D&D General The unique nature of TTRPGs, D&D and traps

[overgeeked]

And this is one major Stawman, man. I didn't argue that I could go outside the rules to make it good. Your argument there is basically saying that I have to do those things to have good social and exploration interactions. I don't. The game does just fine all by itself.

AD&D. You said you were doing good social and exploration using AD&D. Which has literally zero social interaction rules beyond reaction tables. So if you were running great social interactions when you were playing AD&D...that’s not because the system supported it. It literally did not. Because there were no rules for it. Any great social interaction stuff you were doing was 100% you as the DM. Not the game.

 

[Maxperson]

AD&D. You said you were doing good social and exploration using AD&D. Which has literally zero social interaction rules beyond reaction tables. So if you were running great social interactions when you were playing AD&D...that’s not because the system supported it. It literally did not. Because there were no rules for it. Any great social interaction stuff you were doing was 100% you as the DM. Not the game.

AD&D had charisma checks which are rules for social interactions. It had morale. It had reaction score with rules for interactions and changing disposition. Rules for racial preferences. And spells that affected social interactions. It had rules and support.

It's also telling how you avoided 2e which had more support than 1e, and 3e which had more support than 2e, and 5e which has much more support than any prior edition except maybe 4e(which I didn't play).

Using just the rules, social interaction worked well from 1e to 5e. Other systems may do it better, but so what. They do other things worse.

 

[overgeeked]

It's also telling how you avoided 2e which had more support than 1e, and 3e which had more support than 2e, and 5e which has much more support than any prior edition except maybe 4e(which I didn't play).

It’s because I’ve never played 2E or 3X. But thanks for assuming.

AD&D had charisma checks which are rules for social interactions.

Wow. That’s thin.

It had morale.

Which was limited to combat.

It had reaction score...

It had reaction tables. Morale was a score.

with rules for interactions and changing disposition.

Really? Where?

Rules for racial preferences. And spells that affected social interactions. It had rules and support.

So your argument is “it has Charisma, therefore it has social interaction rules”. That’s not very convincing.

 

[Maxperson]

It’s because I’ve never played 2E or 3X. But thanks for assuming.

Okay. 2e added in non-weapon proficiencies that could be used in social and exploration settings, but was otherwise similar to 1e. 3e added a even more with feats, skills, etc. 5e is by far the most supportive.

All in all, every edition has had some support for the social and exploration pillars. It's just personal opinion on whether it's good, bad or in the middle.

Wow. That’s thin.

It was the beginning. It has since gotten better.

Which was limited to combat.

No it wasn't. Henchmen could just plain have poor morale and the PC would need to handle that(social game). The list when checks happen is on page 36 of the DMG and includes things like testifying and being offered a bribe(social game). The DM could use it whenever he wished.

Really? Where?

In the 1e DMG.

So your argument is “it has Charisma, therefore it has social interaction rules”. That’s not very convincing.

Nor is your misstatement of my argument. Stop it. If you can't counter my argument, say so and let's move on. Don't twist it, though. That's just uncool.

 

[overgeeked]

No it wasn't.

Morale is a function of combat. You’re conflating that with the loyalty ratings of henchmen. They’re different things.

Henchmen could just plain have poor morale and the PC would need to handle that(social game).

Morale is not henchman loyalty. And neither is a “social interaction” system as we’d recognize it today. Loyalty is only for your hirelings, not anyone else. Morale is something you check during combat.

The list when checks happen is on page 36 of the DMG and includes things like testifying and being offered a bribe(social game). The DM could use it whenever he wished.

Which only applies to your hirelings. Not much of a social game. Unless of course you decide to change how it works and why.

In the 1e DMG.

Morale and loyalty aren’t the same thing and they have very narrow, and separate, uses. It’s not a “social interaction” system.

Nor is your misstatement of my argument. Stop it. If you can't counter my argument, say so and let's move on. Don't twist it, though. That's just uncool.

It’s uncool to...dissemble...about what’s in the books.

AD&D DMG, p37. The loyalty section is titled “Loyalty of Henchmen & Hirelings, Obedience and Morale”. “The loyalty of all non-player characters associated with a given player character depends upon many factors. First and foremost is the charisma of the PC, of course. This initial loyalty is modified by subsequent factors and the continuing relations between liege and his or her henchmen and hirelings.”

All of those modifiers apply, shockingly, only to your henchmen and hirelings. There’s nothing about using that system for other NPCs. Unless you’re going to try to shoehorn all other NPCs into the amorphous category of “associated”. Which would be laughable as it would immediately produce a world filled with NPCs who “will attempt to kill, capture, harm, or desert at first possible opportunity.”

AD&D DMG, p67. “Morale checks are used to determine the amount of will to fight in non-leader NPCs, and can be applied both to henchmen and hirelings of character types and groups of intelligent opponent monsters (see also Loyalty of Henchmen & Hirelings, Obedience and Morale). Base unmodified morale score is 50%.”

