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

[I'm A Banana]

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 is false. See the voting analogy above. If I work my job instead of go vote, I get paid. They don't pay me to vote. Does that mean I am less likely to vote? Because I get some sort of gross physical reward for not voting? Or should I still vote for the simple pleasure of participating in my nation's political system?

The thing that turns people away from non-combat resolutions is, I believe, because they don't want non-combat resolutions. If they do, they only need rules as far as the Diplomacy check goes. People want to get into fights and slay monsters and win the day through sword and spell.

As RC pointed out, obviously the voting percentage in the US has decreased. But pinning that on the enconomic system seems to ignore the simple fact of what people want -- people want to go earn money (or take the day off or whatever) more than they want to participate in the nation's poltical system.

Just the same way that people who view the D&D rules as inhibiting to roleplaying are ignoring the simple fact of what people want -- people want to pretend fight evil villains more than they want to pretend to be in love with an imaginary romantic interest.

I don't think that's a very bold statement. I think the fact that D&D has never had rules for romantic interests and has always been THE defining roleplaying game provide good evidence for that statement. If people wanted to play with rules for love interests over rules for clubbing baby goblins, they would have done so, and D&D would have followed the public demand.

While that might be true for setting or campaign specific RPing rules, it would obviously not be true for core RPing rules that should be part of the core ruleset.

Whenever you have to make a selection based on "most fantasy," you get very subjective, and you get things that may work well in a book or a movie but that fail on the table. You intentionally limit what you include as fantasy and what you don't. By providing a feat like In Love, you say, however subtly, "We're not going to support you if you think differently." That's a lot different from the current D&D rules which state "How you think is up to you."

You also say, subtly, "If you're in love, you can't Power Attack." Which is more a quirk of the rules than anything else, but is still a rather important point. A role-playing feat in this case would literally mean that your character would be a worse combatant than another character for choosing it. Which is, given what most people want, an actual disincentive to being in love. I dunno 'bout you, but I'd like being in love to not penalize me.

Who is to say what RPing rules are general enough to be part of the core ruleset? Action points aren't very general (though they're more general than an In Love feat). Heck, even alignment isn't THAT general (to enforce a heroic genre, after all). What criteria do you use? Where do you draw the line between "encouraging roleplaying" in general, and "encouraging a SPECIFIC style of campaign?"

Like ThirdWizard said, rommance rules would be pointless in most D&D campaigns. Reputation rules would likewise be lost on a lot of campaigns, as would taint, insanity, and complete rules for medieval social faux pas. Even combat-specific rules like mass combat would be lost on a significant portion of the games out there.

Exactly how much core rules pagecount should we waste on addressing things that only a small fraction of the audience is going to want (and even that that small fraction would have to change to fit their games in most cases)? There's already a lot of space devoted to alignment, and we know THAT's an issue a good portion of the players discard, gloss over, or generally play using extensive house rules.

Vs. spending it in a supplement that actually will address the issue? Or a setting where this kind of flavor is prominent? Or letting each group tell their own story in their own way without getting in the way ourselves?

 

[Mark CMG]

Whenever you have to make a selection based on "most fantasy," you get (. . .)

That's a false premise for this discussion because RPing rules need not be tied to a genre or setting. They are setting neutral.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is false. See the voting analogy above. If I work my job instead of go vote, I get paid. They don't pay me to vote. Does that mean I am less likely to vote? Because I get some sort of gross physical reward for not voting? Or should I still vote for the simple pleasure of participating in my nation's political system?

I guess my irony wasn't obvious earlier: as the perceived benefits of voting have declined, so has the percentage of population that actually votes. Your analogy works against your point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You also say, subtly, "If you're in love, you can't Power Attack." Which is more a quirk of the rules than anything else, but is still a rather important point. A role-playing feat in this case would literally mean that your character would be a worse combatant than another character for choosing it. Which is, given what most people want, an actual disincentive to being in love. I dunno 'bout you, but I'd like being in love to not penalize me.

Alternatively, you could allow anyone to have the ability to Power Attack without requiring a feat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess my irony wasn't obvious earlier: as the perceived benefits of voting have declined, so has the percentage of population that actually votes. Your analogy works against your point.

No, it was, read the rest of that post. Specifically:

As RC pointed out, obviously the voting percentage in the US has decreased. But pinning that on the enconomic system seems to ignore the simple fact of what people want -- people want to go earn money (or take the day off or whatever) more than they want to participate in the nation's poltical system.

