Why RPGs are Failing

[Jürgen Hubert]

More realistic in behavioral terms.

You know the scene; the party is walking along a forest path heading to the Great Temple of Doloreous Glamor when they run into a band of goblins. Combat ensues.

As opposed to; party is walking along the same path, meets the same goblins, people prepare for combat... And bluff, bluster, and bragging ensue, to be followed by successful or unsuccessful negotiations.

All depending on how the situation is presented. Gamed it'll end up in fighting. Roleplayed it may still end up in fighting, but at least the players will have the option.

Well, at least in my experience, the party will usually enter combat without trying to negotiate with the goblins. And what's wrong with that? After all, in most D&D worlds humans, dwarves, elves etc. have been in what boils down to a blood feud with goblinoids for centuries, or even millenia. Leaving aside whether goblins are "evil" or not, most PC races regard them as the Enemy, and you don't negotiate with them - you either try to kill them or flee.

Furthermore, think seriously about non-combat options should they have a firm grasp on the consequences of their actions.

"Oh, we can take 'em. That's not the problem. The problem is, even after a quick fight we'll be holed up here for the next day fixing up our injured, and regaining spells. Not to mention the equipment that'll get used up. And the bad guys'll be a day closer to getting that ritual done. Don't know 'bout you fellas, but I'd rather catch 'em in the middle of casting instead of when they're about done.

Well, if they have no time to waste, then they will probably try to avoid the goblins entirely - which is possible, if they have sent a scout ahead who spotted them...


Finally, let me say that mentioning "D&D" and "realism" in the same sentence is just wrong. D&D isn't realistic and was never intended to be, and trying to make it so is like trying to make a fish fly where the better idea would be to make it a better fish...

 

[hong]

Come back GNS, all is forgiven.

 

[ph0rk]

This is one reason why I don't like the psionic feat "Up the Walls" which states that a character can run up and down a wall as long as he begins and ends his "turn" on the ground. It goes on to say that if the character "ends his turn" while on a vertical wall, he falls to the ground. Problem is, as you stated, the characters do not stop moving at the end of their turns. Although as a player your turn ends after a set number of actions, your character continues to move and be active just as if it were real life. That is a poorly written feat because it seems to imply that the character stops moving at the end of his turn (and therefore falls to the ground).

I got the impression that you could only run up walls for a short moment, a-la-the matrix, etc. Finishing on/near the ground was just a mechanic to represent the fact you were bending the law of gravity, not breaking it.

 

[Haradim]

More realistic in behavioral terms.

You know the scene; the party is walking along a forest path heading to the Great Temple of Doloreous Glamor when they run into a band of goblins. Combat ensues.

As opposed to; party is walking along the same path, meets the same goblins, people prepare for combat... And bluff, bluster, and bragging ensue, to be followed by successful or unsuccessful negotiations.

The latter option is no more realistic than the first. Many opponents aren't going to give you the chance to say anything. They will simply attack. This is particularly true of orcs/goblins/other low level fodder, who are generally depicted as little more than feral raiders who simply take what they want, and have a rather low regard for life.

All depending on how the situation is presented. Gamed it'll end up in fighting. Roleplayed it may still end up in fighting, but at least the players will have the option.

There is less distinction in your terms than you might think. Because your 'roleplayed' route will probably end with a Diplomacy skill role (assuming that isn't done right off).

Anyway, what you describe doesn't have any bearing on RPG failure. The only thing it touches upon is a matter of playstyle. If I have an encounter set to occur with a band of goblins in the woods, odd are pretty good that it's to give the Fighter and Barbarian something to amuse themselves with. There likely won't be any bluster or similar pre-fight banter; the enemies will see each other, and there will be blood. There won't be any option for diplomacy (even if attempted), because it furthers nothing with regards to the scenario; the whole point of the encounter is to get the swords swinging. But that's a style matter, as there is nothing with regards to the game (be it DnD, BESM, Vampire, etc) that stops me from allowing a more 'social' handling of the encounter, or simply just allowing a way to avoid the encounter entirely.

