PDA

View Full Version : Problems with disruptive, video-game style, arguing player



guileus
2017-07-09, 04:25 PM
I'm a pretty permissive DM. You know the guy who is always open to you proposing an insane plan to assault the bandit's camp? Or the one who, when your character is about to die, might bring up a way to save him (especially if he sees a sad puppy look on the face of the player)? I'm that. So I'm a bit worried about the campaign game we started a month and a half ago. I had high hopes for the game and so far, everything has been amazing, players have not missed sessions, they think the plot is interesting and enjoy the game. But then, there's this player. He's an amazing DM, but I don't know why, when he's playing as a PC, he has a tendency to be very disruptive.

To give some context: we are playing a highly customized version of the Pathfinder Kingmaker campaign. The general feel of the campaign is the same: I wanted characters to forge their kingdom out of a frontier land, so that's there. But I wanted it to be a mix between low fantasy (in civilized parts, with a lot of war/political intrigues/uprisings being present) and weird fantasy in wilderness areas (with a Lovecraftian touch, Chaos twisted creatures, etc.). As such, the setting is very different and the plot is substantially altered. Also, three games into the campaign, we voted and adopted the Iron Heroes handbook in order to have the grittier, sword and sorcery flavor I was looking for: basically the idea is that characters come from civilized lands, so magic or paranormal creatures are something that they might meet, but shouldn't feel "familiar" with. So I'm basically using the Kingmaker encounters as such, as Iron Heroes characters are supposed to be balanced so that they are of a similar power level as Pathfinder characters of the same level (with their abilities and reserve hit points making up for no to little magic use).

So why am I having problems with this character? He role plays his character very little and basically it feels he plays the game like if it was a video-game. I'm not saying you need to create a character that's useless by investing points in bad abilities, and I'm totally OK with players trying to make the most out of their character. But while other players have a character concept and then try to make the most out of their character around that concept, this guy feels like he just wants to have the best combos and biggest min-max development of the character.

This is coupled with his knowledge of the rules: he knows a lot of it, so he frequently argues with me when something he feels isn't going like he expected in the game. I'm a fan of Gygax's motto of dice being used to make noise behind the screen. Not literally, but more in the sense that I don't care so much about mechanics as about building an interesting story. Mind you: I'm not changing stuff rules or whatever to screw players up. I would understand people being annoyed at things. The problem is that he's the only one who argues with me! So how does this play during the game. A few examples:

- He constantly assumes things in game that are for me to judge, and announces them. If a the barbarian hits an NPC, he will go "ok, he's dead, move on to the next one". I understand that minor bandits will get killed with a single stroke from the barbarian but I find it annoying that he assumes it because that's for me to announce, it takes all the dramatism out of the game and it feels like they are chopping down critters in a MMORPG.

- As he assumes stuff, when one of the bandits didn't die, he started to first argue "how didn't he die? he received X points of damage he should be dead". When I told them that he looked like he was a liutenant of the bandit lord and thus looked like a tougher opponent than his henchmen, he quickly just summed it up with something like "he's probably got some levels so he has +X to his hit points". I don't know if I make sense, but to me, this took the fun out of the moment. Instead of making players feel like the were meeting a villain in the game, a character that is second in command to the bandit lord they've been chasing, it felt more like when you're in a videogame levelling up and then go "oh ok this is the underboss, so he's going to have more HP than regular enemies but not so much as the main boss".

- He min-maxed his character so when I gave them background traits to choose from, he chose "noble". He didn't roleplay any of it. I'm a trusting DM so let them choose their equipment and everything, asking them to be reasonable etc. A couple of sessions into the campaign, I notice that when I ask him is AC, it is ridiculously high and no enemy is able to hit him unless they roll natural 20´s, whereas other characters could be hit. So I ask him what armor he's wearing and he says full plate. I look up the price and it's 1,500 gp, way out of their budget. I tell him and he says that his character is a "noble" so he should be able to wear expensive armor! I took it away of course, but you get what I mean? It didn't feel like he was playing a decadent noble, or a bitter young aristocratic son who's fled his father's manor because he wouldn't inherit his lordship. No. It felt like he chose the background trait that could justify him getting the best AC, that's it. Video-game style. This bugs me because now that he was asking to use a great sword, I felt like he just didn't think the weapon fit his character, but was worried that he was just choosing the weapon on the basis of best damage and critical range.

-He constantly tells other players what to do in the battlefield, going so far as to move their miniatures, playing the whole thing like a video-game battle. Again, my problem is not with being tactical on the battlefield: after all, we use minis to make combat more interesting and not a "I go/you go" thing. But it never feels like he role plays what his character does, but more like he was killing critters in a MMORPG. In the last fight we had, they were battling the liutenant of the bandit lord and an owl-bear burst out of his cage, ready to attack all humans in the room. One of the character jumped to confront the creature and he started telling him he was dumb because, and I paraphrase him "the owlbear has all his HP, so we should kill this guy who's wounded so he can't attack us anymore and then focus on the owlbear".

- He argues and argues. He started complaining that all encounters in the adventure path should be toned down and their AC dropped "because they were designed for Pathfinder, so they're going to be more difficult" (so far they haven't had real problems and in fact I think that I should turn the difficulty up a notch, as most bandits die on a single stroke by the barbarian or his character, and that's without counting cleaves). When he kept arguing that, I gave him the death stare (he had been doing all the above for the whole session) and asked him "why? do you think the npcs at the encounters have damage reduction like you do? mastery feats? (all of this stuff is from Iron Heroes, so their PCs have it but NPCs don't, as like I said they are straight out of the adventure path).

I don't know, he's a good friend and I like all of them coming to play, but he sucks the fun and interest out of gaming sessions. It feels like he plays to *win* the game instead of to have fun and role play. I've tried talking to him and he conceded some points and said that it takes a bit of time to get used to not do that stuff. But then next session he does them.

What would you guys recommend me to do?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-09, 04:40 PM
Basic answer: This is a social level problem, so talk to him about it. Tell him everything you just posted and discuss it like reasonable adults. There isn't a clever fix solution to get around discussing it with him.

Advanced answer: If you're annoyed by people treating a fantasy tactical combat game like a fantasy tactical combat game then maybe you're playing the wrong game. Something a bit more RP heavy than a d20 derivative might be up your alley.

guileus
2017-07-09, 04:51 PM
No problem with players playing a d20 medieval/fantasy game like a d20 medieval/fantasy game, as I said, there are other players (three, besides the player I mentioned) and I don't have any complains about them. Of course I expect them to get into combat, kill enemies, loot them, etc. My problem is when that becomes a mechanistic, MMORPG thing, without the added drama and "story" feeling of an RPG. If the liutenant of the bandit lord is not seen as a villain but more like "mid-tier HP enemy we have to kill before we get to the boss", it kind of defeats the purpose of playing an RPG. I would go and play an MMORPG if that's what I wanted, I think.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-09, 05:04 PM
Okay, but that's the thing. D&D (and D&D-like systems) don't care about your roleplaying. They're about killing things, getting loot and xp, and then using that xp and loot to kill bigger things. Anything else is window dressing. This guy is annoying you by paying less attention to the window dressing than you'd like, but it doesn't mean he's playing the game wrong.

I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you were playing a system in which the roleplaying isn't window dressing. Then you'd be able to point out that he's playing the game wrong, instead of playing the game in a way that you personally dislike.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-09, 05:06 PM
This is an OOC problem.

Have a sit-down with him and maybe with the other players and talk it out.

Kane0
2017-07-09, 05:52 PM
Grab a beer with him sometime and have a chat. It doesn't have to be all business either, just bring it up and have some dialogue. As a fellow DM he must have some idea of where you're coming from. The better you understand each others viewpoint the better you can come up with a solution together. You are friends after all.

Edit: If the right kind of friendship, link him to this thread after you talk too.

TheYell
2017-07-09, 05:57 PM
Just my two cents, but I think you could appreciate a guy who can't RP a newb, and isn't selfish. He's sharing his experience with the others. "Ignore the owlbear" is something many of us wouldn't think of on our own, and I can see that might irritate you, but it's helping the whole party based on what he's learned through experience.

Maybe you should change up what you expect from this game, and from him, and have a little fun with him.

Think of your sessions as a John Wayne movie. Give him back his plate armor, a gift from local nobles who appreciate the awesome job he's doing.

Have the enemy give him a nickname. Have bad guys holler "It's HIM!" Have them unload on him first.

Openly give him a small RP bonus for bringing the rest of the party alive through combats. Tell him he's responsible for their welfare, because he's their leader.

And when he complains, point out the facts: He's a noble, he's expert in killing, he is expert in sizing up a situation, he gives orders to the others, and he hasn't lost yet. He's the Kit Carson of this adventure. He's a legend. That's how he played the role, and he's got to live up to the myth.

