The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Teflon Billy]

...And can I ask why you reduced the non-combat possibilities of the game to shopping, landscaping and love? ...

Sure you can ask, but if you read the OP, you shouldn't need to.

Here's the relevant quotes from post #1

..."All she ever does is run and fight things. She can't get real relationships with anyone. She can't fall in love..."

...A bit more discussion, and the comment became clear: building and beautifying the area would be a far more important and noble goal for her than slaying monsters. She'd want to deliver medicine to the sick. She'd want to find pretty jewelry...

So I I don't think it's fair to say I was "reducing"anything by addressing the OP's own commentary.

Considering that this is an extension of the "is D&D sexist?" discussion, that seems like a resounding "yes"!

Hey, by all means go on and keep your back up if you think that's what's going to get you the "moral high ground" ya big feminist you.

mbran]Well, it's great that you're so superb and have so many players that match your playstyle near you. Some are not so lucky. And while growing the hobby as a whole may not be their job, growing their pool of available players may be required for them to really enjoy the hobby.

Depending who is around them, maybe learning a little bit about Tea Parties can help. [/U]

I wasn't implying that my "Superbness" placed me outsie the pack...the point I was trying to make is that if you run the game in a way that you find interesting and do it well, by and large you will attract players that enjoy your style.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's a good thing I keep a link to this old thread I made.

It asks what Edition to use to resolve a non combat challenge. I think it may provide some insights for this thread.

I think the best thing to do is provide options. Allow the players to either talk/roleplay their way out or use powers/dice rolls. This way the players can do the thing they want to do in the way they want to do it.

 

[Bumbles]

I think LostSoul covered that in post #148.

That might make sense if the reply wasn't from Ariosto to something in post 150, which was itself a reply to post 148.

So, yeah, you're not helping me understand Ariosto any better.

To repeat a bit of what I've asked already, and haven't yet seen any answer:

Why can't I, as the GM, proceed from the player telling me that they're going to try to scare the rival off, with an Intimidate check? Because I don't know the difficulty? But I can know it, if I've set the NPC's Will already, or if I've decided what the encounter will be. I could even randomly determine the difficulty if I didn't care.

Why do I *need* to know the exact words? Why must the player speak in character? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as a requirement. Note, this does not exclude any possible benefits, it just means it's not required.

Please tell me why I can't go on. At all. Period.

It depends on how important you want that event to be in the overall game. I enjoy more specificity, so that I have the option of bringing it into a rivalry subplot, but if it's just an event for the PC to demonstrate his ballsiness, a simple roll may suffice.

That's consonant with what I've been saying. LostSoul, however, seems to believe it's mandatory. I disagree with that as a general statement.

 

[Hairfoot]

Sure you can ask, but if you read the OP, you shouldn't need to.

Here's the relevant quotes from post #1
...
So I I don't think it's fair to say I was "reducing"anything by addressing the OP's own commentary.
...
Hey, by all means go on and keep your back up if you think that's what's going to get you the "moral high ground" ya big feminist you.

This is page 9. The discussion has covered far more ground than the OP contained, and includes numerous examples of how noncombatants can be included in a compelling campaign.

I'm not aiming for the moral high ground, just querying why some posters (not just Teflon Billy) keep reducing non-combat roles to twee, childish stereotypes, even though the thread is packed with alternatives. If I claimed that the entire RPG experience amounted to nothing more than a childish male fantasy of being a wenching, loin-clothed barbarian, the thread would be soon be full of examples which demonstrate the actual depth of the hobby. Yet some gamers apparently feel that sort of patronising condescension is fine when it comes to different types of players.

If you only intended to confirm for the OP that RPGs can only cater to a very specific demographic, then OK. But it still seems more dismissive than explanatory, and I disagree.

As for being a "big feminist", if a post said there's no room for blacks in D&D because there are no rules for drive-by shootings, or spells for fried chicken and bananas, would I be a caricatured race-rights zealot just for saying that it sounds more like knee-jerk bigotry than considered analysis?

 

[Bumbles]

As for being a "big feminist", if a post said there's no room for blacks in D&D because there are no rules for drive-by shootings, or spells for fried chicken and bananas, would I be a caricatured race-rights zealot just for saying that it sounds more like knee-jerk bigotry than considered analysis?

I'd say you're wrong because there are rules for such things in the game. Wandering Monsters for the first, various Feast spells for the second.

Then I'd say Hairfoot said it first if anybody complained.

 

[Hairfoot]

I'd say you're wrong because there are rules for such things in the game. Wandering Monsters for the first, various Feast spells for the second.

Hmm. Drive-by a skill challenge or a daily power?