Essentially, you are declaring that RPGs are failing based on how some people (perhaps even the majority) interpret and play the game, not because of the games themselves. And there is no 'failure' there. People play differently from you, and from I, and from anyone else on this thread, even if the exact same rules are in use.

 

[FireLance]

Reading through MM's original post and a number of other posts on this thread, I think I understand what he's driving at (please correct me if I'm wrong, MM).

His thesis seems to me to be that role-playing games are losing the role-playing element and are becoming just games. Enjoyable games, no doubt. Games involving tactics and strategy, certainly, but no more than just games along the lines of Chess, Monopoly, Risk or the D&D miniatures skirmish game.

As such, he sees little to differentiate RPGs from any other type of game, and thus predicts their decline and eventual downfall.

Personally, I'm not so pessimistic. In my view, even if many people treat RPGs as nothing more than a glorified tactical game, there are two factors that will draw people to "real" role-playing.

First, the identification of the player with a single character over a long period of time may cause him to see it as less of a "piece" and more of a "person". Yes, he may start out seeing it as nothing more than a collection of statistics and abilities put together to defeat monsters, but after a while, he may want to do more. Once the attention shifts from "how do we defeat monster x" to "what sort of goals and ambitions the character might have", the player starts to move towards role-playing. It may not happen for some people or groups, but I believe the potential is always there.

Second, there is always a group dynamic in RPGs, whether it is the presence of other players or NPCs played by the DM, that encourages the character to be more than just a collection of statistics. In a game of Monopoly, the boot does not have a drink with the hat in Free Parking, nor does the racing car try to bust the horse out of Jail. Granted, this may not happen for some people or groups, but again, I think the potential is always there.

In other words, RPGs can be played as just games, and many people may in fact play them as such, but I believe that the potential for role-playing is always there and I would not be too hasty to predict their demise.

 

[scott-fs]

Combat is a prime example of this. Thinks to the initiative rules the pacing of actions is quite unrealistic, resulting in unrealistic actions and behaviors. Hate to tell you this folks, but when you're engaged in combat you don't get to break it off at your leisure. No moving that 5' step with no repercussions. Not only that, but combatants don't take turns. Full turns where one playing piece does everything available to that piece before any other piece can do anything at all.

I was thinking about this, and how it could be "fixed". I know I haven't liked the idea where someone in combat (say a mage caught in melee from an ambush) could step back out of range and safely cast a spell. About the only way you can currently disrupt someone doing this is to ready an action to follow them if they move away. It then means you won't be doing anything until your next action (which you can renew the ready), or until they move away.

Here are my thoughts, and I'd be interested in anyone's feedback.

In order to break up the "blow your load" style of action in combat, a combat round is divided into two separate sub-rounds. I'll use Primary Phase and Secondary Phase. Generally a character can perform a standard action which is to do something and be able to move. For instance, move your speed in feet, and cast a spell, or make an attack, etc.

In a Phase you can either 1) Move or 2) perform an action (such as make an attack, cast a spell, use a skill). You can only perform one action during a round and you decide which phase you wish to perform it in.

You run through the initiative order for the Primary phase, each person either deciding to move or do an action. Then through the initative order for the Secondary phase giving anyone who performed an action during the Primary phase to move (if desired), or allow someone to perform an action (or make a second move, as in the normal double move in D&D) if they moved during the Primary phase. Once the Secondary Phase is complete you move to the next round.

This might have a benefit of speeding up combat. After all, you only have to decide whether you want to move or perform an action. Here is a brief encounter Between Bob (the mage), George (the fighter), and Grunt (Orc 1), and Brunt (Orc 2).

Round 1, Primary Phase:
Grunt: Move past George, next to mage. Grunt want to attack Bob.
George: I move up to Brunt to prevent it from flanking Bob, and I prepare to attack.
Bob: I move back, getting ready to cast a spell at Grunt.
Brunt: I attack George. Hit for 5 damage.

Round 1, Secondary Phase:
Grunt: Move next to cowardly Bob.
George: Swing at Brunt. Hit for 10 damage (Orc collapses).
Bob: Ah, dammit. Move away towards George.