Darth Ultron
2017-07-09, 06:47 PM
So to start with two overall points:

1.All ways make a copy of each character sheet of each player in the game and keep it updated. This lets you know instantaneously things like the armor a character has. It is always better to know all the character details so you don't have to give things away by asking about them too. It also puts a stop to the players that will ''say'' another number, wink wink. Like the character has leather armor, no dex or anything else but the player will say ''ac is 20''. It does also help the player that does have a ton of armor and are mistakenly saying ''Ac 15'' too.

2.Never argue during the game. Make it clear that anyone can complain any time after the game. If someone wastes game time, say counting the hit points of a foe, just ignore them. (Now I'm a type of DM that when a player whines and complains that a single goblin ''had 11 hit points and that is wrong'' that I'll have rocks fall on that character for lots of damage, but that is just me. And after I kill that players character, and they sit in the corner all night and don't play, and after the game, I will attempt to explain to the character that it's possible for goblins to both take levels in classes and/or the feat toughness to get more hit points.)

Otherwise you just have a video game player. Sure, you can ''talk'' to him. Invite him over for tea. Tell him everything you don't like. He might listen, or more likely, he won't care. Though in any case he might ''say'' he will do things differently.

On a side note....oh, I'd have fun with the ''side table DM '' stuff:

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character hits the orc barbarian for 12 damage and drops it to the ground with that damage!"

Evil DM: ''The orc drops down low to the ground."

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character turns to target one of the goblin fighters...."

Evil DM: "The orc low on the ground, right next to your character that your character is ignoring, attacks and catches you flat footed and (rolls) hits your character for 17 damage!"

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "What? what? what? That orc barbarian was dead...I said so!"

Evil DM: "I never side the orc your character was fighting was dead. As your character stands there is disbelief that the orc is not dead, the orc, who is most likely not a barbarian, take another attack on your character...(rolls)"

Oh...the endless fun.....fun, fun, fun until the character dies away.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-09, 06:54 PM
On a side note....oh, I'd have fun with the ''side table DM '' stuff:

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character hits the orc barbarian for 12 damage and drops it to the ground with that damage!"

Evil DM: ''The orc drops down low to the ground."

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "My character turns to target one of the goblin fighters...."

Evil DM: "The orc low on the ground, right next to your character that your character is ignoring, attacks and catches you flat footed and (rolls) hits your character for 17 damage!"

Annoying Side Table DM Player: "What? what? what? That orc barbarian was dead...I said so!"

Evil DM: "I never side the orc your character was fighting was dead. As your character stands there is disbelief that the orc is not dead, the orc, who is most likely not a barbarian, take another attack on your character...(rolls)"

Oh...the endless fun.....fun, fun, fun until the character dies away.

That sounds like about the worst thing that you can do. Especially if you're friends with the player. Because you won't be for long since you are apparently changing rules on the fly in order to screw him over.

War_lord
2017-07-09, 07:04 PM
I'm a pretty permissive DM. You know the guy who is always open to you proposing an insane plan to assault the bandit's camp? Or the one who, when your character is about to die, might bring up a way to save him (especially if he sees a sad puppy look on the face of the player)? I'm that. So I'm a bit worried about the campaign game we started a month and a half ago. I had high hopes for the game and so far, everything has been amazing, players have not missed sessions, they think the plot is interesting and enjoy the game. But then, there's this player. He's an amazing DM, but I don't know why, when he's playing as a PC, he has a tendency to be very disruptive.

Let's look at each of these "disruptive" behavours.


So why am I having problems with this character? He role plays his character very little and basically it feels he plays the game like if it was a video-game. I'm not saying you need to create a character that's useless by investing points in bad abilities, and I'm totally OK with players trying to make the most out of their character. But while other players have a character concept and then try to make the most out of their character around that concept, this guy feels like he just wants to have the best combos and biggest min-max development of the character.

His character is a badass fighter, that's the concept. If you want concepts that don't include the word "badass" you need to pick a system that doesn't expect players to try and make the most competent character they can. Nothing wrong with approaching the game as a game, not everyone is super into the amateur theater side of D&D.


This is coupled with his knowledge of the rules: he knows a lot of it, so he frequently argues with me when something he feels isn't going like he expected in the game. I'm a fan of Gygax's motto of dice being used to make noise behind the screen. Not literally, but more in the sense that I don't care so much about mechanics as about building an interesting story. Mind you: I'm not changing stuff rules or whatever to screw players up. I would understand people being annoyed at things. The problem is that he's the only one who argues with me!

Probably because, as a DM himself, he understands the rules and why the rules are the way they are. Again, if the way the system works clashes with your "story" so much, you're using the wrong system.


- He constantly assumes things in game that are for me to judge, and announces them. If a the barbarian hits an NPC, he will go "ok, he's dead, move on to the next one". I understand that minor bandits will get killed with a single stroke from the barbarian but I find it annoying that he assumes it because that's for me to announce, it takes all the dramatism out of the game and it feels like they are chopping down critters in a MMORPG.

What is there to announce? If it's dead, it's dead. Obviously he has hitpoint totals memorized. While I understand that sometimes the death of a strong enemy warrants a description, if you're doing that for every mook, I can understand the urge to preempt the speech. Maybe that's a little rude, but it doesn't seem disruptive to me, just a gap in your expectations vs his. You want to tell a story, he wants to play a game.


- As he assumes stuff, when one of the bandits didn't die, he started to first argue "how didn't he die? he received X points of damage he should be dead". When I told them that he looked like he was a liutenant of the bandit lord and thus looked like a tougher opponent than his henchmen, he quickly just summed it up with something like "he's probably got some levels so he has +X to his hit points". I don't know if I make sense, but to me, this took the fun out of the moment. Instead of making players feel like the were meeting a villain in the game, a character that is second in command to the bandit lord they've been chasing, it felt more like when you're in a videogame levelling up and then go "oh ok this is the underboss, so he's going to have more HP than regular enemies but not so much as the main boss".

Well yeah, he's assuming that a game that he obviously knows back to front actually works how it's meant to. Again, expectation gap, not disruption.


- He min-maxed his character so when I gave them background traits to choose from, he chose "noble". He didn't roleplay any of it. I'm a trusting DM so let them choose their equipment and everything, asking them to be reasonable etc. A couple of sessions into the campaign, I notice that when I ask him is AC, it is ridiculously high and no enemy is able to hit him unless they roll natural 20´s, whereas other characters could be hit. So I ask him what armor he's wearing and he says full plate. I look up the price and it's 1,500 gp, way out of their budget. I tell him and he says that his character is a "noble" so he should be able to wear expensive armor! I took it away of course, but you get what I mean? It didn't feel like he was playing a decadent noble, or a bitter young aristocratic son who's fled his father's manor because he wouldn't inherit his lordship. No. It felt like he chose the background trait that could justify him getting the best AC, that's it. Video-game style. This bugs me because now that he was asking to use a great sword, I felt like he just didn't think the weapon fit his character, but was worried that he was just choosing the weapon on the basis of best damage and critical range.

You told them to take whatever equipment they thought reasonable, he took what he thought was reasonable, you didn't set limits, that's on you.


-He constantly tells other players what to do in the battlefield, going so far as to move their miniatures, playing the whole thing like a video-game battle. Again, my problem is not with being tactical on the battlefield: after all, we use minis to make combat more interesting and not a "I go/you go" thing. But it never feels like he role plays what his character does, but more like he was killing critters in a MMORPG. In the last fight we had, they were battling the liutenant of the bandit lord and an owl-bear burst out of his cage, ready to attack all humans in the room. One of the character jumped to confront the creature and he started telling him he was dumb because, and I paraphrase him "the owlbear has all his HP, so we should kill this guy who's wounded so he can't attack us anymore and then focus on the owlbear".

He's playing the game, you want community theater. Did you actually communicate your expectations to the players before the game began? I would suspect not.


- He argues and argues. He started complaining that all encounters in the adventure path should be toned down and their AC dropped "because they were designed for Pathfinder, so they're going to be more difficult" (so far they haven't had real problems and in fact I think that I should turn the difficulty up a notch, as most bandits die on a single stroke by the barbarian or his character, and that's without counting cleaves). When he kept arguing that, I gave him the death stare (he had been doing all the above for the whole session) and asked him "why? do you think the npcs at the encounters have damage reduction like you do? mastery feats? (all of this stuff is from Iron Heroes, so their PCs have it but NPCs don't, as like I said they are straight out of the adventure path).

Okay, now we have something that could actually be seen as disruptive. And really the only thing to do is talk to him, and explain your rational for the current difficulty level, that they're slicing through everything easily, and that if the other players where as experienced as he his, it would be even less of a challenge. If he can't accept that logic, or come up with a sound counter argument, you just have to ask him if it's really worth his time participating in a campaign he feels is unbalanced.


I don't know, he's a good friend and I like all of them coming to play, but he sucks the fun and interest out of gaming sessions. It feels like he plays to *win* the game instead of to have fun and role play. I've tried talking to him and he conceded some points and said that it takes a bit of time to get used to not do that stuff. But then next session he does them.

What would you guys recommend me to do?

