To much combat and not enough "roleplaying"!

[The Ubbergeek]

The problem is..

Rules can't force you to roleplay. Or help you there, much.

You seems to think you need rules to act, to be social (albeit I like social rules, for the challenged social guys like me - we are not all Guy Bertrand or Mulroney).

 

[Woas]

Sure they can.
I know there are rules that when I attack someone, eventually when I do enough damage the opponent stays dead. I know there are special things I can do like tripping, grapple, charging, etc. that aid me towards this end.

If during play I want to get an NPC to perform an act, tell me information that may be sensitive or any number of things that are not simply asking an NPC for the time, there are besides a general "make opposed diplomacy roles", nothing to tell me how to accomplish the task, or what the outcome is going to be. In other words, how can I negotiate and roleplay with an NPC and make sure he "stays dead" in terms of holding his end of a bargain, etc.

I mean, its sort of up to the DM as it is now. But just think of what combat would be like if it were kept as vague as social "encounters" are now.

The problem is..

Rules can't force you to roleplay. Or help you there, much.

You seems to think you need rules to act, to be social (albeit I like social rules, for the challenged social guys like me - we are not all Guy Bertrand or Mulroney).

 

[The Ubbergeek]

But then, WHY did you need to do rolls for social encounter?

Can't you... I don't know... roleplay them?

 

[Woas]

I don't really get what you mean Ubbergeek. Could you extrapolate?

 

[Incenjucar]

But then, WHY did you need to do rolls for social encounter?

Can't you... I don't know... roleplay them?

1) Seperates characters and players to prevent the old Genius Car Salesperson player with a barbarian who's using all mental stats as dump stats from taking over the world.

&

2) Does the same for the person poor moron playing the 20 Int, 20 Wis, 20 Cha bard with maxed out social ranks who couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag.

&

3) Helps prevent DM favoritism issues

Not to the benefits for new players, shy people, or people who have had long days and just aren't up for play-acting that night and just want to smash some heads and hang with friends.

Social rules are extremely good ideas.

 

[TerraDave]

As touched on by multiple responders: they have paid quite a bit of lip-service to the importance of both skills (in and out of combat) and non-combat encounters.

I have had the impression that:

1) A major 4th ed design goal was to make sure everybody is good in combat, since it does take up a lot of time at a lot of tables. And has really always been the main focus of the D&D rules. Hence a lot of emphasis on it.

2) The non-combat crunch, esp traps and social encounters, where simply done later and not as polished. Hence less emphasis so far.

 

[JohnSnow]

1) Seperates characters and players to prevent the old Genius Car Salesperson player with a barbarian who's using all mental stats as dump stats from taking over the world.

&

2) Does the same for the person poor moron playing the 20 Int, 20 Wis, 20 Cha bard with maxed out social ranks who couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag.

&

3) Helps prevent DM favoritism issues

Not to the benefits for new players, shy people, or people who have had long days and just aren't up for play-acting that night and just want to smash some heads and hang with friends.

Social rules are extremely good ideas.

There are a large number of D&D players who consider rules for social encounters to be counter to "good roleplaying." Early D&D relied heavily on the intelligence of the player over that of his character. The very mention of puzzles in a roleplaying game is anathema to any notion of being reliant on the character's abilities.

From what we've been told, the new social encounter rules are being written to enable this for those who want to bring these kinds of rules into the game. However, they also have to be written so that those who want to just "roleplay it out" can do so.

I think the social encounter rules will mean better rules support for roleplaying encounters. Therefore, it will be more mechanically supportive of social encounters than any edition of D&D to date. However, there are those who will argue that this replaces roleplaying with "rollplaying."

They're trying to strike a delicate balance. I'm sure we'll hear more about it as we get closer to release.

 

[Hairfoot]

But then, WHY did you need to do rolls for social encounter?

Can't you... I don't know... roleplay them?

It may work for a fighter, but if I'm playing a bard or other diplomatic PC, the player often can't match the abilities of the fictional character.

Say, for instance, that my bard is negotiating a service with a king in exchange for a magic artifact. I can bargain hard with the DM, laying out the terms and conditions and haggling for a better deal, but, while I'm stunningly handsome in real life, I don't represent my bard's overwhelming charisma and way with words. In such a case, the roleplaying happens in stating what the character does, but it's the roll that determines how well he does it in the game.

 

[helium3]

Not to mention the fact that roleplaying isn't edition dependent, so for all old players, nothing will change, except the mechanics... which is what they have been talking about.

Seriously, when has there ever been a big focus on role-playing in the core books? I am asking, because I don't recall neither 2e nor 3e core books to be full of advice on how to "role-play".

My impression is that the OP was talking about there being a general lack of the description of anything but combat in the playtest reports.

Course, there are lots of reasons for this, and none of them are particularly worrisome with the exception of "it's not in there because the designers prefer to play dungeon-crawl grind-fests that are just like video games, only with pixel resolution being defined in imaginary numbers."

Heh heh. I just used imaginary numbers in a joke. Does this make me lame ?

 

[Incenjucar]

There are a large number of D&D players who consider rules for social encounters to be counter to "good roleplaying."

There's a lot of people who consider Burning Baby Kobolds an appropriate activity for paladins.

Good roleplaying is how well you play your role. Social encounter rules should only affect whether or not your character is convincing.

Early D&D relied heavily on the intelligence of the player over that of his character. The very mention of puzzles in a roleplaying game is anathema to any notion of being reliant on the character's abilities.

Depends on the characters' abilities to solve puzzles versus the players'.

If you're playing a band of brain-damaged barbarians and you make sound tactical decisions THAT is equally problematic.

From what we've been told, the new social encounter rules are being written to enable this for those who want to bring these kinds of rules into the game. However, they also have to be written so that those who want to just "roleplay it out" can do so.

We've been "roleplaying it out" for decades. I don't see this being any more difficult in the future. This just allows for a unified mechanic. We could roleplay out combat as well.

I think the social encounter rules will mean better rules support for roleplaying encounters. Therefore, it will be more mechanically supportive of social encounters than any edition of D&D to date. However, there are those who will argue that this replaces roleplaying with "rollplaying."

Yes, and there are still on this Earth people who insist that said planet is flat, to this very day.

Pay them equal heed.

They're trying to strike a delicate balance. I'm sure we'll hear more about it as we get closer to release.

Hope so. I actually expressed "social combat" as something I deeply desired to see in 4E, on another forum, not too long ago. I'm glad to see that WotC has been reading my mind again.