Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7622401" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't think it replaces roleplaying. It's just a more straightforward version of roleplaying. What you seem to be advocating is speaking in character as a more cinematic version of roleplaying; does that sound right? I would say that may be the case just as if the DM makes a snarling face when he describes the gnoll that your party has just encountered. But if he describes the gnoll without making the face, I don't think he's not roleplaying. I think as long as the player is advocating for their character, an they're engaged in the stakes and what's happening, then anything additional like speaking in character is just that...additional. I can understand that for some, speaking in character can be a very immersive element of the game. That's fine. I don't agree that it's essential to roleplaying. Nor do I think it's essential to a cinematic experience. By your reasoning, it would seem that combat is non-cinematic? During combat, most players begin to declare actions in very rules proposition kind of ways, no? Like I said, I don't think that such rules really encourage people to bypass roleplaying. I think that having rules in place simply makes such encounters more structured, and lets players know what their options are, and how to go about those options, and some sense of the possible outcomes of the actions. I would't really disagree with this other than that what is immersive can vary from person to person, and the same for what is considered essential to play. But I do value immersion and cinematic play, so those are important to me. This all seems to assume the core structure is that of D&D. And that's fine....I think you can achieve what I'm talking about with D&D, but you have to work to make it happen, and I don't think that the rules are designed with it in mind. But there are other systems that function in a different way than the DC/skill roll mechanic. There are systems that may allow players to contribute fictional elements that could affect the outcome that in D&D are entirely the purview of the DM; certainly that could engage a player, I'd say. There could be group checks or something similar, which allow multiple characters to be involved in a given roll in some way. There could be varying numbers of successes needed, with some actions adding more successes than others. All this could be daunting if you had to constantly make a bunch of rulings on exactly how to handle it.....but if the actual mechanics already exist, then I don't think you have to do nearly as much prep as you are implying. You just keep the NPC's goals and traits in mind, and then you lean on the mechanics to help resolve the matters. If they do this, that happens, and so on. I agree with you about the amount of choice and how much time you spend on an encounter. I look at combat encounters the same way....how much does the outcome matter and how much do the players have to think about how to win? If it's not all that deep, I consider how to resolve it quickly, or if it's even worth table time. I do the same with social encounters, or skill based challenges. So I think we agree on that. But I guess I'm just struggling with the idea that combat can be cinematic and engaging when boiled down to action declarations, some dice rolls, and maybe some dialogue, but social encounters become non-cinematic when boiled down the same way.</blockquote>

Verification