Does he suck the " fun and interest out of gaming sessions" for everyone or just you? Have you asked the other players for their opinion on the matter? I'd wager that, for him, killing enemies and taking their stuff is fun and interesting. And if that's the kind of player he is, of course it's going to be hard for him to embrace a playstyle and mentality that he probably doesn't enjoy or even understand.

I recommend you make a decision. There's two roads you can go down. Either you tell him "Look, I have a certain way I like to play Pathfinder, you have a certain way you like to play Pathfinder. They're pretty mutually exclusive" and basically ask him to leave the game. Or you can try and accommodate his way of play into your game. It really depends on what's more valuable to you, his participation in this group activity, or the game as you envision it, free of any actual gaming.

Mr Beer
2017-07-09, 07:47 PM
I don't care about the 'playing like a video game' thing, some people are into the RP-aspect and other people just want to kill and loot.

The arguing thing, I would just it shut down in game. Refuse to debate with him, just say 'I'm not arguing about it' and push on. Force everyone through their turns, when you get to him, if he's still arguing, he misses his go. If it becomes insufferable, you need to have a discussion about how you are not going to spend every session fighting with him, if he doesn't like the game, he doesn't have to play. You can debate stuff before or after the game but not during.

Darth Ultron
2017-07-09, 08:35 PM
That sounds like about the worst thing that you can do. Especially if you're friends with the player. Because you won't be for long since you are apparently changing rules on the fly in order to screw him over.

Well, I'd never do it to a friend..but then anyone I'm friends with also would never be an annoying player.

And what changing rules? Your not really saying a player can be all like ''I hit the ancient red dragon for one point of damage and it dies, because I say so'', right?

CharonsHelper
2017-07-09, 09:25 PM
Well, I'd never do it to a friend..but then anyone I'm friends with also would never be an annoying player.

And what changing rules? Your not really saying a player can be all like ''I hit the ancient red dragon for one point of damage and it dies, because I say so'', right?

It sounds like the 'it dies' was just an assumption on his part. And it didn't even sound like it was for his own character. Frankly - it sounded like he's just impatient and was trying to keep things moving, albeit in a grating sort of way.

You're changing rules by allowing the enemy to somehow hit him flat-footed for no reason.

Mikemical
2017-07-09, 09:36 PM
- Obligatory prick comment -

If you want to go for more roleplay than dice-rolling and killing things, play World of Darkness instead.

- Actually useful comment -

Talk to him about it. He has experience as a DM, so maybe he's still in that mindset as a player, where sometimes the DM doesn't have to justify why the captain of the imperial guard is wearing a golden suit of fullplate and why he's impossible to hit. He's an NPC the players might not even remmeber when they move onto the next town to keep murderhobo-ing.

Also, moving other people's figures and telling them what choices to take tactically is just plain rude. He's not playing a Final Fantasy/Persona game where you have the MC and then you also get to manage the rest of the party's actions in favour of the one plan he came up with.

The whole "he probably has x health" can be considered meta-gaming, which takes the fantasy out of the game if he dumbs it down to math and statistics. Tell him to stop doing that, or you can put a meta-jar and make him put a 1$ bill in it everytime he indulges in acting like what you described.

Darth Ultron
2017-07-09, 09:40 PM
It sounds like the 'it dies' was just an assumption on his part.

You're changing rules by allowing the enemy to somehow hit him flat-footed for no reason.

Well, no the ''foe dies because I the player says it does'' is one of the worst jerk forms of side table DMing a player can do. At no time during the game can a player say ''this or that happens because I want it too''. At least in any normal game.

And if a foe is well within the threat range, and a character utterly ignores the foe, lets say by the player being an arrogant jerk and saying the foe is dead for no reason other then they want it to be, does the foe get any sort of tactical advantage?

I guess a nice DM would say ''A character is always aware of all threats, worldwide, and is always ready for combat''. But that would be the least of a nice DM's problems.

Even if you drop the jerk player part, what would you do if a player had thier character ignore a threat? Like say a death knight was standing right next to the character and the player was like ''I want to make a check to read the runes on the door''. Would you give the knight a free attack? Would you be the nice DM and tell the play ''Um, bob, what about the death knight?" ?

In any case the ''flat footed'' does not matter much...the character will soon be dead and the player will soon be sitting in a corner.

Kish
2017-07-09, 09:46 PM
If he's the only one who wants to play like it's a video-game and all the other players want to actually roleplay, like you, then tell him it's a problem and that he needs to stop, and if he doesn't evict him from the game. Conversely, if as some people have guessed/assumed he's the one actually playing the way the rest of the group prefers and they all want to treat it like a videogame, tell them you're no longer interested in running it. Either way there's little point in dancing around the problem.

JNAProductions
2017-07-09, 09:53 PM
Guileus, word of advice: Don't listen to Darth Ultron. Charitably, he plays in a foreign environment, where every player is just itching to be an *******, and as such, unless you also play with nothing but *******s, his advice is, at best, useless, and at worst, actively harmful.

Darth Ultron
2017-07-09, 10:05 PM
Guileus, word of advice: Don't listen to Darth Ultron. Charitably, he plays in a foreign environment, where every player is just itching to be an *******, and as such, unless you also play with nothing but *******s, his advice is, at best, useless, and at worst, actively harmful.

Or listen to my advise, and don't listen to anyone else. Even more so anyone that tells you not to listen to someone.

Free Speech (and text) is one of the greatest things in the world. You can listen to (or read) whatever anyone else says (or types). And, you, have the ability to decide if you will take the advice..or not...it is all up to you.

But for random person X to say ''don't listen to person Y'' is wrong.

And you just got to wonder about someone defending someone like that ''disruptive, video-game style, arguing player''. Maybe they are just like that player. Always arguing with their DM, always trying to change the rules and always trying to side table DM.

Guizonde
2017-07-09, 10:14 PM
i had that problem with one player. i told him that the way i dm'd was more about descriptions than cold, hard, numbers. said player is a very competent video gamer, but had never played pen and paper. at first, he assumed when i mentionned "critically injured", the monster had a couple of hp left. that's not how the system worked and he wised up. the rest of the team had little trouble adjusting to it. he played a highly mobile character but during combat spent all of his time staying still and shooting things with his shotgun... not exactly following his character concept of "playing the tf scout but with an smg". his comeback? "yeah, but if i'm in the front i'll get hit, plus an smg does cruddy damage like the medic's pistol! no fair! you nerfed my concept!" ... nevermind that an smg is basically an automatic pistol, his defense was his mobility. took about 15 sessions for him to understand.

your player is side-dm'ing. tell him to leave his dm's hat at home since you're wearing it now. he's got control issues. it may grate for power-hungry people, but that's the way it goes. in my pf campaign, i've got 3 newbies, one veteran of dnd next, two of pf, and i spent years playing 3.5. sometimes a player will argue with the dm. i always quip "dm's call, argue during the debriefing". unless it's about a mechanic that can be checked on the fly, leave it for when it doesn't break the game flow. seeing how out of a group of 7, there are only 2 guys that know the game in and out, it does help to do your homework. it gave me a learning curve, too, especially on cleric and paladin modifications between pf and 3.5. i counsel what my inquisitor would do during a fight(military/navy background), but i can't do anything more regarding abilities. talking is a free action, so that flies. a few players saw it as mathhammer until i decided to jump out of a tree onto an enemy and the dm busted out advantages to hit when i nailed my landing. there's also the intrigue part that becomes vital in preparing for combat.

you've got a meta-gaming beatstick, so best answer is to forego mentionning hp and do it all via description. get a debrief of 15-20 minutes after all sessions, and tell him that if he keeps second guessing, he can be the next dm, but not until then. unlike the rest of the thread, pf is not just "open door, kill monster, loot corpse". there is a huge part of rp that is made to get access to the story and better loot.

JNAProductions
2017-07-09, 10:32 PM
Okay, to be more specific, in this instance, Darth Ultron is advocating solving an OOC issue with an IC solution. That won't fix anything-that will either change nothing or start an arms race between the players and the DM.

dps
2017-07-09, 11:09 PM
i had that problem with one player. i told him that the way i dm'd was more about descriptions than cold, hard, numbers. said player is a very competent video gamer, but had never played pen and paper. at first, he assumed when i mentionned "critically injured", the monster had a couple of hp left. that's not how the system worked and he wised up. the rest of the team had little trouble adjusting to it. he played a highly mobile character but during combat spent all of his time staying still and shooting things with his shotgun... not exactly following his character concept of "playing the tf scout but with an smg". his comeback? "yeah, but if i'm in the front i'll get hit, plus an smg does cruddy damage like the medic's pistol! no fair! you nerfed my concept!" ... nevermind that an smg is basically an automatic pistol, his defense was his mobility. took about 15 sessions for him to understand.

That's actually almost the exact opposite of what the opening poster is complaining about, though. He's complaining that his player focuses on just the mechanics of the game, while your complaint is that your player doesn't understand the mechanics of his character's abilities and equipment.

