do it more for D&D? I'm not convinced of that at all.

But for quite different reasons to KM’s. As Hussar said,

Only a small number of gamers need or want the Romantic Love Interest feat (presumably) and its inclusion would just annoy too many people.

and likewise ThirdWizard:

I would guess that any rules for romance in Core D&D would be wasted space to at least 70% of its audience.

ThirdWizarad is, I think, more precise, because s/he focuses on the fact that D&D players mostly would not want such rules. But this does not refute my claim, that rules have a significant influence on roleplay.

What is my difference with Kamikaze Midget? Interspersed with an explanation of why passion rules (or something similar) would be unnecessary:

Like I said, it limits the stories you can tell. <snip> The more general the roleplaying rules, the better the system is at emulating a variety of fantasy. <snip> D&D isn't for everything, but it's still far to generic to treat even a concept like "love" in a consistent way from campaign to campaign. <snip> D&D ... should be general, flexible, and not subject, as much as possible, to the whims of individual DM's.

the following remarks are made:

D&D ... wants to kill goblins and get their goods. <snip> Combat is encouraged because it's more objective and less changeable, and also because the core story of D&D is and has been "kill things and take their stuff."

It can't be true both that D&D is generic and its core story is kill and loot. I think that the latter is true and the former false. D&D mechanics encourage the production of characters with a certain roleplaying orientation - martial and tactical prowess - and not a different sort, such as the romantic hero. That is not to say that you can't play a romantic hero in D&D who has no interest in amassing wealth - but the mechanics don't give you the same support as if you want to play a dedicated combat chassis with a desire for material advancement.

Thus, the idea that passion rules are only for genre supplements is not something I can agree with. D&D is itself a genre. And The Book of Hallowed Might has passion feats for d20 (Oaths and Vows) without being a genre supplement in any distinctive sense.

Not only is D&D not generic in terms of the stories it supports, it also is not generic in terms of the approach to play that it fosters:

This [my comparison between armour rules and passion rules] seems to be a flawed analogy, because one is so objective, and the other is very subjective. Of course a wall of metal will protect you more than a strip of fabric. That's just creating an incentive to obey some sort of reality. Conan has no interest in that kind of reality, so it compensates for it

<snip>

Rules for protecting yourself in armor apply to a good 90% of the games out there in which you kill things and take their stuff (the core story of a D&D campaign, after all).

This reiterates that D&D is not generic in its story orientation; it also suggests that D&D is aimed primarily at modelling medieval combat in some more or less realistic fashion (eg armour is protective). But of course realistic modelling is not the only possible goal of a fantasy roleplaying game (and even D&D eschews it in places, such as high level hit points and combat ability, which is clearly superheroic).

A game like The Riddle of Steel has (in part) a different design goal – not the modelling of reality, but the modelling of those stories where passions drive the action. (It also has a different metagame intention, namely, putting more control in the hands of the players.)

People who want to edge out mechanical benefits will do so, and people who want to play a role will do so, and the system doesn't necessarily need to cater to that. D&D doesn't inhibit roleplaying any more than some story-heavy system inhibits lack of roleplaying.

This draws a false contrast, between roleplay and mechanics. In a game like TROS, the mechanics ARE the core of the roleplay. Of course, in D&D they are not in quite the same way – but this just shows that (i) D&D is not generic and (ii) roleplay is influenced by, potentially even driven by, mechanics.

To return to my alignment examples (and yes, I’m aware that alignment creates controversies of interpretation – but none of the examples I have used, such as paladins getting a smite evil bonus against chromatic dragons, or alignment limiting access to certain spells (by way of cleric domain rules), or barbarians not being allowed to be lawful, is controversial): a character who really wants to be able to hurt demons will cultivate mechanical benefits such as levels in paladin (to get smite evil), acquisition of holy swords and arrows, access to spells like protection from evil, and so on. And these are all roleplaying commitments as well: to playing a certain type of character whose actions are of one sort rather than another. I don’t see any tension between mechanical powergaming and roleplaying. The question, rather, is what sort of roleplaying do the mechanics support.

