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

[Mallus]

I've always been more of the storyteller than the combat enthusiast. Yet somehow there's space for both styles within the same game.

Definitely. While I've never DM'ed a tea party, my last 3.5e campaign featured a brunch that was talked about by the players for years. It did lead to a combat, eventually.

In my opinion, the game fails once someone wishes to avoid combat.

You're entitled to that opinion and all, but as some posters around here like to point out, combat was often avoided in old-school games.

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.

Neither does extensive use of DM Fiat prevent something from being a game. If this were true, Gygax, Arneson, et al --the people who created these games-- wouldn't have have been playing games. Heck, then OD&D wouldn't be a game.

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.

I'd like to point out that conversations/negotiations/'social encounters' are, by their nature, tactical, even before you represent them using some kind of game mechanics. Ask a diplomat, negotiator, or marketing consultant!

 

[Ariosto]

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

Wandering Monsters -- but in some games, it would be more like a crawl-by in speed of execution.

 

[Ariosto]

Even if one were to grant that dice-rolling was essential, that would be a far cry indeed from the position that situational particulars must be ignored! It is startling to see taken for granted a premise so parochial even within the field of D&D-like fantasy games -- as if history began and ended with the publication of 4E.

 

[FireLance]

Even if one were to grant that dice-rolling was essential, that would be a far cry indeed from the position that situational particulars must be ignored! It is startling to see taken for granted a premise so parochial even within the field of D&D-like fantasy games -- as if history began and ended with the publication of 4E.

I'd say situational parameters are not so much ignored as they are simplified. Instead of a different reaction to each individual approach to intimidation, the individual is assumed to have a similar reaction towards intimidation in general (unless the player happens to stumble on an approach that the DM deems to be particularly effective). However, he could (would? should?) have a different reaction to Diplomacy or to Bluff.

This approach is similar to how an individual reacts to being hit with a weapon in the same way, unless it is a critical hit, without too much attention paid to whether it is a leg wound, arm wound, head wound, etc.

 

[Rel]

If the stumbling block is the fact that the game system doesn't award XP for things besides combat then that is pretty easy to solve. In 4e I've just chucked XP entirely and let them level every X number of sessions.

In 3e I developed a simple system by which XP was awarded by "scene". The scene could be of any type. Combat, skills use, diplomacy, pure roleplaying, whatever. I just assigned the scene a degree of significance and awarded XP based on that.

So if the awards system is the issue then it isn't much of one.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

If the stumbling block is the fact that the game system doesn't award XP for things besides combat then that is pretty easy to solve. In 4e I've just chucked XP entirely and let them level every X number of sessions.

In 3e I developed a simple system by which XP was awarded by "scene". The scene could be of any type. Combat, skills use, diplomacy, pure roleplaying, whatever. I just assigned the scene a degree of significance and awarded XP based on that.

So if the awards system is the issue then it isn't much of one.

It goes deeper than that, though. XP earns you levels. Levels give you a number of different skills, but for the most part, they relate to combat. So, a non-combat person is not particularly incented by XP.

Now, there are already a few rewards that can incent the non-combat player: wealth, new spells, and better skills, of which two of the three can come from levels. However, influence is probably the most valuable of these, and that is only poorly modeled in game at this time.

 

[Bumbles]

In my opinion, the game fails once someone wishes to avoid combat.

Well, as I see it, you can avoid combat fairly well. Sure the GM will have to make some decisions, but then the GM will also be making some decisions in combat as well. Not that big an issue, and if you really wanted to do so, you could create some parameters to determine results instead of relying on the GM.

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.

Can add does not equal, however, that we should require it in order to proceed. Which is what was suggested earlier in the thread, and which I find to be a bit overzealous.

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

The question works just fine without the I, which I only chose because it made it sound better to me. You need not have taken it as a literal I, but since you have, I assume you want it rephrased, so here you go:


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


Sorry, that just doesn't sound all that good to me, I prefer how I originally wrote it, but if I confused you with mixing literal I's and rhetorical ones, then I hope I have addressed your concerns.

And just so you know, the I's here are literal. But I really do hope you can learn to tell the difference on your own, as I may not feel inclined to make the distinction in the future. I may also use other rhetorical pronouns as well.

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.

All true enough, but not anything any of us here are going to implement anyway. Unless somebody wants to chime in how they're actually about to begin product testing...no?

Even if one were to grant that dice-rolling was essential, that would be a far cry indeed from the position that situational particulars must be ignored!

Which is also a far cry from what anybody here has actually said as far as I know. May be ignored or handwaved over is not the same as must be ignored. Saying "I don't feel it's appropriate to require situational particulars in all cases" does not and should not be translated into "Situational particulars must be ignored in all cases" .

If your objections have proceeded under that understanding, I can only suggest that you recognize the fault in your interpretation. At least in regards my own words. If you've read somebody else's words that way, I'd like to know who, so I can address them, as I do think that might be a tad excessive as well.

Now, there are already a few rewards that can incent the non-combat player: wealth, new spells, and better skills, of which two of the three can come from levels. However, influence is probably the most valuable of these, and that is only poorly modeled in game at this time.

Well, how would you like to model influence in the game? What mechanical systems would you like to use? Would you handle somebody who leads by inspiration different than somebody who leads by terror, and if so, how?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The dichotomy is doubly false:

1) There are alternatives that in fact do not involve DM fiat (or even a DM).

2) As things stand, the DM sets the probability, whether 100% or 0% or somewhere in between, by setting the DC.

What does the player do? The player rolls dice.

You say it's false, but you actually proved my point.

Dice-rolling is going to involve some math. Either the rules resolve the conflict or the DM does. If you're involving the rules, rolling dice, there will be rules for it.

Otherwise, it's just up to the DM.

So you agree that role-playing rules are possible and useful, then.

Now we just need to find out what form they perhaps should take.

 

[Bumbles]

Now we just need to find out what form they perhaps should take.

Indeed, I have shared in what manner I would have handled the hypothetical situations that have arisen. How would others handle it? It might be more productive to see actual methods than argue further over general concerns.

(For the record, the hypothetical situations have been the PC spotting the ladylove with his Rival and if you like, the Drive-By shooting one.)

 

[Ariosto]

Again, Bumbles: it's not about you. At least, I'm pretty sure that LostSoul's "no, you couldn't" was not meant as you took it. Consider what immediately followed:

You'd have to describe how you are scaring him away from your girl. The reason being: we don't know how to resolve it, because I don't know how to determine the NPC's reaction.

As to "must be ignored": You have clearly demonstrated that you consciously exercise "DM fiat", the principle that has gone hand-in-hand with role-playing since the original D&D set -- and to which Kamikaze Midget objects, offering a rigid mathematical construct as "the only alternative resolution method".

I find KM's assumptions about the behavior of RPG participants rather disturbing. That is not what I would expect of "adults, ages 10 and up". (The "not fun" line yet again proves a red flag in such discussions.)