Calthropstu
2017-07-10, 02:56 AM
Okay, but that's the thing. D&D (and D&D-like systems) don't care about your roleplaying. They're about killing things, getting loot and xp, and then using that xp and loot to kill bigger things. Anything else is window dressing. This guy is annoying you by paying less attention to the window dressing than you'd like, but it doesn't mean he's playing the game wrong.

I think you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you were playing a system in which the roleplaying isn't window dressing. Then you'd be able to point out that he's playing the game wrong, instead of playing the game in a way that you personally dislike.

I'm calling bs here.
I just played an excellent session where rp trumped tactics in combat.
The bad guys had converged on the party in a surprise attack. Half their front line was near death, the magus could have dropped two of them. However, he was a body guard and his charge had an enemy on her so he took attacks of opportunity to slay her attacker.
I prefer players like that over the kind op describes.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-10, 03:56 AM
I'm calling bs here.
I just played an excellent session where rp trumped tactics in combat.
The bad guys had converged on the party in a surprise attack. Half their front line was near death, the magus could have dropped two of them. However, he was a body guard and his charge had an enemy on her so he took attacks of opportunity to slay her attacker.
I prefer players like that over the kind op describes.

How did D&D mechanically support this behaviour?

goto124
2017-07-10, 04:48 AM
And of all the DnD editions, it's Pathfinder, one of the more crunchy games even by DnD standards. The player is expecting the game to be played according to the rules with little to no deviation, and with plenty of system mastery. It's unclear exactly how much you are fudging rolls or changing around the rules of the system, but it does seem enough to bother even a good GM who has experience running games and can see why one would fudge rolls or bend the rules a bit.

You mentioning him being a good GM suggests he is very much able to play with the type of plot you desire so much, without the kind of mechanical focus you seem to rather dislike. You mentioned "it didn't feel like he was playing a decadent noble, or a bitter young aristocratic son who's fled his father's manor because he wouldn't inherit his lordship." Was all of that from the backstory the player wrote up?

Maybe the plot you present isn't compelling enough for him, and thus he reverts to his other standby - a mechanics-based gameplay? Actually, how did you know he is a good GM? I suppse you played under him?

In addition, what you described were combat situations. Unoptimal gameplay in combat means the death of their characters. Considering that this is Pathfinder, going with unoptimal builds or decisions gets punished very heavily. Okay, I suppose you can deal with optimal builds, as long as they're also roleplayed out outside combat situations.

Looking at your noble background example, did you explain at all (especially before the game actually starts, maybe even during recruitment of the game) that you wanted more roleplay in the game, or how to go about roleplaying it? What went down during character creation? Did you explain what a Noble background means in your setting, or how it ties to the NPCs or the setting? Did any of the NPCs act as people would react to him being a Noble? Does he have Noble responsibilities? While I would assume a GM as plot-focused as you would present your players with many opportunities to roleplay, especially non-combat opportunities, I fail to actually see these roleplay opportunities mentioned in your post and would like to learn more about how the game played outside combat.

Give back the full plate. It's reasonable. You didn't say "if you don't RP your background, it will fail to exist." To the player, you're a DM who strips players of stuff that the DM themself granted in the first place because the player failed to reach some arbitrary standard that wasn't even properly communciated in the first place. The fact that you said "I took it away of course" says a lot about your... attitude. Does full plate break the game in half? Maybe you need to design better or tougher encounters? Maybe you need more non-combat encounters where he can actually make good use of his Noble background?

I noticed you played a 'highly customized' version of the PF Kingmaker campaign. While it's not clear what 'highly customized' means, the term 'campaign' already suggests that there's not much to be had in terms of roleplay, and most of the exciting content is in the combat, the mechanical stuff.

What's this about Iron Heroes?

Do have individual talks with the other players. Just because they didn't complain, doesn't mean they like it. Maybe they just didn't want to make a fuss when one guy already is. Ask how they feel about the way you run the game. What do they think of the player you have beef with?

I think that's enough questions.

Eldan
2017-07-10, 04:58 AM
Talk with him. A lot of people have said that. But in the end, if it doesn't get better? Yeah, split the group.

Hopefully, you can all be reasonably mature about it and see it's not working. Play something different with your friend. Get a copy of Descent, or Hero Quest, or Silver Tower or Super Dungeon Explorer, maybe. Or let him run a campaign if he's a good DM, and run your own with other players.

Sometimes, that's just the best solution.

Darth Ultron
2017-07-10, 06:19 AM
Okay, to be more specific, in this instance, Darth Ultron is advocating solving an OOC issue with an IC solution. That won't fix anything-that will either change nothing or start an arms race between the players and the DM.

Though note my first suggestion for something to do is to talk to the player. Though I think it's likely to fail....so when it does, move on to my second suggestion. But, if amazingly, the player falls down on his knees and says ''I see the light'' as he picked up a hammer and saw...then everything will work out too.

Merellis
2017-07-10, 07:05 AM
I actually do like the idea of having enemies drop and pretend to be dead only to to drive a blade through the back of the one who supposedly downed them. Wouldn't have every enemy do it, but a few times would be hilarious to see happen. Plus they'd never look at a corpse the same way again, same as having a trapped chest go off, doesn't matter if you only have another couple of instances like that, the players will now be cautious over that kinda stuff.

Probably wouldn't add the extra stabbing for standing in disbelief though, sounds overkill and kinda jerkish. :P

But yeah, talk to the players about some of the background GMing stuff and see what the party thinks of someone moving their character for them. (Could also push said player into a commanders role where these sorts of tactic talks and decision making actually have some consequences and stuff if it goes horribly wrong and he loses a squad or something.)

Definitely take away the platemail if there's no way they could afford it at that level.

KillianHawkeye
2017-07-10, 10:25 AM
It looks like most of the specific issues have already been covered by other posters, but one thing I'd like to suggest is this:

If you have an enemy on the board who is special or more important than the average mooks, maybe you should describe him/it as such before the players get surprised that it isn't dead? Y'know, like when they first see him/it, if it's something they can tell just by looking. Failing to describe the enemies is tantamount to depriving your players with necessary information that they need to properly inform their decisions and attitudes regarding the situation at hand.

And another thing, assuming that the players had not yet met the actual Bandit Lord, why would you tell them this character is a Lieutenant? He could be the real deal for all they know. You were expecting to introduce an interesting villain, but diminished it by calling him out as a mere Lieutenant. All the players should be able to see is that he is an enemy "commander," i.e. that he is the leader of at least the current group. By informing them that the real boss is elsewhere, you're giving them knowledge that they shouldn't have about the relative importance of the enemies they're facing (again, that's assuming they haven't previously met the Bandit Lord or somehow know who he is already).

Lacuna Caster
2017-07-10, 10:46 AM
I'm calling bs here.
I just played an excellent session where rp trumped tactics in combat.
The bad guys had converged on the party in a surprise attack. Half their front line was near death, the magus could have dropped two of them. However, he was a body guard and his charge had an enemy on her so he took attacks of opportunity to slay her attacker.
I prefer players like that over the kind op describes.

How did D&D mechanically support this behaviour?
Ah, KR. Your wit is the soul of your brevity. :)


I dunno it it applies in Calthropstu's case, but aside from the alignment system I dimly recall 5E has some more fine-grained personality-descriptors and metagame currency for role-play, depending on which optional systems you tack on?

hymer
2017-07-10, 11:01 AM
I dimly recall 5E has some more fine-grained personality-descriptors and metagame currency for role-play, depending on which optional systems you tack on?

Your recollection is correct. Backgrounds are a part of character creation, dictating some skills and a special ability. They also come with suggested Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. Playing according to these should net the player Inspiration, allowing them to spend it to get advantage on a d20 roll.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-10, 11:21 AM
Ah, KR. Your wit is the soul of your brevity. :)


I dunno it it applies in Calthropstu's case, but aside from the alignment system I dimly recall 5E has some more fine-grained personality-descriptors and metagame currency for role-play, depending on which optional systems you tack on?


Your recollection is correct. Backgrounds are a part of character creation, dictating some skills and a special ability. They also come with suggested Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. Playing according to these should net the player Inspiration, allowing them to spend it to get advantage on a d20 roll.

As of last time i looked, I had not seen anything suggesting "Do X, get inspiration" but rather that the DM hands it out arbitrarily depending on if they happened to think it was good and/or in line with the personality.

Which makes it less of a mechanic and more of a random candy the DM can pass out to the goodest boys.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-10, 11:28 AM
I dunno it it applies in Calthropstu's case, but aside from the alignment system I dimly recall 5E has some more fine-grained personality-descriptors and metagame currency for role-play, depending on which optional systems you tack on?

5e did make a few baby steps in this direction. Inspiration isn't a particularly good one. Individual rolls in D&D tend to not be very important, and advantage isn't hugely impactful anyway. But credit where credit's due, it did try.