 

[Teflon Billy]

I'm not aiming for the moral high ground, just querying why some posters (not just Teflon Billy) keep reducing non-combat roles to twee, childish stereotypes, even though the thread is packed with alternatives.

And you chose to do so by quoting my post. In much the same fashion as I I did.

Except I was addressing the quote I used. You were talking about something else.

You pretty clearly understand why a person would quote a post he was addressing so i find this odd.

If you only intended to confirm for the OP that RPGs can only cater to a very specific demographic, then OK. But it still seems more dismissive than explanatory, and I disagree.

I intend nothing of the sort, and I wonder how you could draw such a conclusion. The OP said (X), I used (X) in my response which was about not changing a play style that you enjoy into something less enjoyable for the sake of...whatever.

As for being a "big feminist", if a post said there's no room for blacks in D&D because there are no rules for drive-by shootings, or spells for fried chicken and bananas, would I be a caricatured race-rights zealot just for saying that it sounds more like knee-jerk bigotry than considered analysis?

No, you'd be called a Hyperbolist, and it wouldn't be caricature.

Luckily you did no such thing, you just sniffed, got your nose up and started talking down to someone who doesn't share you (admittedly hip and edgy) appreciation for feminine reworking of a traditionally masculine subculture.

Is this where you start arguing about how a Chainmail Bikini wouldn't really protect a Womyn Warrior?

 

[Bumbles]

Hmm. Drive-by a skill challenge or a daily power?

Daily Power? Can't see where you're going there, but a skill challenge?

Sure. I'd say they'd all take some minor damage, and then ask them what they'd do.

Relevant skills to come into play could include:

Arcana (What just hit them)
Diplomacy (If there's somebody else around)
Dungeoneering (If it takes place underground)
Heal (Maybe one player will care if somebody is hurt)
History (If there's a history of these things happening)
Insight (Maybe they'll notice somebody who knows something!)
Nature (If it took place out in the Wilderness)
Perception (To notice the guy in the robes galloping off on the horse)
Religion (It might be some religious thing)
Streetwise (Again, appropriate environment...)

Further decisions would depend on more detailed circumstances than are available here.

Or I could just go with some wandering monters, if I didn't want to set up something.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I like how we're running the gamut of opinions, but I think we're beginning to veer off topic (drive-by shootings and semantics?).

Still, the very existence of the gamut of opinions is interesting. It means that we all love and play the game, but get different sources of enjoyment out of it. Part of asking how to attract groups that aren't inherently interested but might be, is in understanding what about the game attracts those that are inherently interested.

I've always been more of the storyteller than the combat enthusiast. Yet somehow there's space for both styles within the same game. I might not enjoy a game that doesn't look into the hows and whys of a situation, but I wouldn't begrudge someone's play style.

So, is there a point at which the game fails to support someone's play style? Not my personal preferences for a game, but the game as a whole? If so, where is it, why, and should something be done about it?

In my opinion, the game fails once someone wishes to avoid combat. At that point, we're given over mostly to DM fiat. DM fiat is great, but it doesn't require a game--I can just tell stories. However, the game still allows for stories to develop as a natural result of the mechanics. We still roll dice and play tactically to direct the flow of the story, so storytelling isn't completely divorced from mechanics.

In addition, combat is not required to roll dice and play tactically. Skill checks include a dice rolling component, and explanation of skill use is tactical play. Much as someone will decide precisely where to move and what form of attack to use to drop his opponent, tactical play includes deciding how exactly to intimidate your rival. The skill on the player's part to come up with what to say is equivalent to the skill to maneuver on the battlefield. Both can add richness.

Now, however, the game rewards combat prowess with XP and levels. Non-combat prowess, however, is considered its own reward. That's weak. It's also why I suggested the Influence system. The reward for non-combat prowess in the real world is better access to whatever it happens to be that you want, and it should pay off in game, too. I certainly didn't earn my house, my job, and my leisure time by killing monsters and taking their stuff. Shouldn't there be some similar mechanism in game?

Or should there?

 

[Ariosto]

Why can't I, as the GM ...

It's not about you. The thread is about "The Game for Non-Gamers".

Ethel: The food here is just awful.
Mabel: And the portions are so small!

My assumption is that if people don't like something, then that is probably not because they want more of the same. I have some ideas as to what some "non-gamers" might prefer.

However, the real answers would come from a representative sample of whatever target demographic one has in mind. Initial responses to proposals could provide a start. Actual field-testing of multiple candidate designs -- including "blind" or "beta" testing -- would probably identify concerns that people discover in practice even though they don't come to mind in theory.