We're back to AD&D1

[Darkwolf71]

That seems like quite an unusual comment, because often in the last eight years I've heard people complain that 3e was more 'roll playing' and less 'role playing' than 1e was (e.g. by having deterministic social skills, strong focus on combat, faster levelling etc).

To be honest, I saw a lot more role playing and a little less tactical play in my 1e days compared to my 3e days (depending upon DM of course).

So when I read "the games philosophy goes back to AD&D1" my first thought is "Oh, he thinks it promotes more roleplaying, more descriptive adventuring etc".

I'm curious about how your observation and your assertion match up.

Cheers

Pretty much my thought exactly. The groups I played with 20 years ago roleplayed ALOT.
My current group roleplays as well, but it' really not something that the 3.5 rules encourage.
~YMMV

 

[Thasmodious]

Methinks you need to actually read the DMG, Joe. The chapter specifically on noncombat encounters is 17 pages long. This is true. But your implication that the rest of the book is filled with combat is not. Looking at the ToC, we have a chapter on How to DM, one on Running the Game, which includes subheadings on chronicling, narration, pacing, and improvising. The chapter on Combat Encounters is one page shorter than the chapter on Noncombat Encounters. There are chapters on building adventures, campaigns, and the World in general (cosmology, civilization, the wild, etc.).

 

[Joe Sala]

The groups I played with 20 years ago roleplayed ALOT.
My current group roleplays as well, but it' really not something that the 3.5 rules encourage.
~YMMV

Well, I have a completely different experience. When I started gaming 20 years ago, all sessions were about killing monsters and improving the stats. Now we never play this way: we enjoy developing our characters (I talked about personality and background), creating complex plots, interacting with well-defined NPCs...

 

[billd91]

By "non dummied down" I'm guessing you want more complexity, and by "more options" I'm guessing you mean "more rules," which is precisely the thing that inhibits role playing. Anybody who has seen the Forge inspired indie stuff knows exactly what I'm talking about. Those games are always very light on rules, yet heavy on story and role play.

On the other extreme, you could try role playing in Champions or some other variant of Hero, that is, if you could ever get the nerds to stop arguing about the rules and put their damned calculators and spreadsheets and character generator computer programs away long enough to actually play. Or stop arguing with the GM about just what kind of world they want to simulate.

I think like it or not, heavy rules crunch brings out the grognard in all of us, even those of us who swear to God we are not. We all are, I think. We wouldn't be playing RPGs if we didn't all have some of that mentality at the core. I think it's best not to encourage our inner grognard by tempting it with layers of rules that are in the end, just more attempts at lame simulation of "reality" and have nothing to do with having fun; unless having fun is like my old game buddy who rolled up character after character for hours on end, min maxing and trying to find the "win" strategy. He did this under 1e and 2e, and he was the biggest proponent of 3e I personally knew. But if you got him away from his OCD like obsession with rules lawyering he was a good roleplayer. He just needed to have his inner grognard trimmed down a bit.

Personally I think WotC has trimmed down the fat, and the inner grognard in all of us can and should be a bit uneasy, but ready to make the leap.

Heavy on role-play is an approach that can be taken with any set of rules, whether rule-light or rule-heavy. I completely fail to understand the zero-sum impression that some people have about rules vs role-play.
Rules-light games don't inherently encourage role playing any more than rules heavy will, but they will encourage more off the cuff arbitration of actions by the GM.

I also have to ask just what you think a grognard is? It's not a rule lawyer or someone just involved in number crunching.

 

[Korgoth]

When it comes to rules vs. role playing, I want the game to give me solid, simple and fun rules for combat, magic and exploring. And that's basically all I want from the rules. That is an old school approach and it seems present in 4E as well.

One of the big mistakes of 3E was to try to handle incidental skills the same way as it handled other skills. So if your bildungs-boy was a farm yokel destined to rise to greatness as a master thief... to justify your background you might feel the impetus to put points into the Farm Yokel skill. Which means you're not putting those points into skills like Whup@ss and Clobberin' Time. And since combat is where your character lives or dies (as opposed to farming montage scenes)... you're penalized for having a backstory. There are times when a failed Search roll, a failed Move Silently roll, a failed Disable Device roll, a failed Tumbling roll, etc. could kill you. So scratch that "farm yokel" background. My character's parents were killed by bad stuff while he was really young (like, 4) and his whole life since then has been a single-minded quest to be the toughest hombre possible so that he can... do whatever he does with ruthless efficiency. Just like the rest of the party.