Of course, it is always possible in any system to ignore the mechanics and play a character who does not take the benefit of them. But this makes me ask, Why use those mechanics if they don’t support the sort of character you want to play? Why not find a set of mechanics that do support your play style? If you really want to play a game full of characters driven by passion, why not play TROS rather than D&D?

None of the above is an argument that TROS is better than D&D. I have never played the former, and have played and enjoyed the latter. I mostly play RM, which approaches roleplaying in yet another way – exceedingly complex and detailed character generation and action resolution support an approach to roleplaying based on highly nuanced character design (I think RuneQuest is similar to RM in this respect). These games try to model realism in even more detail than D&D, including by having skill systems that aim to put the entire spectrum of human capacity – not just fighting but all the other things people are good or bad at – on the character sheet. These details about a character – is s/he perceptive, seductive, knowledgeable about angels but not demons, a warrior, a master of self-hypnosis? – hone a roleplaying focus for the character, by channelling a character’s actions into areas of character strength.

There is a real difference here from D&D, which tries to give nearly every skill – even interpersonal skills like Bluff and Intimidate – and does give every school of magic – a combat purpose (eg Abjuration, the protective school of magic, has Imprisonment, one of the most vicious magical attacks in the game).

Again, this is not to say that RM is better. If you want to play a D&D style game it won’t support it, in part because it doesn’t allow for the same degree of superheriocs, and in part because one high-level combat can take a whole session to resolve. Nor does it support a game of player-driven passion like TROS. The examples are just to try to show why I claim that no set of rules is “generic” in the way it supports or impedes roleplaying – either the sorts of roles that are played, or the way in which they are played. Each is better for a certain approach to gameplay.

...it remains a fact that the Core Rules tell me very clearly how to decapitate a barmaid, without telling me how to captivate her heart.

This is true, I think. RM does. But neither D&D nor RM, nor any other ruleset based on the detailed modelling of reality, have mechanics to strongly support a style of play where passions drive the roleplaying action. This latter sort of game has a different purpose at its heart, and therefore needs different mechanics which do not prioritise realism.

To round this off:

3e has a VERY could reason for not doing it, a reason that I support in core D&D -- it should be general, flexible, and not subject, as much as possible, to the whims of individual DM's.

But in fact D&D leaves the roleplay of passions completely subject to DM whim. As I said in an earlier post, a player who cultivates passions in a character puts him or herself on the line – s/he gets involved emotionally in the play in a way that the “kill and loot” player does not. And by not giving any mechanical reward, the player is exposed completely to DM whims. Will the DM reward this play, or cut off the player who has exposed his/her vulnerabilities at the knees? Who knows, because the rules don’t say. As Lone Soul (I think) said in an earlier post, the silence of D&D’s rules on this discourages a certain style of play. It can be done in D&D, but at the player’s own risk.

And on a completely different point, I think Hussar’s comment about minis as supportive props is a very interesting one:

Being able to see things can really impact role play. Last weeks session brought this to mind. My party was on a beachside investigating a mound of debris. Out of the water, a Gargantuan Water Spider rushed out and attacked the party. Now, a Gargantuan Water Spider is really, really big. But, the looks on the player's faces when I plopped down a miniature spider almost four inches across in comparison to their puny little 1 inch minis rivetted their attention like nothing else.

This is a really interesting point. It also shows that the battlemat is not the same as the “map in the head” if verbalisation is being used. And I doubt the same effect could be obtained using chits of paper or (probably) counters. The visuals of the mini are crucial. But I see how this really could support immersion.

Hussar, as someone whom (I gather) is experienced in mini play: how would you do duplicates of a key character, in such a way as to not to give the game away and remove the confusion?

 

[librarius_arcana]

See, here's where I see the argument weaken. How can a ruleset in which the chapter on combat is such a small portion of the Player's Handbook be a mini game? If you look at the contents and their percentages, it looks to me like it's actually a game about building characters and using magic. Combat is just the most frequently occurring place to overcome challenges.

If D&D is nothing more than a mini game to you, I do have to wonder what happened to the rest of your copy of the core rulebooks. Or are you speaking to us from the horrible future, where 4E has swept across the land, ravaging all in its path?

