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

[Raven Crowking]

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).

No one is arguing that players are puppets of the system. They are arguing that the system encourages certain types of role-playing. If you can see that following a system is "easier" and "less dangerous than doing something about it" (I do not buy "more satisfying", not by a long shot, but even that would only strengthen the point) then it ought to be self-evident that said system is influencing (which is not the same as controlling) the behavior of those who fall under it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You're right about the terminology.

So what would be an example of a largely setting-neutral (or at least D&D-style) RPing rule that is not a dice-mechanics rule that D&D does not already possess?

Because it seems to be suggested that RP rules *should be* dice-mechanics rules ("+8 for being in love"), just not ones dedicated to or coming from beating up the opposing side (though, in the end, they are that too, I guess).

No one is arguing that players are puppets of the system. They are arguing that the system encourages certain types of role-playing. If you can see that following a system is "easier" and "less dangerous than doing something about it" (I do not buy "more satisfying", not by a long shot, but even that would only strengthen the point) then it ought to be self-evident that said system is influencing (which is not the same as controlling) the behavior of those who fall under it.

Again, I raise the point that I've never argued that the rules do not influence it. Merely that D&D's rules do not influence one away from it. In fact, though I once said it didn't coax you towards it either, I think I was mistaken, because alignment and skill selection certainly coax you towards thinking about your character in more than combat terms (though still in dice-mechanical terms). It's not the strongest of suggestion, but the suggestion is there.

With regards to the minis combat topic specifically (rather than the D&D game in general), it still suggests that you think in terms of your role, because the reasons for this combat and the goals of this combat and the motives of the foes you are facing and your own ability to avoid this combat all feature heavily in the game. Indeed, not running through a swarm of orcs to get to their captain unless you are confident in your agility is something in-character for any character remotely familiar with combat.

D&D, in effect, pays you to roleplay in several different ways. It may only be a nickel for the occasion, but it's more than nothing, and it's even more than some people want (prefering no alignment or abstract combat systems that take you further from the role).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

Oh, I agree...but this thread is about people not being able to meld playing a mini game for combat with their roleplaying experience. It's not about combat being part of D&D, it's about the rules used for that. I don't mind combat in D&D at all. But I'd mind 3.x combat a lot less if it wasn't set up to be played with minis on a 5'x5' battlemap in the core rules like some evolved game of chess.

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.

Well, funny...stoplights HAVE been adapted so people who see red and green as the same color can still work with them. And no, it's not their fault at all. That's exactly why, in most countries, traffic lights are two or three in a row, instead of just being one light that switches colors. Somehow, somebody responsible recognized that they'd have to change the system for that small percentage that can't tell red from green, instead of simply telling them not to drive the car, or to do what the rest of the traffic around them does.

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.

You know, I might sound a bit cynical here now, but if those are the alternatives, I'd put my money on the second one. People like to be told what to do, and how to do it, as long as they get some personal benefits out of it. Not everybody, of course, but a sizeable amount. Sizeable enough, I'd say, to make it very profitable for Hasbro to continue doing so.

 

[Mark CMG]

You're right about the terminology.

So what would be an example of a largely setting-neutral (or at least D&D-style) RPing rule that is not a dice-mechanics rule that D&D does not already possess?

Because it seems to be suggested that RP rules *should be* dice-mechanics rules ("+8 for being in love"), just not ones dedicated to or coming from beating up the opposing side (though, in the end, they are that too, I guess).

Your question is getting a bit garbled, IMO, but if what you are looking for is an example of largely setting-neutral rules that show what I consider a pleasant synergy between RPing and dice-mechanics, and is an expansion on something D&D doesn't do quite so well just yet, then a recent example of great promise is Skill Focus: Tallking.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your question is getting a bit garbled, IMO, but if what you are looking for is an example of largely setting-neutral rules that show what I consider a pleasant synergy between RPing and dice-mechanics, and is an expansion on something D&D doesn't do quite so well just yet, then a recent example of great promise is Skill Focus: Tallking.

Just from the exerpts, this seems to be something that D&D already does, but this does it with more specificity. I'm not sure how this is different from "dice-mechanical" RPing, either. It's the same "describe-then-skill-check", just with a few more skill checks and specificity thrown in.

So the idea is to be more specific about the social skills? That seems MUCH more minor (and, really, a good idea) than some of the other ideas raised in this thread.

But more to my point, lacking something like those rules doesn't mean that D&D's rules do prevent role playing at all, and would have little effect on miniatures one way or the other. Those rules certainly encourage it more, but they hardly show that current D&D rules are discouraging to it.

But, also, I seem to be debating several conflicting and mutually exclusive viewpoints here....there's one:

No one is arguing that players are puppets of the system.

And there's the other:

You know, I might sound a bit cynical here now, but if those are the alternatives, I'd put my money on the second one. People like to be told what to do, and how to do it, as long as they get some personal benefits out of it.

I agree with RC in that the system has an influence, but disagree that the influence is away from Role-Playing, even in Minis combat. This runs counter to GR, who beleives that the people obey because they don't mind obeying. And the points about more specific skill checks run counter to the idea that it is the minis combat that people are complaining about, not the lack of skill check complexity. The idea that rules influence play styles is fairly well established, but it has not been shown that the minis rules influence away from role playing enough to make it an issue, despite the claims that it does for some individuals who cannot or do not see it as a whole.

My main point has been that D&D rules do not influence people away from role playing. That was countered by saying that the rules do because they don't provide a benefit for it. When clarifying the benefit, people point out more detailed skill checks, alignment, and even favored enemy, which D&D already has and which do provide a benefit for role playing. Which leaves the issue of benefiting from role playing instead of/in addition to/while engaged in minis combat out of the picture.