Just the same way that people who view the D&D rules as inhibiting to roleplaying are ignoring the simple fact of what people want -- people want to pretend fight evil villains more than they want to pretend to be in love with an imaginary romantic interest.

I don't think that's a very bold statement. I think the fact that D&D has never had rules for romantic interests and has always been THE defining roleplaying game provide good evidence for that statement. If people wanted to play with rules for love interests over rules for clubbing baby goblins, they would have done so, and D&D would have followed the public demand.

The issue isn't the number of people who do an action (roleplay in this case), but rather the inclination of a system to discourage a particular action. Is it the economy's fault people would rather work than vote, or is it people's fault? Is it the system's fault people would rather have rules for full plate armor than rules for romance, or is it the people's fault? If people don't vote, is that because of the system, or the person? If people don't roleplay, is that because of the rules, or because of the person? In my view, in both cases, blaming it on the system ignores that people do what they want to do, and are not mere tools to be used by the rules. Rather, vice-versa.

This isn't raising the rather clear issue of "Can rules encourage or discourage roleplaying?" Yes, they can. The point is that D&D's rules don't discourage roleplaying simply by not giving an incentive for it, in the same way that the system of being paid to do work doesn't discourage voting simply by not giving a monetary incentive for it. If I see the benefit of voting as having voted, I don't need to be paid to do it. If I see the benefit of roleplaying as playing a role, I don't need to get a bonus for doing it. Getting a bonus beacuse of my role would be like paying me to vote -- it's unnessecary and actually partially at cross-purposes to the action I'm supposed to be taking.

That's a false premise for this discussion because RPing rules need not be tied to a genre or setting. They are setting neutral.

I have yet to see RPing rules of any sort (including D&D's alignment rules) that are setting neutral. I don't believe such things exist, though I'm open to examples that show otherwise.

Reputation isn't setting neutral.
Taint isn't setting neutral.
Insanity isn't setting neutral.
Alignment isn't setting neutral.
Honor isn't setting neutral.
Backgrounds aren't setting neutral.
Force rules aren't setting neutral.
Archetypes aren't setting neutral.
Allegiances aren't setting neutral.

There are more and less setting neutral rules out there -- Archetypes, backgrounds, allegiances, and even alignment are general enough to fit a lot of things under their heading. But they aren't setting neutral.

Heck, even the combat rules aren't entirely setting neutral, as Conan certainly helps show. I'm not sure a "setting neutral" rule truly exists. Even the d20 roll indicates an equal chance of sublime success and catastrophic failure, which is appropriate for a heroic game, but not for every game.

I believe 3e's designers were quite correct in disentangling the majority of arbitrary campaign descisions from the inherent balance of the game, and in adding them in as supplements where appropriate. Because it's impossible to avoid them all, they selected some very general principles that tried (with some success) to make the game "D&D" as it was known by the people who had been playing since OD&D.

And to get at the core topic of the thread a little more:

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.

This is an artificial distinction. Combat is not seperate from D&D. It is a part of it. To see it as "something else" is to have a misconception. You can certainly raise points about how seamlessly or not it works together ("why can't I make Diplomacy checks in combat?"), but it is not meant to be regarded as a seperate entity. D&D consists of rules for playing a game of heroic fantasy where you fight evil and save the day, and become more powerful and face more powerful evil as you do so. Combat is not different game. It is that game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Whenever you have to make a selection based on "most fantasy," you get very subjective, and you get things that may work well in a book or a movie but that fail on the table. You intentionally limit what you include as fantasy and what you don't. By providing a feat like In Love, you say, however subtly, "We're not going to support you if you think differently." That's a lot different from the current D&D rules which state "How you think is up to you."

This is a very funny statement, especially about a game that in fact makes it its policy to parcel all and every option into feats to present them to the customers. I could equally say that the current Core Rules have the "We're not going to support you if you think differently." mindset with all the tactical feats that limit cool combat maneuvers to a handful, and only if you really have all the prerequesites. After all, if you think anybody should be able to sacrifice accuracy of attack for more damage in case of a hit, D&D doesn't support you either. D&D is already very subjective.
By the way, thanks for supporting the "rules can limit and influence roleplaying" argument here.