Another way to look at it,

Take out all of the rules related to combat from the core rules,

How much do you have left?

 

[Hussar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
The answers seem kind of obvious to me. They don't actively encourage it (because they figure if you want it, you'll do it, and if you don't, they don't force it). It could be done more (because people like getting rewards for being in character).

Is it a good idea to do it more for D&D? I'm not convinced of that at all. Like I said, it limits the stories you can tell. My Ravenloft character shouldn't get a +8 to save the princess he's in love with. My Eberron character probably shouldn't, either, nor should my Dark Sun character. But my "Romantic France" character probably should, my Authruian Knight probably should, too. But my Ravenloft character maybe should get a bonus for turning against the town that encourages him, and my Eberron character should get a bonus for performing a neat stunt (which is done with Action Dice), and my Dark Sun character should maybe get a bonus when he's well-fed. Though giving King Arthur a bonus because he's well-fed seems...odd, to say the least.

Genre supplements would be a solid place for this, as are campaign settings. The Core Rules....I'm not convinced.


Easy solution...put in half a dozen of general feats in that reward a roleplaying aspect that appears in most fantasy stories and legends, and leave the addition of more, respectively the modification of them to the specific campaign world to the campaign books. That's what the core rules do for most other factors, too...they focus on a few genre tropes, and leave the specific details and changes to either the players, or supplements. More the latter, recently.

Is that really an easy solution? I don't think so. Try to find six feats that would actually ever be used by the majority of gamers that would promote the kind of roleplay you are talking about.

I firmly believe that this sort of thing is much better suited to campaign settings and genre books than the core rules. The core rules are intended to be as neutral as possible when it comes to setting. While KM pointed to 2e campaign settings, you could just as easily point to Eberron, Scarred Lands, Conan and Hamunaptra as settings all supported by the d20 engine which resemble eachother in very few ways. All are very, very different settings yet still use the same core rules.

If you start sticking in "emote" feats, I don't think they would fit quite as well. The "Romantic Love Interest" feat would stick out like a sore thumb in Conan. "Protect the Weak" would likely look very strange in other settings. Why not include those types of feats in the settings and genre books? Why try to make the core rules push the game in particular directions?

Yes, the rules do seem to push in the direction of combat. However, that's because combat is the most often place where adjudication is necessary. Step away from the core rules and into setting books and you have all the emotion rp rules right there. Oriental Adventures comes with oodles of that sort of thing - from taint rules to honor codes as well as a large chunk of the book devoted to the character's position within the setting.

Hussar, as someone whom (I gather) is experienced in mini play: how would you do duplicates of a key character, in such a way as to not to give the game away and remove the confusion?

Actually, I play exclusively over OpenRPG, so I have a distinct advantage. I troll various art sites, snag what looks good and use that for minis. MUCH cheaper than DDM, which I've honestly never played.

I think you did find a hole in my "same map" idea. The use of props is generally considered to be conducive to role play. If I bring in lighting, music and other goodies to the table, so much the better. Why shouldn't the battle map simply be seen as another prop?

Even when I did play tabletop, I always used paper cutouts for minis. I remember early in 3e playing Lords of the Iron Citadel and plopping a collosal spider on the battle map. Sure, it was just a picture of a big friggin spider, but, again, when that square is sixty-four times the size of the PC's counter, it gets a reaction. The picture was 8 inches across!! That's a big bloody spider.

I don't think you need to go the route of DDM's and Dwarven Forge to get that sort of reaction. Low tech does it quite well too. Most players are quite able to get into the mood when you see a mini that bloody big hit the table, even if it's just a piece of paper with the word, "Big Effing Spider" written across it.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think it would be extremely difficult to come up with even a short list of "core" RPing rules in a game with as broad of a focus as DnD. Gameplay varies so widely from group to group from almost roleplayless purely gamist games (. . .)

At its core, D&D is a *roleplaying* game so showing how to roleplay well *is* a defacto goal of presenting a core ruleset. What you seem to be saying is that D&D's core rules should no longer be focused as a roleplaying game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Is that really an easy solution? I don't think so. Try to find six feats that would actually ever be used by the majority of gamers that would promote the kind of roleplay you are talking about.