Whereas, if we say that all non-combat skills are officially handwaved, I don't have to feel like having a back story means shooting myself in the foot. I just write "Former Farm Yokel" in the notes section and I'm good to go. If there is ever a part of the adventure that involves evaluating a wagonload of turnips, we can safely assume that my Farm Yokel powers kick in at that point and I make a good call on the turnips. Likewise, "The Vagabond", wandering Half-Elf sellsword and magical dabbler, doesn't need to sink his precious skill points into Play Lute. You wanna play the lute, pal? Knock yerself out. Can he sing us up some free lodging from time to time? Sure, why not? Just because it makes a difference in the game doesn't mean that it should be dissected and balanced within the rules framework.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Background and origin feats, to better define the character.

What are these supposed to do? If given the choice between a feat that gives you +2 damage with all your attacks or one that gives you the ability to say "I was a farmer when I was young, so I can till fields.", a large majority of players will choose the damage one because it will be useful in almost every round of combat while the other feat will be useless as little as 0 times in some campaigns.

If you are putting a feat or power into the game it has to have a purpose in game. Something that you will use on at least a semi-regular basis. Since the average D&D campaign is about dungeon delving, monster killing, and adventuring all the powers and feats in the book are useful for those activities.

More subtle powers for the wizard (where are the illusions? the enchantments? the knowledge spells?)

Here's where we get into...what game effect does making an illusion of a chair have? If you cast it during a combat, do the monsters avoid it? If you create an illusion of a dragon, does it have the ability to have all of the powers of a real dragon? Can it do real damage? What are the limitations of your illusion spells? If you make yourself look like the King and create an illusionary retinue does that mean you can convince the local lord to give you control of his army and give you all his magic items?

If that isn't complicated enough to try to adjudicate as a DM then we'll go back to a game balance standpoint. The wizard can summon an illusionary army out of thin air in order to scare away the 200 orcs who are ready to assault the town. And the fighter can....look menacing?

On to enchantments...they have a similar problem to illusions. If you can charm the local lord you can convince him to do almost anything. Certainly, the loan of his Longsword +5 would be reasonable, right? If you can charm monsters, then you have the ability so suddenly gain HUGE power. Charm a dragon to fight for you? Perfect! That power is WAY better than the ability to do 2d6 damage with one of your attacks. It's way better than the level 29 Dailies in the game. And that's only the ability to charm a level 3 dragon.

Knowledge spells completely negate the usefulness of skills. Why have knowledge skills if you can cast a spell and know the answer to anything? Why investigate a situation by talking to people when you can cast a spell and know the answer? Not having these spells actually promotes roleplaying. Players need to come up with plans to figure out who the murderer is instead of asking the gods.

Advice about how to run mystery or horror games.

This might have been useful. Still, these are all about setting the tone. And skill challenges are perfect for mystery games. Horror games can mean almost anything. A standard game with all of the descriptions made horrifying can be a horror.

Adventures less based on encounters (you play A, then B, then C... one per hour of game play)

Encounters are the easiest way to organize the concepts of an adventure into manageable chunks for DMs. Almost any adventure you come up with can be broken down into encounters, even if you don't think of them as encounters.

Especially if you are planning a plotline. It is easiest to write in terms of encounters. For instance:

Encounter 1
The PCs get to a town, the people all appear to be scared. They have a chance to explore the town and eventually figure out that there is a ghost that haunts the town and they are all scared for their lives.

Encounter 2
The PCs meet an old man who tells them the story of the ghost, how it came to be here and what it wants. But he tells them it in poem form. It is mostly just hints.

Encounter 3
Lured by the old man's clues, the PCs likely go to the graveyard where the body of the ghost is buried. There, they are attacked by zombies.

Encounter 4
The PCs explore the graveyard, find the body of the ghost. They figure out they need to destroy the body to get rid of the ghost. The ghost attacks them as they start digging and they are forced to fight him off, destroying him temporarily while they work.

Encounter 5
The PCs destroy the corpse and find a strange box buried with the body. They likely take it. On the way back to the town proper, they are attacked by some men who try to take the box from them.

Simple enough, easy to run....and I think I just wasted a good adventure idea on a message board...but oh well...

 

[Joe Sala]

Heavy on role-play is an approach that can be taken with any set of rules, whether rule-light or rule-heavy. I completely fail to understand the zero-sum impression that some people have about rules vs role-play.
Rules-light games don't inherently encourage role playing any more than rules heavy will, but they will encourage more off the cuff arbitration of actions by the GM.

The main point is time organization.

My game sessions usually last for three hours, and I never run more than one combat (my players think that it's boring). So if I need two hours for the combat, I have less time to play the other things. As simple as that.

Also games where the PCs statistics are completely related to combat tend to obsess my players. They are very concentrated on tactics and checking what they can do, so they forget to roleplay.

Maybe I have a weird group.

 

[Joe Sala]

Since the average D&D campaign is about dungeon delving, monster killing, and adventuring all the powers and feats in the book are useful for those activities.

We have a point here. IMHO, D&D should offer much more than this.

Here's where we get into...what game effect does making an illusion of a chair have? If you cast it during a combat, do the monsters avoid it? (...) If you make yourself look like the King and create an illusionary retinue does that mean you can convince the local lord to give you control of his army and give you all his magic items?