I guess, to expand on my point. You can roleplay in Monopoly. Every time you make a move you could play out a little mini-scene about your wealthy capitalist making business deals. There could be some great drama when you go directly to jail without passing go. Some amazing in character wheeling and dealing when trading properties with another player. That doesn't change the fact that Monopoly doesn't care at all about your roleplaying and the system doesn't support it in any way. And if Baron Top Hat summons Ms. Thimble to a meeting and tries to browbeat her into selling him Pennsylvania Avenue for $5 because he's a scary mob boss and she's an elderly widow, you're still playing the game wrong if you go through with that trade.

Melcar
2017-07-10, 04:15 PM
Just my two cents, but I think you could appreciate a guy who can't RP a newb, and isn't selfish. He's sharing his experience with the others. "Ignore the owlbear" is something many of us wouldn't think of on our own, and I can see that might irritate you, but it's helping the whole party based on what he's learned through experience.

Maybe you should change up what you expect from this game, and from him, and have a little fun with him.

Think of your sessions as a John Wayne movie. Give him back his plate armor, a gift from local nobles who appreciate the awesome job he's doing.

Have the enemy give him a nickname. Have bad guys holler "It's HIM!" Have them unload on him first.

Openly give him a small RP bonus for bringing the rest of the party alive through combats. Tell him he's responsible for their welfare, because he's their leader.

And when he complains, point out the facts: He's a noble, he's expert in killing, he is expert in sizing up a situation, he gives orders to the others, and he hasn't lost yet. He's the Kit Carson of this adventure. He's a legend. That's how he played the role, and he's got to live up to the myth.

I think this is a cool way of doing it! I'm going to try this approach if a similar situation comes up!

guileus
2017-07-11, 02:19 AM
Thanks a lot for your help guys.

I like the idea of making him the Kit Carson of the campaign. Maybe not so much follow it by the letter, but I do like the spirit of adapting the campaign a bit to his tastes. After all, an RPG campaign is a collaborative story: the DM has the most responsibility on it, but that doesn't mean he gets to impose his vision. Players, and what they like, need to have a place too.

I've talked to him over text messages (and will talk to him when we hit the gym next time, we usually go together) and he says that I'm right but that he's making an effort towards what I said, just that he's so used to his "playing style" it takes time to drop out of it. I explained I don't want him to make a 180ş turn into something he's not, but just that he doesn't disrupt the game and do the side-SM, spotlight stealing, extreme video-game playing thing. If he wants to come around a character concept of a badass warrior priest (he is supposed to be a priest of the only god in the civilized lands), I'm game. I've got no problem with players "Mary Sueing" their characters, if that's their role playing style (after all, some players need to make them the coolest people in the setting to feel identified with them, not everyone is able to or wants the challenge of roleplaying difficult characters). Will report how the thing goes.

Right now I'm trying to think how to adapt the plot to the fact that they stormed the bandit lord fort and killed 10 bandits plus a liutenant and an owlbear, but not the bandit lord. I was thinking that maybe the bandit lord wasn't actually at the fort, which I think would spice things up, because they now would be in the situation of having to defend it against his return with a party of bandits (whom I will beef up, as they were slicing through the regular ones like butter). I was thinking that the bandit lord will actually return with some booty from a raid, and the company of a diplomat from one of the bandit kingdoms to the west, as he was expecting to come back to his fort to show his power to the diplomat and establish ties with the bandit kingdom (after taking him on a raid against merchant caravans). I'm now thinking what would be his preferred tactic to re-take his fort (because I guess the PCs ain't letting him get inside just like that).



Again, thanks for the help!

Kane0
2017-07-11, 02:27 AM
He would know his own back door for sure. If its the fort im thinking of there has to be a false log in the pallisade or something.
From there he would know the blind spots of his watch points and the easiest ways to get inside plus knowledge of the fort layout. His guys would know exactly what spots are best for ambushes and defending so they would just lob alchemist fire or smokesticks in each of those by default.
If hes savvy enough he might even attempt to broker an alliance. Some positions have recently opened up after all.

hymer
2017-07-11, 04:53 AM
As of last time i looked, I had not seen anything suggesting "Do X, get inspiration"

Last time I looked (just now to get the quote), I saw this:


Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that's true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond and flaw.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-11, 05:46 AM
Last time I looked (just now to get the quote), I saw this:

Yup. That's the vague not-really-a-mechanic-at-all that I was referring to.

100% up to the DM's whims by RAW and pretty much not indicative at all of what playing in accordance to any of these things looks like, how often to do this, etc. (Should playing by these traits negatively impact me before I get this? Is this just an extra boon for when I cleverly turn my flaw to my advantage? How do I as a DM know when someone is acting in accordance to the character's personality? How do I know what that personality is? What's the threshold for when this goes? These questions are left unanswered or up to the whims of the DM.)

This is still basically the same mechanic as "The DM can give you XP if you RP good" but slightly less vague and still exactly as much of an afterthought because D&D still doesn't care about your RP. At least, not "for realsies."

hymer
2017-07-11, 06:35 AM
Yup. That's the vague not-really-a-mechanic-at-all that I was referring to.

Sorry, I thought you were serious.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-11, 07:32 AM
Thanks a lot for your help guys.

...

Again, thanks for the help!

Hooray! A peaceful/successful resolution by talking it out OOC like grown-ups!

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-11, 10:42 AM
Sorry, I thought you were serious.

I was being serious about not seeing that, though I could have been more clear.

What I meant is that there is no clear route by which the player gets inspiration. (Which, sidenote, is not a particularly useful thing anyway) What we have is a vaguely worded "You might get Inspiration if your DM arbitrarily decides you get it based on meeting these incredibly nonspecific pseudo-standards but only if he/she wants to."

Which is not really any more helpful than 3.5's "give XP when they RP good, if you feel like it."

Kish
2017-07-11, 10:45 AM
Your basic premise is messed up. You're, in essence, saying that D&D can't be about anything but the mechanics because the part that talks about rewarding roleplaying doesn't give an "insert coin, get reward"-level mechanic. That's a Catch-22.

Sacrieur
2017-07-11, 12:02 PM
Just my two cents, but I think you could appreciate a guy who can't RP a newb, and isn't selfish. He's sharing his experience with the others. "Ignore the owlbear" is something many of us wouldn't think of on our own, and I can see that might irritate you, but it's helping the whole party based on what he's learned through experience.

Maybe you should change up what you expect from this game, and from him, and have a little fun with him.

Think of your sessions as a John Wayne movie. Give him back his plate armor, a gift from local nobles who appreciate the awesome job he's doing.

Have the enemy give him a nickname. Have bad guys holler "It's HIM!" Have them unload on him first.

Openly give him a small RP bonus for bringing the rest of the party alive through combats. Tell him he's responsible for their welfare, because he's their leader.

And when he complains, point out the facts: He's a noble, he's expert in killing, he is expert in sizing up a situation, he gives orders to the others, and he hasn't lost yet. He's the Kit Carson of this adventure. He's a legend. That's how he played the role, and he's got to live up to the myth.

This advice is the best advice in the thread.

Your job as DM is to make sure everyone has fun, and not everyone is interested in intricate plot details or wants to be bothered talking to other nobles and pretending they're posh, even if they've selected that as their backstory.

It's insulting to a player to sit them out OOC and try to talk to them because they're not roleplaying their character in whatever way you want them to.



Hooray! A peaceful/successful resolution by talking it out OOC like grown-ups!

It's childish, actually, because only children get upset when someone else doesn't do something they don't like. It's not the DM's character, so why is the DM trying to play it? Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-11, 12:55 PM
Your basic premise is messed up. You're, in essence, saying that D&D can't be about anything but the mechanics because the part that talks about rewarding roleplaying doesn't give an "insert coin, get reward"-level mechanic. That's a Catch-22.

That is in no way a catch-22. That's just flat-out stating that D&D's core design has RP as an afterthought.

Monopoly is about buying and selling properties. How do we know? The rules tell us.

Chess is about strategically maneuvering pieces to capture the opponent's king. How do we know? The rules tell us.

The rules of D&D inform us that the most important stuff is to kill stuff and take its loot. The vast majority of the system hinges on those objectives. RP is mentioned but overall is an afterthought and not particularly important. Essentially, playing an entire game of D&D without RP still involves interfacing with the game. Spending the entire game having a conversation in character or having an involved political discussion will only MAYBE engage the game. The game, as it were, is not about roleplaying.

Compare to FATE or Apocalypse World or Dungeon World or any other game where roleplaying is part and parcel of how the mechanics behave, and you'll see a critical difference in what those games are about. Apocalypse World is about communities in decay, at risk, and under fire. It is about entropy and rising chaos on a fiction level! We know this because the rules and mechanics support the fiction in this without outright dictating the progression. The way the rules play out leads directly to increasing chaos.

No catch-22 at all. Just difference in game design.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-11, 01:03 PM
That is in no way a catch-22. That's just flat-out stating that D&D's core design has RP as an afterthought.

Monopoly is about buying and selling properties. How do we know? The rules tell us.