I firmly believe that this sort of thing is much better suited to campaign settings and genre books than the core rules. The core rules are intended to be as neutral as possible when it comes to setting. While KM pointed to 2e campaign settings, you could just as easily point to Eberron, Scarred Lands, Conan and Hamunaptra as settings all supported by the d20 engine which resemble eachother in very few ways. All are very, very different settings yet still use the same core rules.

If you start sticking in "emote" feats, I don't think they would fit quite as well. The "Romantic Love Interest" feat would stick out like a sore thumb in Conan. "Protect the Weak" would likely look very strange in other settings. Why not include those types of feats in the settings and genre books? Why try to make the core rules push the game in particular directions?

Yes, the rules do seem to push in the direction of combat. However, that's because combat is the most often place where adjudication is necessary. Step away from the core rules and into setting books and you have all the emotion rp rules right there. Oriental Adventures comes with oodles of that sort of thing - from taint rules to honor codes as well as a large chunk of the book devoted to the character's position within the setting.

Sorry if this sounds a bit incredulous now, but are we talking about the same game here? Are you seriously trying to sell me D&D as a completely flavour-neutral roleplaying game? The game where you have the whole western fantasy clichés running amok so much that the monk sticks out like a sore thumb? With plenty of western and mediterranean mythology represented in the core monster books, down to devils, demons and angels? With alignments inspired by more modern western ideas of what good, evil, order an chaos are than anything else? The whole equipment and weapon section 90% devoted to middle-european, middle-age to early renaissance weapons and armor? That's "as neutral as possible when it comes to setting"? Not in my book.

Where would "Protect the Weak" look strange in the core rules, where you have a whole class completely dedicated to the idea of exactly that? Would a "Fated Love" be so out of place with something like the bard, who's build around the idea of the clever, charming trickster? Where is the "romantic knight" so out of place, it being a perfect fit for D&D fantasy, and why should the knight not get some moral bonus from knowing he fights for his lady? That's what moral bonuses are all about after all. ? Or something like "Passionate Hate"? I don't know why you go and wholesale discount motivations and emotions that have a profound effect, and lend additional strength and depth to characters in plenty of the fantasy stories that did and do inspire D&D. Sure, setting books and supplements are a nice place to expand upon them, but why are they out of place in the core rules? Sorry, I don't get the problem.

And by the way...just because 70% (nice guesstimate, where's the numbers? ) of players might not use the feats, that's not a reason to keep them out of the core rules. I have yet to see the Save Bonus feats get that much of a fanbase, or the Toughness feat. Feats are detailed rule effects to back up a roleplaying or a tactical fact, to round out the character in question. And 6 more feats don't take up more than one page in the feat chapter. You might even squeeze in eight, if you manage concise descriptions. Now where's the problem with that? One page sending the printing costs $10 up? I can't imagine that.

 

[Menexenus]

I think there's probably a dynamic in a lot of groups, though, that at least encourages players not to be the one that 'loses' the mini game. There is subtle pressure on everyone to play up to the level of the most tactically minded player in the group.

Oddly enough, I don't see the same thing in the other direction. The RP>Tactical crowd will try to play more tactically, but the RP<Tactical players almost never try to lay off the metagaming and just play.

Wow, this is an excellent point! QFT

 

[Agent Oracle]

<snip>
Likewise, the absence of a mechanical benefit for being in love creates a disincentive to establish those sorts of relationship in game, because in doing so the player puts his/her character on the line - money spent on the love-interest, the possibility of the story doing him/her over by killing off the love-interest, etc - but nothing is received. Whereas the player who decides to invest roleplaying effort in the cultivation of martial pursuits does get a mechanical reward, because the mechanics care about those things.

Counterpoint: There are mechanical benefits of being in love. They are simply less tangible than "This magic dagger gives me +1 to hit". For instance: Sir Lancelot & Queen Guenevere. Sir Lancelot used his relationship with her to gain the position of "queen's guard" presumably, a prestige class .

