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

[I'm A Banana]

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".

DM Fiat is indeed what D&D has used for 90% of its non-combat resolution from Day 1.

It's about time we kill that sacred cow, especially if we want parts other than combat to become a valid way to play D&D (which as the OP points out, we might need to do if the game wants to attract a broader audience).

I don't think the game should become, as TB says, a game of thespian tea parties, but I think the way to make things other than combat as satisfying and entertaining as combat is to reduce the chance for human capriciousness; that is, reduce the DM Fiat involved. Rather than change focus so that it was game about tea parties, the focus would broaden so that tea parties and butt-kicking medieval mercenaries can go alongside one another: this broadens the player base so that people who enjoy both can both enjoy D&D.

Reducing the DM Fiat involves rules. Rules will involve some math. Like most of D&D, making that math simple and significant (so it's not a long calculation, and so it's not fiddly little bits) is part and parcel of making the game more accessible as well.

I'm sure you could play D&D without any rules, with only DM Fiat, but such a D&D would depend heavily on the quality of the DM. Rather than require a stellar DM, which isn't a common thing in the world, I would do the same thing combat does: put it in a neutral third party, the rules. A stellar DM can always ignore the rules, and will make the game better for it, but more average or slightly-less-than-perfect DMs can use the rules so that they can play to their actual strengths as DMs.

DM Fiat should not be, in my mind, the way to resolve non-combat encounters, any more than it should be the way to resolve combat encounters (and hasn't been, since Day 1).

 

[Bumbles]

Again, Bumbles: it's not about you.

Again, Ariosto, I'm not thinking it is as much about me as you are thinking I am. It's true. You may not believe it, but it's true.

So instead of pursuing this line of argument that I am, once again, explicitly and specifically assuring you is not actually the case, please address what I said, instead of these phantoms. If you can't refrain from doing so, despite my repeated assurances, then please, tell me, so I can cease replying to you, as it's not worth my time.

If you'd like to do something productive instead, why not get past this, and explain how you'd handle the two non-combat situations given.

At least, I'm pretty sure that LostSoul's "no, you couldn't" was not meant as you took it.

I took it as an impossible for anybody to proceed from that state. How do you think it was meant?

I also wonder why you apparently don't have a problem with Lostsoul's use of pronouns, but you do seem to have a problem understanding mine.

Consider what immediately followed:

Consider my response. It's post 150. Go read it. Try to understand it.

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 don't see how any of what you said here addresses what I actually said. Sorry, but you're going to have to try again.

 

[Bumbles]

DM Fiat should not be, in my mind, the way to resolve non-combat encounters, any more than it should be the way to resolve combat encounters (and hasn't been, since Day 1).

So how would you resolve the hypothetical non-combat encounters I brought up in the prior post?

Also, I note you said reducing, not eliminating. Would there still be a role for fiat, just a more limited one?

 

[Ariosto]

I don't see how any of what you said here addresses what I actually said. Sorry, but you're going to have to try again.

The three words, plus the reminder of the thread title, and all the more detailed explanation, are -- if inadequate -- probably my best shot for the moment. Sorry!

 

[Bumbles]

The three words, plus the reminder of the thread title, and all the more detailed explanation, are -- if inadequate -- probably my best shot for the moment. Sorry!

Well, if that's indeed the best you can do, then that would be a severe problem.

Why not, instead of argumentation, try explaining how you'd handle the situations given?

Perhaps that would enable you to express yourself better?

Also, I still want to know how you think "no, you couldn't" was meant.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So how would you resolve the hypothetical non-combat encounters I brought up in the prior post?

A while upthread I posted a sort of example of play using a system to resolve non-combat encounters. It was criticized for not actually requiring players to give literal dialogue (e.g.: a player could just roll dice to get through the encounter), but I defended that as a beneficial thing if we're looking for an expanded player base.

In that mode, the PC spotting the their rival with the PC's lover would be up to the PC's:

DM: "As you enter the bar, you see your rival chatting up your lover. What do you do?"
Player: "I kick his butt!" (start combat)
or Player: "I scare him off!" (start a social encounter)
or Player: "I drag her away from him." (no rules needed, unless she's going to resist the dragging, in which case you'd probably do a simple Strength check or something)
or Player: "I find out where he lives and burn down his house!" (start extended series of other encounters while the PC does this
or Player: "I cry into my beer." (no rules needed)

Ultimately, the player declares his intention, the DM figures out if there's any significant resistance to the player accomplishing this. If so, the player must engage in some sort of rules-mediated mechanic to accomplish it.

The "social encounter" would consist of an example like the one I posted upthread: the PC has some social skill he uses to attack the rival's social defense, requiring a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures, with special social abilities that he may choose to bring to bear. The rival likewise can attack the PC, and has his own social abilities.

A D&D-esque ride-by arrowing would pretty obviously use combat rules: rolls to hit and damage vs. cover and the like (and might not quite have punch in D&D due to the general resilience of PC's, but this is heroic fantasy, where every character can stand strong in a hail of arrows and survive).

 

[Bumbles]

A while upthread I posted a sort of example of play using a system to resolve non-combat encounters.

Oh yes, you did, silly me for blanking on it.

It was criticized for not actually requiring players to give literal dialogue (e.g.: a player could just roll dice to get through the encounter), but I defended that as a beneficial thing if we're looking for an expanded player base.

Well, I have no objections to your description, and I do think that requiring as a general condition, the literal dialog would be excessive.

So yeah, I think we're at the place where the other side has to make their case on that.

A D&D-esque ride-by arrowing would pretty obviously use combat rules: rolls to hit and damage vs. cover and the like (and might not quite have punch in D&D due to the general resilience of PC's, but this is heroic fantasy, where every character can stand strong in a hail of arrows and survive).

So what do you think of my interpretation of it? I think there might be a difference in approaches, since I'm not thinking of it as a combat encounter, but am really considering that part inconsequential.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, I have no objections to your description, and I do think that requiring as a general condition, the literal dialog would be excessive.

So yeah, I think we're at the place where the other side has to make their case on that.

It's only my personal preference; I enjoy games where the details matter. I personally find that they give more rich, engaging, and dynamic games as opposed to those games where the details are glossed over.

Would non-gamers like that kind of game? I have no idea. I don't think there are any studies to prove it one way or the other!

 

[Bumbles]

It's only my personal preference; I enjoy games where the details matter. I personally find that they give more rich, engaging, and dynamic games as opposed to those games where the details are glossed over.

Well, that would be fine if you had expressed it in terms of preference, however, your past replies did not contain such. They went in another direction, namely that of requirement. Are you now saying you misspoke? Because I don't think I misunderstood you quite that badly. Did I?

Because if you're saying "More details can help make a richer, more engaging and dynamic game" then that's fine. I have no disagreement with that. Roll with it. Just please, don't tell me they're absolutely required. That I do not concur with at all.

Would non-gamers like that kind of game? I have no idea. I don't think there are any studies to prove it one way or the other!

Well, that's an interesting question, but if you want my experience, I think they'd find it tiresome and pointless if it were done to excess. I've had more people complain about the thought of having to dress up and speak in character than I ever have had from people complaining that they could just gloss over something where appropriate.

What has your experience been with others?

 

[Ariosto]

There's a lot of middle ground between just saying, "I use Skill X," and reciting some lines in blank verse. Cutting out that middle level of description seems actually to increase emphasis on the theatrical latter, perhaps because the void left by cutting out the more fundamental kind of role-playing is something people feel a need to fill. Our instincts evolved to deal with more visceral kinds of information than abstract probability equations.