Chess is about strategically maneuvering pieces to capture the opponent's king. How do we know? The rules tell us.

False Analogy -

Monopoly & Chess are much more contained games than D&D is.

There are examples the other way too.

Baseball is largely about the strategy & skill of pitching both in and out of the strike zone with both fastballs and a variety of breaking balls. The rules of baseball don't even mention that breaking balls exist. That doesn't make them any less important.

(Not that that proves that roleplaying is a major part of D&D - just shows that your argument is flawed.)

Lacuna Caster
2017-07-11, 01:56 PM
Your basic premise is messed up. You're, in essence, saying that D&D can't be about anything but the mechanics because the part that talks about rewarding roleplaying doesn't give an "insert coin, get reward"-level mechanic. That's a Catch-22.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here? D&D groups and D&D players and D&D sessions can certainly be about things other than the official mechanics- like improvised dialogue and homebrew and nachos- and their style can range all over the place. But it's worth questioning the extent to which the core rules can be given credit for those outcomes.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-11, 02:22 PM
False Analogy -

Monopoly & Chess are much more contained games than D&D is.

There are examples the other way too.

Baseball is largely about the strategy & skill of pitching both in and out of the strike zone with both fastballs and a variety of breaking balls. The rules of baseball don't even mention that breaking balls exist. That doesn't make them any less important.

(Not that that proves that roleplaying is a major part of D&D - just shows that your argument is flawed.)

Those pitches which baseball allows and does not allow are codified in the rules, yes? The MLB, for instance, does not allow all varieties of pitch. (Spitballs, for instance)

The outcomes of various rules interactions are codified, yes?

Chess does not teach its own strategies through its rules, either.

You're conflating rules applications with rules being about things. Baseball is about what the rules say it is about. Strategies within and flowing from those rules are a separate but emergent quality.

One that is entirely irrelevant here because good RP does not significantly affect good gameplay strategy for D&D nor is it emergent from the rules (except as an afterthought.)

If you were to hand D&D to someone who had no idea it was supposed to be used for RP, and only gave them the mechanics (not the various introductory paragraphs), they might not even realize at first that the game is meant to involve roleplay at all. That's what I'm talking about. The rules for D&D don't expect, ask for, support, or do much more than passingly mention RP within the actual mechanics. It may as well not be there.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-11, 03:34 PM
Those pitches which baseball allows and does not allow are codified in the rules, yes? The MLB, for instance, does not allow all varieties of pitch. (Spitballs, for instance)


No they don't.

Spitballs aren't actually a pitch. They're messing with the baseball before you pitch - which the rules do disallow - in the same way you're not allowed a bat with a cork core, but that isn't disallowing certain types of swing.

The rules have no rules talking about which pitches are acceptable and make no mention of "breaking balls" at all.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-11, 04:42 PM
No they don't.

Spitballs aren't actually a pitch. They're messing with the baseball before you pitch - which the rules do disallow - in the same way you're not allowed a bat with a cork core, but that isn't disallowing certain types of swing.

The rules have no rules talking about which pitches are acceptable and make no mention of "breaking balls" at all.

Interestingly, looking into the MLB official rules, certain kinds of pitches are banned due to the Pitch Delivery rules, which implicitly ban certain methods of throwing the ball.

You cannot, for instance, throw the ball from the "Set" position. Which eliminates a few types of throws in an of itself. (MLB Rules 2017 handbook, page 33 as numbered on the pages. Page 46 on the PDF)

And, as I said before, strategies emergent from the permissions within the rules are fundamentally different from an additional thing the rules don't mention at all.

I'll also note that that rules for MLB baseball, being the most comprehensive and having an official PDF for reference, explicitly state what you CAN do as much as what you CAN'T. That you can "Deliver the ball to the Batter" from the Windup position is just as much a rule as "you can't throw anything from the Set position." Rules are not only restrictions. Since the rules very nearly outright state that any type of throw delivered from the windup position is OK, that allows strategy to be made accordingly.

Similarly, there is not much by way of allowance or comment in baseball of what facial expression you may or may not have. There is no suggestion at all except an afterthought about good sportmanship that doesn't actually deal with this issue.
Most D&D RP questions are in a similar nebulous haze of being undealt with but vaguely hinted at.

Can we stop nitpicking about baseball now? I'm like a fish out of water. Edit: to make it clear, yes. I looked up a PDF of MLB rules because I am that unfamiliar with baseball. I don't even know what a Breaking Ball is and I'm not sure what the rules would say about it if anything nor how to search for them.

Cluedrew
2017-07-11, 05:52 PM
As the main issue has been solved, I'm going to go on a tangent.
If you want to go for more roleplay than dice-rolling and killing things, play World of Darkness instead.I would not recommend World of Darkness to fix this problem. First because it is a very drastic setting change that might not fit the game they want to run. Secondly World of Darkness is only more about role-play because it says it is, at least in my experience the system support for it is on the same level as D&D's. Which is say, more allow than encourage. The difference the only difference is the message it presents. Which sometimes is enough to alter how people approach the game and hence get different results. (Not always, which is where some rather pathetic accusations around the system come from.) And really that is what this issue seems to be about, one of approach.

Squiddish
2017-07-11, 06:12 PM
My biggest question is: Since when is this "video-game style"? Have I been playing video games wrong?

Calthropstu
2017-07-12, 02:05 PM
How did D&D mechanically support this behaviour?

By providing the opportunity to do so?
Combat is an important aspect, but remember the whole thing overall is a STORY. The game provides the gm an opportunity to tell a story where the pc's interact with that story however they wish. It is up to the gm and the pcs to tell that story. Combat is a part of it, but just a part.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-12, 03:03 PM
By providing the opportunity to do so?
Combat is an important aspect, but remember the whole thing overall is a STORY. The game provides the gm an opportunity to tell a story where the pc's interact with that story however they wish. It is up to the gm and the pcs to tell that story. Combat is a part of it, but just a part.

Monopoly provides an opportunity to pretend to be a corporate overlord or mafioso or trump wannabe.

It in no way supports this. But it provides the opportunity.

To put it shortly: this doesn't answer their question.

Guizonde
2017-07-12, 03:29 PM
Monopoly provides an opportunity to pretend to be a corporate overlord or mafioso or trump wannabe.

It in no way supports this. But it provides the opportunity.

To put it shortly: this doesn't answer their question.

this really shows the disconnect on these boards between roleplayers and simulators.

above, it was stated that there's a mechanic in dnd5 the dm can implement to favor "flavor actions". i took that to mean "do something your character would do, your dm will reward it", hell grit and luck work similarly in pf, so why not broaden the spectrum of applications?

because it's more rp-oriented than crunch-oriented, there's no hard and fast rule to gauge it mathematically. that said, i consider that as much a mechanic as a circumstance bonus in previous editions, usually given out by the dm for describing precisely what your character is doing.

there's a lot of fawning over diplomacy too, including things that are raw-legal but no sane dm would ever accept, like charming a mortal enemy into becoming your best friend. don't tell me that's any different just because a character rolled 45+ thanks to his/her bonuses in a skill (i'll assume there's no roleplaying and just rolling a d20 and adding the requisite skill bonus). to paraphrase, "the goal is a story, combat is only a part of it", you get xp for bypassing peacefully encounters, so a team of diplomancers could potentially do a pacifist-run campaign without killing anything. it's a double-edged sword: you can play dnd and bypass combat just as much as you can play dnd and bypass roleplay. it's still (to my knowledge) called a roleplaying game, not a combat simulator. play it however you want, but don't negate an entire aspect of it just because it's not stated out clearly.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-12, 03:37 PM
"the goal is a story, combat is only a part of it", you get xp for bypassing peacefully encounters, so a team of diplomancers could potentially do a pacifist-run campaign without killing anything. it's a double-edged sword: you can play dnd and bypass combat just as much as you can play dnd and bypass roleplay. it's still (to my knowledge) called a roleplaying game, not a combat simulator. play it however you want, but don't negate an entire aspect of it just because it's not stated out clearly.

If something isn't part of the rules it's not part of the game. If you're playing in a tennis tournament and meet the love of your life and get married and have ten children that's great, but tennis doesn't take any credit for it.

To be clear, I'm not really suggesting treating D&D like an RPless combat simulator. I'm suggesting playing better games that don't treat RP as an afterthought.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-12, 03:39 PM
this really shows the disconnect on these boards between roleplayers and simulators.

above, it was stated that there's a mechanic in dnd5 the dm can implement to favor "flavor actions". i took that to mean "do something your character would do, your dm will reward it", hell grit and luck work similarly in pf, so why not broaden the spectrum of applications?

because it's more rp-oriented than crunch-oriented, there's no hard and fast rule to gauge it mathematically. that said, i consider that as much a mechanic as a circumstance bonus in previous editions, usually given out by the dm for describing precisely what your character is doing.

there's a lot of fawning over diplomacy too, including things that are raw-legal but no sane dm would ever accept, like charming a mortal enemy into becoming your best friend. don't tell me that's any different just because a character rolled 45+ thanks to his/her bonuses in a skill (i'll assume there's no roleplaying and just rolling a d20 and adding the requisite skill bonus). to paraphrase, "the goal is a story, combat is only a part of it", you get xp for bypassing peacefully encounters, so a team of diplomancers could potentially do a pacifist-run campaign without killing anything. it's a double-edged sword: you can play dnd and bypass combat just as much as you can play dnd and bypass roleplay. it's still (to my knowledge) called a roleplaying game, not a combat simulator. play it however you want, but don't negate an entire aspect of it just because it's not stated out clearly.