Seriously though, There are mechanical benefits for being a good roleplayer. Those are detailed, quite nicely, in Players Handbook II. Under "Organizations". There's a nice, solid, roleplay dependant list of mechanical benefits one can gain by being active in a particular group It actually encourages players to form relationships with NPC's.

 

[genshou]

I've been playing D&D for 11 years almost to the exclusion of any other game.

I've been using minis the whole time.

Not once have I gotten any mechanical benefit for role-playing comparable to the benefit of taking 3.5 Power Attack.

Do I still role-play? Yes. To me, at least, it seems clear that a mechanical benefit for role-playing is not the type of reward I've been looking for. But heaven forbid I suggest that maybe it's fair to have the only reward for role-playing be the fun I've been having.

 

[pemerton]

The core rules are intended to be as neutral as possible when it comes to setting. While KM pointed to 2e campaign settings, you could just as easily point to Eberron, Scarred Lands, Conan and Hamunaptra as settings all supported by the d20 engine which resemble eachother in very few ways. All are very, very different settings yet still use the same core rules.

Unsurprisingly, given my posts above, I'm going to contest this claim. I don't know Scarred Lands or Hamunaptra except by barest reputation, but I do know Eberron and Conan. And they don't use the same mechanics.

In particular:

*Conan has no alignment;

*Conan uses a reputation system that influences skill checks (incentive for a particular type of roleplaying here - a mechanical impact of cultivating a certain type of character);

*Conan uses a code of honour system, that gives saving throw bonuses (and has a corresponding feat for those without honour);

*Conan has very different wealth rules - as opposed to wealth by level, Conan assumes that characters spend most of their money between adventures;

*Conan has rules for sorcerors to gain mechanical benefits through betraying the objects of their passion (I think this "rule of obsession" might be in Scrolls of Skelos);

*Conan has different AC rules (noted above) which reduce the imperative for all fighters to have the heaviest armour they can find.

These are just off the top of my head - there might be other differences I've forgotten. But they show that Conan varies the mechanics quite significantly to try and shape a different (again, not necessarily better, but certainly different) sort of roleplaying. And some of these - like reputation and honour - are broadly in the ballpark of the "passions" etc that we have been talking about. Others, like the different wealth rules, move the emphasis away from the "kill and loot" that Kamikaze Midget has (in my view correctly) identified as the core of D&D storytelling.

Yes, the rules do seem to push in the direction of combat. However, that's because combat is the most often place where adjudication is necessary.

This is true only if combat is the dominant event in game. If most of your game consists of politicking, then adjudication will be most often required in relation to Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Information and Sense Motive (to pick out the relevant D&D skills). Of course, this could all be done by GM fiat - but then, so could combat.

If a set of mechanics makes combat the one area of character activity where PCs can get away from GM fiat, then players will probably look to combat to resolve their most important conflicts and achieve their most important victories. Again, mechanics shape roleplay choices.

Two games I know of in which combat and politicking are resolved using basically identical mechanics are The Dying Eath and Hero Wars/Hero Quest - both use contested action resolution methods, based on spending points from a skill rank pool until one character concedes or is beaten. And in The Dying Earth, at least, it is social conflict that is more important than combat.

In contrast, D&D (and, to a lesser extent, RM and RuneQuest) don't have mechanics that support social conflict to the same extent as combat: for example, there is nothing in the social realm remotely analogous to the use of AC and hit points in precisely modelling physical conflict. (Conversely, if we look at Call of Cthulhu (sp?) which does have hit point type rules for sanity - thus taking mental stability out of the realm of GM fiat - we see a game where sanity looms large in play, with characters making roleplaying choices in terms of their impact on sanity.)

The comparative lack of non-combat mechanics in D&D means that players are less likely to turn to non-combat means of combat resolution. This, in turn, makes some characters (Bards, anyone?) less attractive than others - a roleplay outcome shaped by mechanical considerations. In short, the fact that combat is the dominant event in D&D games is not independent of the mechanics that D&D provides. It is a consequence of it. (The mechanics, in turn, reflect the interests of the original designers, who had wargaming roots and were interested primarily in a set of mechanics for resolving figure-on-figure fantasy combat.)