You also say, subtly, "If you're in love, you can't Power Attack." Which is more a quirk of the rules than anything else, but is still a rather important point. A role-playing feat in this case would literally mean that your character would be a worse combatant than another character for choosing it. Which is, given what most people want, an actual disincentive to being in love. I dunno 'bout you, but I'd like being in love to not penalize me.

Hmmm, somehow I have the impression you didn't quite get what posters like me were aiming at with the feats they were suggesting to foster and encourage more roleplaying by creating some feats. Check out the feat suggestion in one of my posts above, it might give you an idea. In Love is not a feat...that is simply a roleplaying condition. Nobody would think to ask for a feat to represent that. That would be like creating a skill to make somebody have a better opinion of your character.

Who is to say what RPing rules are general enough to be part of the core ruleset? Action points aren't very general (though they're more general than an In Love feat). Heck, even alignment isn't THAT general (to enforce a heroic genre, after all). What criteria do you use? Where do you draw the line between "encouraging roleplaying" in general, and "encouraging a SPECIFIC style of campaign?"

Like ThirdWizard said, rommance rules would be pointless in most D&D campaigns. Reputation rules would likewise be lost on a lot of campaigns, as would taint, insanity, and complete rules for medieval social faux pas. Even combat-specific rules like mass combat would be lost on a significant portion of the games out there.

I'm not speaking for the rest, but I'm not advocating putting a "Complete Guide to Fantasy Romance" into the Core Rules. A handful or two of feats that are based on roleplaying decisions and events instead of cool combat abilities or meta-game stuff like Save bonuses, that would fit right in with all the other "general" fantasy stuff the D&D Core books try to represent.

Exactly how much core rules pagecount should we waste on addressing things that only a small fraction of the audience is going to want (and even that that small fraction would have to change to fit their games in most cases)? There's already a lot of space devoted to alignment, and we know THAT's an issue a good portion of the players discard, gloss over, or generally play using extensive house rules.

Vs. spending it in a supplement that actually will address the issue? Or a setting where this kind of flavor is prominent? Or letting each group tell their own story in their own way without getting in the way ourselves?

Well...lets see...8 feats...how many pages would that "waste"? 1 page? 2 at most? My gods, printing costs just went through the roof.
Can I put in my argument now that, with a LOT of players not really interested in the detailed tactical rules for melee combat, we could simply throw them out of the Core Rules, leave a simple, streamlined system in its place, and put all the advanced, detailed tactics into a supplement called...hmmm..."Tome of Battle" maybe?
About letting each group tell their own story in their own way...that doesn't mean we couldn't offer options for those who want it, but want some inspiration through official rules instead of DM's Whim and Houserules (the HORROR! ) There's plenty of options for nearly everything else after all, if they are wanted, or not, and people use them because they are there and offer an advantage as much as they use them because they can create a story with them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Only if you assume people do not vote because they do not want to vote, as opposed to people not voting because they do not believe that the rules (modern politics) grant them a mechanical advantage (actual representation). I do not make that assumption, and most studies have found a direct correlation between voting practice and the degree to which the general citizenry feels that who they vote for matters.

This is directly counter to your point.


RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

This is an artificial distinction. Combat is not seperate from D&D. It is a part of it. To see it as "something else" is to have a misconception. You can certainly raise points about how seamlessly or not it works together ("why can't I make Diplomacy checks in combat?"), but it is not meant to be regarded as a seperate entity. D&D consists of rules for playing a game of heroic fantasy where you fight evil and save the day, and become more powerful and face more powerful evil as you do so. Combat is not different game. It is that game.

An artificial distinction to you, maybe...to me, it's a roleplaying game that has a mini game welded to its core to handle the part that is "most important" in the eyes of the designers, and apparently a lot of the players: combat. That's not a seam I'm tripping over when I read through the combat section in the 3.x rules. But I guess that's also why we're arguing at cross-purposes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not speaking for the rest, but I'm not advocating putting a "Complete Guide to Fantasy Romance" into the Core Rules. A handful or two of feats that are based on roleplaying decisions and events instead of cool combat abilities or meta-game stuff like Save bonuses, that would fit right in with all the other "general" fantasy stuff the D&D Core books try to represent.

This seems an odd statement, because it appears that feats similar to the one about being good at protecting those incapacitated already do exist in the core rules.

