D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[Ruin Explorer]

That's definitely a weird one. You cannot play an RPG without improvising. There's no point where you have a definitive list of things you can do and playing the game only ever involves picking options from that list. That's just not how these games work.

But you can play it without improv-style RP, or indeed in-character talking at all.

At least 30-50% of the people I played RPGs with in my teenage years just wouldn't talk in-character (the rest though, it was hard to stop them!). Even to this day one of the people in my main group rarely talks in-character (though once he gets going he can really get on a roll).

The kind of improvising that's necessary is thinking on your feet - and a lot of D&D (specifically, as opposed to RPGs in general) actually supports minimizing improvising even in that sense, and simply going for tactical or logical decisions. I think this is quite helpful to D&D actually because people who can't deal well with sort of "you could do anything" RPGs can deal with a bunch of discrete actions and spells listed on their character sheet where they just have to pick one.

I think this is actually part of why some players really don't like characters like "simple Fighters" - not are they conceptually dull to a lot of new-to-RPGs players (who usually want to play something "fancier") - but they don't provide the same framework for decisions that a full caster does, for example.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're proving the point we're making by quite correctly pointing this out.

It does.

So why attempt to one particular part of the game solely reliant on player skill? To make that and the DM's bias literally the only factors?

Why do that for one part of the game and not another? It's antithetical to the notion of playing a character who isn't you, and possesses abilities, personality traits, memories and so on that are not yours.

Where I have been advocating solely relying on player skill? Nowhere. Rolls are still made, characters skill ranks matter. It is just that you have to actually sufficiently describe what you're doing, instead of just saying "I roll persuasion at the guard." We need sufficient input to imagine what's happening and adjudicate the appropriate DC.

And I am really not comfortable talking about my medical issues, let alone those of my players, but sufficient to say that I'm pretty sure there is no single person in my table who isn't at least at some degree neurodivergent. This is not an issue. If you can speak, you can also say or at least paraphrase what your character is saying.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Where I have been advocating solely relying on player skill?

Sure, but the kick-off of this discussion was precisely that.

 

[overgeeked]

Where I have been advocating solely relying on player skill? Nowhere. Rolls are still made, characters skill ranks matter. It is just that you have to actually sufficiently describe what you're doing, instead of just saying "I roll persuasion on the guard." We need sufficient input to imagine what's happening and adjudicate the appropriate DC.

And I am really not comfortable talking about my medical issues, let alone those of my players, but sufficient to say that I'm pretty sure there is no single person in my table who isn't at least at some degree neurodivergent. This is not an issue. If you can speak, you can also say or at least paraphrase what your character is saying.

I would be surprised if there was not a statistically significant increase in the number of neurodivergent people in the RPG space when compared to the general population. Like there is among video game players.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm torn on grapple. I preferred something along the lines of 3.5 but then you get things like my PC that got the jump on the enemy caster and just ended the encounter by pinning them. But there really should be more to it, grappling someone can be an important aspect of individual combat.

Honestly I feel like the problem there is more caster and spell design than grapple design.

Absolutely, if you get ahold of caster and they can't get away, and they have a bunch of spells with S components and haven't chosen to have a way to get away, well, that should end the encounter as it were.

3.XE's problem was that whilst it was quite forward-looking in some ways, re: magic and casters it was basically some RETVRN-type nonsense, i.e. ultra-conservative and not very smart. It didn't add many spells and a lot of what it did add wasn't great. 5E did better, though let's not talk about 5E's cantrip because I have no explanation for how mechanically appalling like 1/4 of cantrips are - those ones just shouldn't be in the game (True Strike top of the list). A bunch of others should be merged, too.

Anyway, If casters had Misty Step in 3.XE, that situation wouldn't have been a problem. It's exactly the spell you need to deal with the precise situation you describe - a meanie getting a grapple on you. It's 2nd level, it gets you away, V component only, and it's a bonus action. What more could the grapple-fearing Wizard ask? If you don't want to memorize Misty Step or have it as one of your spells known and a mean Barbarian stops you casting spells, you have only yourself to blame young man!

 

[Oofta]

Honestly I feel like the problem there is more caster and spell design than grapple design.

Absolutely, if you get ahold of caster and they can't get away, and they have a bunch of spells with S components and haven't chosen to have a way to get away, well, that should end the encounter as it were.

3.XE's problem was that whilst it was quite forward-looking in some ways, re: magic and casters it was basically some RETVRN-type nonsense, i.e. ultra-conservative and not very smart. It didn't add many spells and a lot of what it did add wasn't great. 5E did better, though let's not talk about 5E's cantrip because I have no explanation for how mechanically appalling like 1/4 of cantrips are - those ones just shouldn't be in the game (True Strike top of the list). A bunch of others should be merged, too.

Anyway, If casters had Misty Step in 3.XE, that situation wouldn't have been a problem. It's exactly the spell you need to deal with the precise situation you describe - a meanie getting a grapple on you. It's 2nd level, it gets you away, V component only, and it's a bonus action. What more could the grapple-fearing Wizard ask?

Ah, but that's why you specifically stated that as the grappler you were holding your hand over their mouth.

But there should be a way to pin someone to the ground for things like putting on manacles, imposing the restrained condition or even stop them from speaking (which has a lot more uses than just stopping spells). Right now just stopping them from moving and having absolutely no other effect is pretty mediocre. In a handful of cases you can move them around to your advantage, but I don't remember ever seeing it in combat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In a handful of cases you can move them around to your advantage, but I don't remember ever seeing it in combat.

I've seen it used a few times with encounters with environmental hazards or where monsters wanted to be in specific places, but yeah it's not used as much as it could be.

 

[mamba]

That's definitely a weird one. You cannot play an RPG without improvising. There's no point where you have a definitive list of things you can do and playing the game only ever involves picking options from that list. That's just not how these games work.

I feel like you are using a different definition of improv. I am talking about acting in character, not of thinking about solutions outside of what skills are available to you

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am not forcing anyone to improv, but every once in a while you will have to communicate your intent, that is unavoidable...

That's not what's at issue here.

What's at issue is that people are forcing others to come up with the actual rousing speech they deliver as their ultra charismatic character and demanding they come up with a convincing argument as made by the character they're playing that could be way more capable than they are.

Meanwhile, I get to be Cheatlius the Mighty here and get to rally the troops to claim they're Spartacus with my dump-stated muscle tank because I was born with the gift of gab.

 

[overgeeked]

I feel like you are using a different definition of improv. I am talking about acting in character, not of thinking about solutions outside of what skills are available to you

Probably. Improvising is simply coming up with things on the fly. Acting is acting in character. I'm not talking about acting, I'm talking about improvising.