You really are a power gamer, don't you? I don't want to create an illusionary chair to distract a monster chargint at me: I would use it to humiliate a NPC that I hate (he tries to sit down and falls to the ground... ). And convincing the local lord to give me his magic items? Come on, we are not 12 years old! Do you still kill the hireling to get XP?

Encounters are the easiest way to organize the concepts of an adventure into manageable chunks for DMs. Almost any adventure you come up with can be broken down into encounters, even if you don't think of them as encounters.

I thought everyone hated railroaded adventures, but I see I'm wrong.

 

[phloog]

Just my thoughts on a few of Oakhearts points:

"What are these supposed to do? If given the choice between a feat that gives you +2 damage with all your attacks or one that gives you the ability to say "I was a farmer when I was young, so I can till fields.", a large majority of players will choose the damage one (SNIP #1)"

Agreed...I'm fine with a system that lets you 'handwave' backgrounds to some extent, but then how do you know how good the ex-farmer is at evaluating turnips - I am therefore more in favor of a system that allows a roll for background skills...if I'm a woodcarving counterfeiter, I need rules for how well I can create a fake seal for my forged document.

"Here's where we get into...what game effect does making an illusion of a chair have? If you make yourself look like the King and create an illusionary retinue does that mean you can convince the local lord to give you control of his army and give you all his magic items?"

I snipped some of your examples, but is your argument that a wizard should be incapable of making an illusionary chair because it's hard to adjudicate? And why shouldn't my wizard have at least some CHANCE convince a local lord? (EDIT: This applies more to the enchantment than illusions - sorry) I think that you're creating a false issue based on a HORRIBLE DMing example...does this lord not have faithful servants who would attempt to stop him/you? Would they not try to snap him out of it? Would he not get more saves and bonuses to those saves as you attempt to force him to do the ludicrous things? Would there not be potentially a military rebellion by those who realize the lord's will has been compromised? To me what you're citing as an instant and overpowered end to an adventure is the beginning of more trouble for the party.

"If that isn't complicated enough to try to adjudicate as a DM then we'll go back to a game balance standpoint. The wizard can summon an illusionary army out of thin air in order to scare away the 200 orcs..."

I guess I'm not seeing this as a problem...would all 200 fail their saves? If not, would the fighter not be required to dispatch those who made the saves? At what level can a wizard (even in 3e) create the illusion of an army that would instantly crush 200 orcs? Wouldn't some be dumb enough to fight the army, and thus gain new saves?

"On to enchantments...they have a similar problem to illusions. If you can charm the local lord you can convince him to do almost anything."

(See notes on the military above)

"Knowledge spells completely negate the usefulness of skills. "

No. Absolutely not. Knowledge spells do some harm to the usefulness of skills...however, I have never seen an occasion where a WIZARD player says 'I'll not take an extra [damaging spell] so I can take this other spell that does what another character can already do with a skill'...they don't want to waste the memorized slot. For SORCERERs maybe it's different, but I've never seen a sorcerer use their rare known spell slots on a spell that lets them ride a horse well or find traps...it's rare enough for them to even take spells that add to hiding.

This is a good discussion, I just don't know if I've gone too far off topic here.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Heavy on role-play is an approach that can be taken with any set of rules, whether rule-light or rule-heavy. I completely fail to understand the zero-sum impression that some people have about rules vs role-play.
Rules-light games don't inherently encourage role playing any more than rules heavy will, but they will encourage more off the cuff arbitration of actions by the GM.

That's not entirely true. When the rules tell you "You can make a Diplomacy check and if you get 35, someone will do whatever you want them to no matter how dangerous or stupid it is for them." then a player faced with that ruleset can simply say, "I tell him to shoot himself. I made a 40, he'll do it."

If there are no rules for convincing someone to something, then you'll be forced to have your character say whatever you think is most convincing and let the DM decide if it works or not. In one aspect, it encourages roleplaying. If the words your character says has a direct effect on the game in some ways, it makes you reach into yourself and try harder to come up with better words.

The same thing happens with a lot of other rules as well. If you have a spell in the game that says "This disables all traps within 30 feet of you automatically" then you can just say, "I cast the spell, if there are any traps, they are disabled." vs having to come up with a plan to search for and possibly disable the traps. If you are forced to describe exactly how it is you manage to cut the trip wire without pulling on it or letting it lose, both of which trigger the trap, then it requires a lot more thinking than if there is a skill that says "If you roll about 15, you disable the trap...don't worry about the details."

Now, there are good things and bad things about both ways of doing it. I'm not saying that one is completely better than the other(in fact, I believe a mix of the 2 is the best way to go). However, the less rules there are the more you have to "make stuff up", which in most cases tends to be called roleplaying by a lot of people.