There's a feat to represent a character who attacks with all their strength, but recklessly (Power Attack). There's a feat to represent someone who is persuasive (it's called Persuasive), or one who is very perceptive (it's called Awareness). There's even a feat to show you trained under the best cobbler in the kingdom (Skill Focus: Cobbling). You could be a rutheless killer who enjoys the sound of a dying man after a single sword cut (improved critical), or you could be a diplomat from over seas whose silver tongue keeps him out of trouble (a Cha-focused bard or rouge). If you're in love with a princess, you may know some royalty (Skill Focus: Heraldry). If you have a true fear of snakes, perhaps you've built up your resistance to their venom (Great Fortitude), or maybe you are a barbarian from the north with a mistrust of wizard's mind games (Iron Will).

There aren't feats for alignments in the core, but there are domains, and character class choices, and spells and auras and effects -- a character who is chaotic evil could never be a monk or a paladin or a druid, and if they ever met a cleric of law, they'd be in trouble.

It's certainly not an in-deapth perspective or even "equal time" compared to combat, but you say you're only looking for a little bit....and D&D doesn't give you much, but it does give you a little bit.

What, exactly, are you looking for them to do more of?

Only if you assume people do not vote because they do not want to vote, as opposed to people not voting because they do not believe that the rules (modern politics) grant them a mechanical advantage (actual representation). I do not make that assumption, and most studies have found a direct correlation between voting practice and the degree to which the general citizenry feels that who they vote for matters.

Again, is that the fault of the system (the American Political Machine), or a fault of the individual people (The politicians, the voters, etc.)? Maybe I'm waaaaaaaaay to into personal accountability, but I don't buy that the system is out of the control of the individuals who are a part of it. We're not just puppets for a system, we choose to be puppets (because it's easy or because we don't want to fight or because complaining is easier and more satisfying and less dangerous than doing something about it). I believe the same about D&D: the players are not just expressions of the system, but they control the system. Those who don't either can't (because of a mental block of some sort) or just won't (because of any one of a million different reasons).

I do also believe the system should cater to the players as much as possible, so I'm not saying that D&D does the ultimate job of supporting role playing. I'm saying it does it well enough for a game calling itself D&D, well enough for a role playing game, well enough to give the characters context, and enable an heroic feel to the game. I believe D&D caters to role playing pretty much as much as it can without getting in the way, but even then that it gets in the way more often than many would like.

An artificial distinction to you, maybe...to me, it's a roleplaying game that has a mini game welded to its core to handle the part that is "most important" in the eyes of the designers, and apparently a lot of the players: combat. That's not a seam I'm tripping over when I read through the combat section in the 3.x rules. But I guess that's also why we're arguing at cross-purposes.

I think those who play D&D who can't or won't meld combat with their roleplaying experience are in a distinct minority. Most players seem to be very content doing so, as is evidenced by every D&D game that has been a "roleplaying game" since OD&D1974, and the fact that D&D, without substantial rules for, say, generating a character history, is still the defining RPG.

As an analogy, it might not be your fault that you're red/green colorblind, but it'd be saying a bit much to say that this means that red and green really are the same color and that stoplights need to change because of that fact. Not everyone can see D&D as one whole game, but it would be wrong, I think, to say that it's two different games and that it needs to change to not be. Rather, because it is a personal issue, it needs a personal and local resolution. You shouldn't want to change D&D, but you should be shameless and proud of changing your own game to fit your needs, because it's better for you.

It hasn't been a problem for D&D (though it has been for some players) since it's inception, and if it D&D ain't broke, it don't need fixin' (though some individual players' games might). Unlike with voting, people aren't abandoning D&D because they feel like the rules control them, even if it's just an excuse. Quite the opposite, it's more popular now than it's ever been. Because either the rules don't control them, or they like the way the rules control them.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have yet to see RPing rules of any sort (. . .) that are setting neutral. I don't believe such things exist, though I'm open to examples that show otherwise.

(. . .)

Heck, even the combat rules aren't entirely setting neutral (. . .)

The RPing core rules need not be any more setting neutral than the dice-mechanics (or as you call them "combat") core rules, though both can be setting neutral to a greater degree than D&D has them. Allow me to also mention that "combat" is likely not a precise term, as it is sometimes being used in this discussion, as the combat rules for a game can be handled by dice-mechanics, roleplaying-mechanics, or more likely a combination of both.