Round 2, Primary Phase:
Grunt: Pursue George.
George: Move up to Grunt beside Bob.
Bob: Move behind George:

Round 3, Secondary Phase:
Grunt: Attack George. 6 Damage (George collapses)
Bob: Magic Missile on Grunt.

It will mean that players will need to think more tactically, and work to protect the spellcasters. I forsee Concentration being a much more valuable skill as you may be exposed to attack much more often. No longer would you be able to rush in and attack before the opponent has a chance to respond (unless the opponent just so happened to have an action readied).

Thoughts ?

 

[nsruf]

I will reply to one point. Who said life had to be fair? (Think about it.)

Yeah, yeah, life ain't fair. But how does this relate to your original point? If you change the rules to give a greater advantage to fast characters (which was the example that spawned the fairness discussion), you don't get more roleplay and less rulesplay - you get PCs which are (on average) faster. Because no one wants their character to suck. And you are still stuck with rules-oriented play. Which can be great fun, but if you don't like it, well...

To get away from that sort of thing, I believe you'd need either

a) less rules (and more trust in the GM)
b) a different kind of rules

The more interesting option is b). I said it in my last post already, so excuse me if I'm boring you. But D&D focuses only on what a character *can* do, not what he *wants* to do. If you include beliefs and motivations in the game mechanics, with tangible effects, you can get a wholly different style of play.

 

[mythusmage]

This is supposed to be "behaviorally realistic"? This is nothing but how YOU think the game should be played, how YOU view non-human "monster" races, etc.

This invalidates my position how?

Try telling a group of people playing a LotR-based game that attacking goblins on sight is not role-playing.

This invalidates my position how?

Or how about a group of people who, in trekking through the forest, have encountered the remains of several travellers nailed to trees in traditional goblin ways, who don't speak goblin, making negotiation impossible, and who don't want to jeopardize their mission by letting the goblins carry the news of their presence to other, even more evil things, living in the darkest parts of the forest?

This invalidates my position how? Besides which, I presented no special conditions in my example situation, adding them in your response is bad debating practice.

It's your subjective opinion that talking things out equals role-playing, and that the game needs more of it... That RPG's are failing definitely doesn't follow from that.

Roleplaying involves a lot more than 'talking things out'. In any case, the game could use some encouragement towards roleplaying, which is so sadly lacking.

Not everybody's interested in near constant battling and looting of corpses. Which is what D&D, for all intents and purposes, gives you. How about some guidelines for roleplaying, presentation, scene setting, scene dressing, scene timing?

Does it have to be a choice between combat and chatter, when the right type of chatter can make the combat so much better?

 

[hong]

Alan, come on back to rec.games.frp.dnd. Brandon Cope is feeling lonely.

 

[mythusmage]

Well, at least in my experience, the party will usually enter combat without trying to negotiate with the goblins. And what's wrong with that? After all, in most D&D worlds humans, dwarves, elves etc. have been in what boils down to a blood feud with goblinoids for centuries, or even millenia. Leaving aside whether goblins are "evil" or not, most PC races regard them as the Enemy, and you don't negotiate with them - you either try to kill them or flee.

In all cases?

Well, if they have no time to waste, then they will probably try to avoid the goblins entirely - which is possible, if they have sent a scout ahead who spotted them...

Now that's a good option. But sometimes it's an option the group doesn't have. And sometimes fighting the goblins is not an option the party has. When neither option is available, needs must when the TERRIBLE CHILD is about to awake. (I'm reading Tad Williams' The War of the Flowers in case you're wondering.) You focus on the important stuff, and go clearn up the minor crap when you've got the time.

Finally, let me say that mentioning "D&D" and "realism" in the same sentence is just wrong. D&D isn't realistic and was never intended to be, and trying to make it so is like trying to make a fish fly where the better idea would be to make it a better fish...

Not the sort of realism I am thinking of. For all that D&D® has rules, for all that the action takes place in an imaginary setting, RPGs are more like real life in that one cannot reliably predict what's going to happen. Unlike Frodo, the typical adventuring party doesn't have a Gollum to (inadvertantly) bail them out when they mess up. So when they do mess up they do, or really should, have to deal with the consequences of their folly.

As the old saying goes, feces occur. How you deal with that is your business.