I've been playing D&D for 11 years almost to the exclusion of any other game.

<snip>

Not once have I gotten any mechanical benefit for role-playing comparable to the benefit of taking 3.5 Power Attack.

Do I still role-play? Yes. To me, at least, it seems clear that a mechanical benefit for role-playing is not the type of reward I've been looking for. But heaven forbid I suggest that maybe it's fair to have the only reward for role-playing be the fun I've been having.

No one disputes that roleplaying is fun. So (sometimes) is rolling lots of dice and killing foes, which one can do without the Power Attack feat (earlier versions of D&D didn't have one). The debate is not about whether or not roleplaying is fun - it's about (among other things, like the special role of minis) whether or not mechanics shape roleplaying choices by supporting some and discouraging others.

Why is Power Attack a more popular feat in D&D than Skill Focus-Diplomacy? I think the answer is much the same as the answer to the question, Why is the Bard the suckiest class? Because in a game where combat, as part of "kill and loot", is the dominant method of conflict resolution, every aspect of character creation and player choice during play is analysed in terms of its contribution to success in combat. This does not encourage the creation and play of characters who are (for example) peace-loving friars sworn to poverty and committed to the negotiated resolution of the conflict between orcs and men.

This is not necessarily a bad thing - I'm not sure I'd want to play in that sort of game, for instance. But I'm sure someone out there does, and if they do, I don't think that D&D is the system for them.

Maybe we mean something different by "roleplaying". As I've said a couple of times in earlier posts, by "roleplaying" I mean the building of the character to play a certain role, and then the play of the character in that role. I don't mean flourishing description and a lot of improv dialogue during play. Whether one is playing a fighter or a friar, one can give lots of detailed descriptions of character actions (or, like ThirdWizard, whinny when you move the horse mini!) but this is tangential to the question of which roles - what sorts of characters and what sorts of actions - are supported by the ruleset.

Counterpoint: There are mechanical benefits of being in love. They are simply less tangible than "This magic dagger gives me +1 to hit". For instance: Sir Lancelot & Queen Guenevere. Sir Lancelot used his relationship with her to gain the position of "queen's guard" presumably, a prestige class .

Seriously though, There are mechanical benefits for being a good roleplayer. Those are detailed, quite nicely, in Players Handbook II. Under "Organizations". There's a nice, solid, roleplay dependant list of mechanical benefits one can gain by being active in a particular group It actually encourages players to form relationships with NPC's.

These are both fair points. I don't know much about the PHB2 organisations, but Prestige Class as payoff for roleplaying choices is an important point.

One thing I notice about both of these, though, compared to feats, is that they are much more subject to GM control, because D&D has no clear mechanism for letting the player decide which NPCs will admit the character to their organisation. (This is part of a more general aspect of D&D, RM, RQ - they all assume that only the referee has the power to call gameworld details, other than (perhaps) petty details of PC appearance.) So a character who tries to take advantage of these options is making himself/herself a bit more vulnerable, with no guarantee of payoff.

A question: do the prereqs for our "Queen's Guard" PrC say "Must be illicitly in love with the Queen" or "Must be chosen by the Queen"? Most PrCs take the latter approach, not the former, I think. Would we see a different sort of roleplaying if PrCs had prereqs that focused more on the inner life of PCs? At the moment, alignment seems to be the only aspect of PrC qualification that goes in this direction.

Even when I did play tabletop, I always used paper cutouts for minis. I remember early in 3e playing Lords of the Iron Citadel and plopping a collosal spider on the battle map. Sure, it was just a picture of a big friggin spider, but, again, when that square is sixty-four times the size of the PC's counter, it gets a reaction. The picture was 8 inches across!! That's a big bloody spider.

I don't think you need to go the route of DDM's and Dwarven Forge to get that sort of reaction. Low tech does it quite well too. Most players are quite able to get into the mood when you see a mini that bloody big hit the table, even if it's just a piece of paper with the word, "Big Effing Spider" written across it.

Fair enough. I might have to try it some time!