MarkCMG said:
The debate, KM, is not whether or not it can be done, since it has been done, but in how extensively it has been done in the past and how extensively it could be done in the future.
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.
pemerton said:
But consider the following: why does the game reward wearing full plate armour over a Conan-style loincloth? After all, we could say that if I want to play a knight who spends money on armour, I will, and if I want to play Conan I will - why impose a mechanical difference? The mechanical difference creates a disincentive to play the Conan-type (and we can note that some d20/OGL rulesets, like the Conan RPG, change the mechanics to try and reduce this, by giving a class and level based bonus to AC).
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.
This 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.
The other is very vague. Whether or not there is any benefit to being in love depends on the setting, the time, the motive, the DM, the tone, the NPC....there probably wouldn't be any benefit for being in love with a conniving sneak who is just out to bilk you, so you shouldn't get an award for that. Likewise, in a gritty survival game or a horror game, being in love is almost punished, and investing money in it could set you up for a nice tragedy, but it probably shouldn't net you a bonus to saving your love. Meanwhile, putting money into a big peice of metal has a tangible benefit that is more universal (though hardly absolutely universal) -- you can hit things with it 'till they stop moving.
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). Rules for being in love would just eat up space and likely be useful in only half the games, and even then probably would need house rules to make them fit the unique circumstances of the PC.
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.
But I don't see how it is an objection to these sorts of mechanics that they would encourage powergamers to cultivate "story elements".
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.
*there is a big difference between mechanics where description affects resolution (ie I get a bonus on a Diplomacy check due to my (the player's) silver tongue) and mechanics which give a bonus to rolls based on story elements (which is what I and Lost Soul have been talking about);
There is no true difference between description and story elements in that both are very subjective and are different at different tables under different DM's in different styles of campaigns in different parts of the world. That's why I used In Love and Blue Hat interchangably -- both are subjective, relative, and will work differently in your game than in mine.
And I don't believe the core rules of the D&D game are a place where subjective, relative, and variable rules that depend on inconstant vagaries are welcome.
This problem is solved in many games by objectifying, defining, and describing the story elements that they expect (Conan, FFZ, and 7th Sea are all much more genre specific than D&D). D&D doesn't do this, which is it's weakness and it's strength.
But this doesn't make D&D fantasy for all seasons, it makes it a way of playing out a particular type of fantasy milieu.
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).
Some fairly mainstream d20/OGL material tries to move things in a different direction - I'm thinking of Monte Cook's oath feats in Hallowed Might, and the Oathsworn in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, both of which DO give a bonus to kill the dragon if an appropriate passion is at stake. Even D&D does to a limited extent - the Paladin (which is the D&D character trope most directly derived from romantic rather than pulp fantasy) gets a benefit to slay the dragon to whose destruction he is sworn, by using the Smite Evil ability. Of course, D&D implements this through alignment rules rather than passions or Spiritual Attributes. But I don't see why alignment can be regarded as consistent with a "mechanics over fluff" outlook, but passions are not. I think it's more that D&D players are so accustomed to alignment, they don't notice its (many) roles in shaping a certain type of roleplay in the game.
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.
It's meant as an argument for the conclusion that mechanics, including D&D's approach to them, do shape roleplay. There is no such thing as a "roleplay neutral" mechanics - and even if there were (I don't know what they would look like, but maybe they're out there somewhere) D&D is not an example of such.
I don't deny that mechanics have an effect on roleplaying, I just deny that D&D's core mechanics inhibit it. They serve as a largely neutral voice (with a few very notable exceptions, such as alignment). Minis combat is included in this -- they are neutral with regards to role playing. They don't penalize you for doing so, nor do they reward you for doing so. The reason behind that is a very good reason, though it doesn't always make for the best game for everyone (nor should it).
GE said:
So what is so wrong to give advantages in feat form for certain interpersonal relationships, to help players define a motivation they get for a certain emotion/passion they feel? The ranger already gets his "favored enemy", after all.
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.
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 any reason why there can't be something similar for more roleplaying-related stuff...except for the obvious: it's not supposed to be as much encouraged as combat is. Saying it can't be done rules-wise is a cop-out, as it can be done, and has been done by other games.
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.
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.
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.
If you encourage one, and leave the other up in thin air...that's a form of discouraging it, too.
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.
No, the crux of the matter is that I'm saying that a game usually is played a certain way, and encourages that way of playing. I know very well that you can play any game "against the grain", as it is, but that many people simply don't do that. If you present them with a mini game, they play the mini game, and if you present them with chess, they won't play knights and horsies while making their moves. The rules only make clear what kind of game it is, and D&D combat rules and examples make it abundantly clear that it at heart is meant to be a mini game. So many players will play it as such when all the pieces for it are on the table. I hope you see the difference.
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.
So in a nutshell, it's not the fault of the rules if the people are too uncreative to play a mini game as anything other than a mini game?
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.