If the main point left against my point is that minis combat does influence a significant number of people people away from role playing, I don't know how complex skill checks, alignment feats, or being in love, is going to bring a remedy to minis combat. And if people are not controlled by the rules, and the rules are not penalizing you for role playing (as I don't see how minis combat rules penalize you for role playing at all), then the choice to not role play during minis combat is an entirely personal one, not something that is influenced by the rules.

Fankly, I think the points I'm being offered are great for how D&D already does influence you toward role playing, and "involved skill checks" is something I can support for adding more influence for that, but that still doesn't show me that D&D rules in general need more to persuade people to role play, or that minis combat somehow hurts role playing.

 

[Mark CMG]

Those rules certainly encourage it more (. . .)

That's been my contention all along. The core D&D rules could go a long way further to giving guidance toward RPing and having rules that help encourage RPing along side the dice-mechanics. I think you see my point and agree but have gotten embroiled in a number of discussions in this thread and have thus gotten into the habit of believing you are opposed to anyone who entreats your indulgence on a single point. Not to worry. You will submit to my will (not folksy enough?) . . . come round to my way of thinking when I have even more concrete evolvements of RPing rules to share. At the risk of leaving the field to those who will pounce to make a cheap point in my absence , I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this thread with this new week upon us. Thanks for all the interesting discussion from everyone!

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I'm going to take this in a bit of a different direction for a second. The idea is that minis and battlemaps prevent Rp'ing. Maybe it's because I'm so used to playing online, but, I think that this is entirely ballocks.

Take for example, Agin's Inn

A nice little tavern. Now, we add the party of 4 (for example) and the following individuals as minis:

• Bartender
• 2 Serving wenches
• 6 peasants seated around the room (1 is actually a Rogue 3)
• 4 dwarves seated in the northwest table gambling.

It's a crowded evening.

Now, let's use combat mechanics to run this. Every PC rolls initiative and initiative is rolled for each NPC. Every character (PC and NPC) threatens either 1 square or a number of squares equal to his Cha bonus, whichever is higher.

The party face character, we'll say a priest of Pelor, goes to the bar to chat up the bartender about local news. On his way to the bar, he passes through three threatened areas; one by a peasant commoner, one by the rogue and one by a serving wench. Passing the commoner first, he draws an aoo - but, instead of an attack, the commoner can either talk or let him pass.

The commoner recognizes the priest from his recent deeds and offers his congratulatiosn, "You did a fine thing father. We'll all sleep better now," he says. The priest can either start talking to the commoner and end his turn or he can pass by with a short word. He thanks the commoner with a blessing and passes.

The rogue, hearing the commoners words, also offers his congrats as the priest passes. Again, the priest passes by with a few words, but the rogue then pickpockets the priest for a spell component pouch or something like that. Assuming he's successful, the priest passes on.

The wench stops the priest and asks him for a blessing for her unborn child. The priest gives his short blessing and passes on. Eventually he gets to the bartender, and initiative is passed on.

If the priest stopped for a longer chat at any point, initiative would again be passed on, giving everyone at the table a chance to act. It could very easily be that the other players simply pass and the turn goes back to the priest again. This could be handled in a fairly freeform manner without adhering too closely to actual six second rounds. However, note that the three interuptions and moving to the bar could reasonably have taken six seconds as well.

Maybe the party fighter decides on his turn to go check out the gambling game with the dwarves, so, on his init, he moves through a commoners threatened area before arriving at the dwarves. The commoner doesn't really have anything to say, so ignores the fighter. The fighter arrives and begins chatting.

The action can be moved along easily by limiting time for each player to about one or two minutes of interaction and cutting back and forth. This is actually pretty close to how long a combat turn takes anyway, so, it's not too different.

Now we've used a battle map and minis to greatly increase role play and ground the party in the setting. Combat rules are also used to enhance interaction as well by using AOO rules for NPC's.

Should these rules be hardwired into the RAW? Not in the least. While my group may enjoy such a thing, I'm thinking that many would not. But, to say that the RAW cannot be used to enhance and that minis inherently prevent RP is just wrong IMO. IMNSHO, a picture is worth a thousand words, so, with fifteen minis and a battlemap, I've got a short story sitting right in front of you.

 

[Mark CMG]

Maybe it's because I'm so used to playing online (. . .)

That's probably it, if you mean chat or IRC, though I think message board games are just as skewed the opposite way for the most part. There are exceptions, of course, but live online games of the chat, IRC, etc, variety have a tendancy to be less RP oriented, IMO. I've seen some message board games go on for weeks without the need for any dice, though.

 

[Hussar]

I play over OpenRPG. Had the opposite experience Mark. Some are high hack like my own World's Largest Dungeon game while others were almost pure role play like a good friend of mine's Urdoth game. (Go through the link for the transcripts.)

To be completely honest, I find online games to be much higher in roleplay since players stay in character completely, there is little or no off topic chatter and people focus on the game more.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's probably it, if you mean chat or IRC, though I think message board games are just as skewed the opposite way for the most part. There are exceptions, of course, but live online games of the chat, IRC, etc, variety have a tendancy to be less RP oriented, IMO. I've seen some message board games go on for weeks without the need for any dice, though.

Seriously? I find that in online play, where you can easily have designated OOC and IC areas, are far more roleplaying intensive than face to face games. In a PnP game, in order to make an OOC comment you have to interrupt gameplay. In an online game, you never have to interrupt gameplay in order to make a comment.