As I've said before, the rule essentially states that the DM might give you a highly minor temporary goodie if you RP good by their personal standards.

No guidance, no further comment, no examples of how this is applied, no depth, no mechanics at play in any way.

Playing D&D by using only its social rules is very nearly freeform RP. Playing without RP is still basically the same game. This is not equivalent outcomes.

Calthropstu
2017-07-12, 05:19 PM
If something isn't part of the rules it's not part of the game. If you're playing in a tennis tournament and meet the love of your life and get married and have ten children that's great, but tennis doesn't take any credit for it.

To be clear, I'm not really suggesting treating D&D like an RPless combat simulator. I'm suggesting playing better games that don't treat RP as an afterthought.

But it IS part of the rules. You just aren't looking hard enough. There is no "you must tell the story this way" mechanic... the rule you're looking for is actually, believe it or not, rule zero.
The gm creates a story, creates characters, then tells the story and alters it as things progress. The gm decides how the characters respond to your actions within a game.
And how does the gm decide all of this? Rule zero. So when the bodyguard risks his own life to protect his charge, there are immaterial bonuses that alter the story. Maybe the charge falls in love with the guard who would risk everything just to save her, or maybe the noble who hired him to protect his daughter increases the reward for going beyond the call of duty. Or maybe another person sees how dedicated they are to their job and tries to hire him for a bigger job. No mechanics specifically, but definitely well within the game.

That's the difference between roleplay and roll play... understanding the immersion and the effects that can take place due to actions both within and outside of combat. It's not just about the stats.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-12, 07:24 PM
But it IS part of the rules. You just aren't looking hard enough. There is no "you must tell the story this way" mechanic... the rule you're looking for is actually, believe it or not, rule zero.
The gm creates a story, creates characters, then tells the story and alters it as things progress. The gm decides how the characters respond to your actions within a game.
And how does the gm decide all of this? Rule zero. So when the bodyguard risks his own life to protect his charge, there are immaterial bonuses that alter the story. Maybe the charge falls in love with the guard who would risk everything just to save her, or maybe the noble who hired him to protect his daughter increases the reward for going beyond the call of duty. Or maybe another person sees how dedicated they are to their job and tries to hire him for a bigger job. No mechanics specifically, but definitely well within the game.

That's the difference between roleplay and roll play... understanding the immersion and the effects that can take place due to actions both within and outside of combat. It's not just about the stats.

Two things:

1. What page is Rule 0 on, exactly?

2. You'll likely find that Rule 0 has bugger-all to do with the RP side. D&D makes essentially no mention of that part of the game within its rules or mechanics.

And what is more, this is very nearly the Oberoni Fallacy, or at least dwells in the house it built.
That Rule 0 exists is not a substitute for having RP related rules, or even RP-related guidelines or help. That is still an weakness in the system even when a rule 0 exists.

I'll put it this way:
If you play the game only by the rules and mechanics that state RP, you have the Inspiration mechanic (which has no function without the rest) and maybe a few flaws and personality traits (which are no better than a description line in a freeform RP)

If you play the game with all the RP removed, you still have 99% of the game.

So when we say that D&D doesn't care about RP, we can demonstrate it. The rules don't talk about it. At all. Even Diplomacy doesn't actually require RP. You can just say what you're convincing them of and go.

D&D really, and I mean really, doesn't care about anything so much as it cares about the gameplay loop of "kill things, take their stuff, use their stuff to kill bigger and richer things. Repeat."

D&D cares only slightly more about the RP you do than Monopoly does. By like... a paragraph.

Guizonde
2017-07-12, 09:59 PM
Two things:

1. What page is Rule 0 on, exactly?

2. You'll likely find that Rule 0 has bugger-all to do with the RP side. D&D makes essentially no mention of that part of the game within its rules or mechanics.

And what is more, this is very nearly the Oberoni Fallacy, or at least dwells in the house it built.
That Rule 0 exists is not a substitute for having RP related rules, or even RP-related guidelines or help. That is still an weakness in the system even when a rule 0 exists.

I'll put it this way:
If you play the game only by the rules and mechanics that state RP, you have the Inspiration mechanic (which has no function without the rest) and maybe a few flaws and personality traits (which are no better than a description line in a freeform RP)

If you play the game with all the RP removed, you still have 99% of the game.

So when we say that D&D doesn't care about RP, we can demonstrate it. The rules don't talk about it. At all. Even Diplomacy doesn't actually require RP. You can just say what you're convincing them of and go.

D&D really, and I mean really, doesn't care about anything so much as it cares about the gameplay loop of "kill things, take their stuff, use their stuff to kill bigger and richer things. Repeat."

D&D cares only slightly more about the RP you do than Monopoly does. By like... a paragraph.

this is so stubborn, i'll actually check my books in 9 hours when i come back from work. i've seen it in there pretty much verbatim on at least 3 occasions. i know it's in the pf phb, i'm pretty sure it's in the dnd 3 dmg (but that one i sadly don't have access to anymore).

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-12, 10:02 PM
Whether it's in the books or not isn't really the point. A rule essentially saying "Yo you can do whatever you want have fun." isn't really supporting roleplaying in the way that I'm talking about.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-12, 10:19 PM
this is so stubborn, i'll actually check my books in 9 hours when i come back from work. i've seen it in there pretty much verbatim on at least 3 occasions. i know it's in the pf phb, i'm pretty sure it's in the dnd 3 dmg (but that one i sadly don't have access to anymore).

I already dealt with how this is just the Oberoni Fallacy with a different hat on. Saying you can use Rule 0 to fill a gap the system leaves does not make that gap go away.

Essentially, Rule 0 is the laziest way to fix this issue and an even lazier cover for the obvious dearth of anything to do with RP in the system. It's on par with using a lack of evidence of aliens NOT coming to earth as proof that they did. (Note, not similar in nature, but similarly BS.)

1337 b4k4
2017-07-12, 11:05 PM
T
So when we say that D&D doesn't care about RP, we can demonstrate it. The rules don't talk about it. At all. Even Diplomacy doesn't actually require RP. You can just say what you're convincing them of and go.

D&D really, and I mean really, doesn't care about anything so much as it cares about the gameplay loop of "kill things, take their stuff, use their stuff to kill bigger and richer things. Repeat."

D&D cares only slightly more about the RP you do than Monopoly does. By like... a paragraph.

Oh come off it. Seriously, unless you're defining "RP" as "amateur hour acting and talking in funny voices", this is just blatantly untrue. I mean, just using the free basic players guide for 5e we have the following (all emphasis mine):


The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.

...

Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava- lled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.

...

Over the course of their adventures, the characters are confronted by a variety of creatures, objects,
and situations that they must deal with in some way. Sometimes the adventurers and other creatures do their best to kill or capture each other in combat. At other times, the adventurers talk to another creature (or even a magical object) with a goal in mind. And often, the adventurers spend time trying to solve a puzzle, bypass an obstacle, nd something hidden, or unravel the current situation. Meanwhile, the adventurers explore the world, making decisions about which way to travel and what they’ll try to do next.

...

Adventurers can try to do anything their players
can imagine, but it can be helpful to talk about their activities in three broad categories: exploration, social interaction, and combat.
Exploration includes both the adventurers’ movement through the world and their interaction with objects
and situations that require their attention. Exploration is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players what happens as a result. On a large scale, that might involve the characters spending a day crossing a rolling plain or an hour making their way through caverns underground. On the smallest scale, it could mean one character pulling a lever in a dungeon room to see what happens.
Social interaction features the adventurers talking to someone (or something) else. It might mean demanding that a captured scout reveal the secret entrance to the goblin lair, getting information from a rescued prisoner, pleading for mercy from an orc chieftain, or persuading a talkative magic mirror to show a distant location to the adventurers.
The rules in chapters 7 and 8 support exploration and social interaction, as do many class features in chapter 3 and personality traits in chapter 4.

...

Once you know the basic game aspects of your character, it’s time to esh him or her out as a person. Your character needs a name. Spend a few minutes thinking about what he or she looks like and how he or she behaves in general terms.
Using the information in chapter 4, you can esh out your character’s physical appearance and personality traits. Choose your character’s alignment (the moral compass that guides his or her decisions) and ideals. Chapter 4 also helps you identify the things your character holds most dear, called bonds, and the aws that could one day undermine him or her.
Your character’s background describes where he or she came from, his or her original occupation, and the character’s place in the D&D world. Your DM might o er additional backgrounds beyond the ones included in chapter 4, and might be willing to work with you to craft a background that’s a more precise t for your character concept.