The associated lists of when to check morale and how to modify those checks are, shockingly, all about combat. Like I said.

So yes, if you ignore what’s in the books and/or twist them or repurpose them to support broader social interactions, you’re free do to so. Of course. But it’s a bit gauche to claim it’s actually written that way in the book.

So again, if you ran great social interactions using AD&D, that’s awesome. Good for you. Honestly. But you did so because you’re a good DM. Not because the game supported you in any meaningful way in that regard. Since I’ve now literally had to quote the book at you to prove my point, it would be grand if you’d stop.

 

[Maxperson]

Morale is a function of combat. You’re conflating that with the loyalty ratings of henchmen. They’re different things.

Doubling down on wrong just makes you twice as wrong. I quoted the page that shows that morale goes beyond combat into social interactions.

Morale is not henchman loyalty. And neither is a “social interaction” system as we’d recognize it today. Loyalty is only for your hirelings, not anyone else. Morale is something you check during combat.

Um, it says morale. You don't have to like it, but you can't deny it.

Which only applies to your hirelings. Not much of a social game. Unless of course you decide to change how it works and why.

Maybe you didn't interact with your hirelings and henchmen, but I did. Further, low morale like that applied to any NPC with a low...............morale. It could be the lord's troops, or the baker whose shop was just destroyed.

Morale and loyalty aren’t the same thing and they have very narrow, and separate, uses. It’s not a “social interaction” system.

Yes they are. They may be crude by today's standards, but they are a system.

AD&D DMG, p37. The loyalty section is titled “Loyalty of Henchmen & Hirelings, Obedience and Morale”. “The loyalty of all non-player characters associated with a given player character depends upon many factors. First and foremost is the charisma of the PC, of course. This initial loyalty is modified by subsequent factors and the continuing relations between liege and his or her henchmen and hirelings.”

All of those modifiers apply, shockingly, only to your henchmen and hirelings. There’s nothing about using that system for other NPCs. Unless you’re going to try to shoehorn all other NPCs into the amorphous category of “associated”. Which would be laughable as it would immediately produce a world filled with NPCs who “will attempt to kill, capture, harm, or desert at first possible opportunity.”

1e PHB, page 106

"Morale properly refers to the stote of mind of "troops" during combat or stress situations."

Ready to admit that it's not just combat?

Edit: and it says "troops" in quotes, so it's not just fighting folk. That baker could be stressed way out due to a dragon attacking another part of the city and you need to talk him into going outside with you to escape. He's hiding due to low morale. Social situation which works out just fine by 1e RAW.

 

[Campbell]

I know this described me when I was younger. I was pretty afraid to step out of those D&D/Vampire/Exalted waters. I started playing in 1997 and it took me until 2010 to feel comfortable running anything else for a long term game.

 

[loverdrive]

However, I don't agree that the reason people play and hack D&D is because they're self deluded into believing it's the "norm" or anything along those lines. That sounds more like something someone would come up with to justify why their game of choice isn't more popular than D&D. To which I would reply by recommending that the person stop worrying so much about justifying their own choices, and just enjoy the game of their choice. Just my opinion.

I'm not arguing that all the D&D fans and hackers are doing so because they don't know better.

I, obviously, don't have any hard data, but I bet that the vast majority of D&D players enjoy D&D for D&D reasons. Good for them! Good for me, also, because I belong into that group.


But I can't deny that there are people who are constantly and actively trying to make D&D into something else. There weren't so much questions asked and debates had about murderhobos with no personality and how to straighten them out if it wasn't the case.

There are people who want conventionally good "Hollywood" stories, so they employ these weird railroading techniques, fudge dice and whatever, because what D&D produces is war stories, where sometimes people die meaningless deaths and sometimes win without struggle. That is fine by me, but that guy over there that I just made up? He wants arcs and inner conflicts and stuff. So he'll have to work his ass off and fight the rules from time to time to achieve that.

I don't care if it's 5% or 10% or 50% of D&D fans, it is a group large enough to be noticeable.

 

[Maxperson]

But I can't deny that there are people who are constantly and actively trying to make D&D into something else. There weren't so much questions asked and debates had about murderhobos with no personality and how to straighten them out if it wasn't the case.

Wanting to make D&D your own is not making D&D into something else. House ruling D&D is a time honored tradition that leaves D&D, D&D. Also, your second sentence there doesn't really follow from the first. There are lots of different ways to enjoy D&D and murdertransient is just one of them. All those questions mean is that it doesn't work for everyone, so you have a lot of questions from people who want to play differently.

 

[overgeeked]

1e PHB, page 106

"Morale properly refers to the stote of mind of "troops" during combat or stress situations."

LOL. Of course you'd think one stray phrase proves you're right when all the rules for the actual use of morale points to you being wrong. Wow. That's...certainly something. Cheers.