...

Your character race not only affects your ability scores and traits but also provides the cues for building your character’s story. Each race’s description in this chapter includes information to help you roleplay a character of that race, including personality, physical appearance, features of society, and racial alignment tendencies. These details are suggestions to help you think about your character; adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their race. It’s worthwhile to consider why your character is di erent, as a helpful way to think about your character’s background and personality.

...

Fleshing out your character’s personality—the array of traits, mannerisms, habits, beliefs, and aws that give a person a unique identity—will help you bring him
or her to life as you play the game. Four categories of characteristics are presented here: personality traits, ideals, bonds, and aws. Beyond those categories, think about your character’s favorite words or phrases, tics and habitual gestures, vices and pet peeves, and whatever else you can imagine

...

Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity.

...

Encountering Creatures. If the DM determines
that the adventurers encounter other creatures while they’re traveling, it’s up to both groups to decide what happens next. Either group might decide to attack, initiate a conversation, run away, or wait to see what the other group does.


And that's just in the first handful of chapters.

And then, this one is just because you said the rules don't talk about RP at all:



Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.
Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions. Your character’s quirks, mannerisms, and personality in uence how interactions resolve.
There are two styles you can use when roleplaying your character: the descriptive approach and the active approach. Most players use a combination of the two styles. Use whichever mix of the two works best for you.
Descriptive Approach to Roleplaying
With this approach, you describe your character’s words and actions to the DM and the other players. Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it.
For instance, Chris plays Tordek the dwarf. Tordek has a quick temper and blames the elves of the Cloakwood for his family’s misfortune. At a tavern, an obnoxious elf minstrel sits at Tordek’s table and tries to strike up a conversation with the dwarf.
Chris says, “Tordek spits on the oor, growls an insult at the bard, and stomps over to the bar. He sits on a stool and glares at the minstrel before ordering another drink.”
In this example, Chris has conveyed Tordek’s mood and given the DM a clear idea of his character’s attitude and actions.
When using descriptive roleplaying, keep the following things in mind:
• Describe your character’s emotions and attitude. • Focus on your character’s intent and how others
might perceive it.
• Provide as much embellishment as you feel
comfortable with.
Don’t worry about getting things exactly right. Just focus on thinking about what your character would do and describing what you see in your mind.

Active Approach to Roleplaying
If descriptive roleplaying tells your DM and your fellow players what your character thinks and does, active roleplaying shows them.
When you use active roleplaying, you speak with your character’s voice, like an actor taking on a role. You might even echo your character’s movements and body language. This approach is more immersive than descriptive roleplaying, though you still need to describe things that can’t be reasonably acted out.
Going back to the example of Chris roleplaying Tordek above, here’s how the scene might play out if Chris used active roleplaying:
Speaking as Tordek, Chris says in a gru , deep voice, “I was wondering why it suddenly smelled awful in here. If I wanted to hear anything out of you, I’d snap your arm and enjoy your screams.” In his normal voice, Chris then adds, “I get up, glare at the elf, and head to the bar.”
Results of Roleplaying
The DM uses your character’s actions and attitudes to determine how an NPC reacts. A cowardly NPC buckles under threats of violence. A stubborn dwarf refuses to let anyone badger her. A vain dragon laps up attery.
When interacting with an NPC, pay close attention to the DM’s portrayal of the NPC’s mood, dialogue, and personality. You might be able to determine an NPC’s personality traits, ideals, aws, and bonds, then play on them to in uence the NPC’s attitude.
Interactions in D&D are much like interactions in real life. If you can o er NPCs something they want, threaten them with something they fear, or play on their sympathies and goals, you can use words to get almost anything you want. On the other hand, if you insult a proud warrior or speak ill of a noble’s allies, your e orts to convince or deceive will fall short.

If you want to argue that newer editions of D&D, by way of the XP for killing monsters (sorry Defeating Monsters), places an emphasis on using combat to resolve situations. And that the vast majority of the published adventures also encourage a "hit things and ask questions later" approach, you'll get no argument from me. I've long said one of the worst ideas for D&D was getting rid of the XP for Gold rule. But let's not pretend that D&D doesn't have rules for things other than combat. Less fleshed out or detailed? Sure. More wishy washy and without hard numbers? Absolutely. Not there at all or not part of the rules? Absolutely not. They're there, they're part of the game. And if your D&D games don't have RP, or you're not using those rules, that isn't D&D's fault, that's your table's fault.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-13, 12:17 AM
And then, this one is just because you said the rules don't talk about RP at all:

None of these things are rules. Being in the rulebook doesn't make something a rule. I'm starting to think the disconnect here is that people don't understand what I mean by rules.

These things are rules:

Burning Wheel: In character creation you can pay resources to buy pre-existing relationships with NPCs that you, the player, invent. They cost more based on how powerful you want this NPC to be, and you get discounts by adding complications to these relationships such as "romantic", "hateful" or "immediate family member" (all three at once is pretty great).

Torchbearer: Every character has a handful of descriptive traits about them. Things like "Foolhardy", "Clever" or "Stubborn". When you, the player, describe how one of these traits is hindering something you're trying to do you take a penalty on your roll and gain a "check" that will be useful down the road for a variety of different things.

Dungeon World: Every class/alignment combination has a descriptor for alignment. An Evil Fighter, for example has the alignment descriptor of "Kill a defenseless or surrendered enemy." If you do the thing during the session, at the end of the session, mark an xp.

These things are fundamentally different from "Give inspiration if you feel like it" or "Here's a description of what roleplaying is and some suggestions on how to do it".

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-13, 06:05 AM
Oh come off it. Seriously, unless you're defining "RP" as "amateur hour acting and talking in funny voices", this is just blatantly untrue. I mean, just using the free basic players guide for 5e we have the following (all emphasis mine):


1. None of those are rules. You could add these paragraphs to Monopoly with minor tweaks. Would that make Monopoly an RPG?

2. If all of these paragraphs swapped the term RP with "Farming" and insisted the game was actually about starting a farm, you'd probably say that they're lying. Why? Because there's no rules for farming in the system.

3. You are confusing me as having a position I don't have, methinks. Let me explain the basic tenants of where I sit.
-D&D is, primarily and at its core, about killing things and taking their stuff so you can get better stuff to kill more things. The majority of rules support and encourage this gameplay loop. Even their idea of an epic adventure involves killing progressively nastier beasties and getting cooler and cooler stuff. (This is not a condemnation, by the way. Not sure why people tale it that way. That loop is fun.)
-D&D doesn't really care about the RP side beyond lipservice that you Should do it, and thus it lives a double life. The Gygaxian heart of "I'm not here for amateur acting hour" beats strong in the system's RULES because it doesn't actually touch it. But WotC doesn't know a better way to incorporate it than "basically just tell them to do it and they will."
-neither of these two tenants means you can't RP with D&D. It just means D&D doesn't care if you do and will give minimal mechanical support.
-these two tenants DO mean that if you only used the RP rules of D&D you'd have these non-rule paragraphs and the Inspiration rule. Playing without them means all the rules are still basically there.


Another thought experiment:
If you were to hand a copy of D&D to someone who had never read it and removed all the non-rule content (basically all the fluff, just the rules) would they still know that it expects you to play out your character?

The answer is probably no.

TheYell
2017-07-13, 06:52 AM
Glad you can have fun! Keep us posted, we like happy endings.

Calthropstu
2017-07-13, 06:59 AM
I already dealt with how this is just the Oberoni Fallacy with a different hat on. Saying you can use Rule 0 to fill a gap the system leaves does not make that gap go away.

Essentially, Rule 0 is the laziest way to fix this issue and an even lazier cover for the obvious dearth of anything to do with RP in the system. It's on par with using a lack of evidence of aliens NOT coming to earth as proof that they did. (Note, not similar in nature, but similarly BS.)

It's role play... it doesn't need mechanics. I should not need rules to tell a personin game "nice hat." Rule zero is literally the ONLY way to handle it that makes any sense whatsoever.
Or would you rather this:
Me:I compliment the person's apparel. Do I notice something special?
DM:Your perception is high enough to notice they have a new hat.
Me: I make a compliment roll to say something nice about it.*roll* I got a 2.
DM:You try to say "nice hat" but it comes out as "You're fat"
..
Yeah, I don't want to play that. Seems like you don't know how role playing works.

lacco36
2017-07-13, 07:09 AM
It's role play... it doesn't need mechanics.

Then why play D&D?

Calthropstu
2017-07-13, 07:18 AM
Then why play D&D?

Because the one thing that DOES need mechanics is counter operations between different individuals. Combat simply cannot be done via standard roleplay... trying results in the arguments 5 year olds have on whether or not their toy laser gun hit.
So while 95% of role playing can be adjudicated with rule zero, handling what cannot, mainly combat, needs more detailed mechanics.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-13, 07:31 AM
None of these things are rules. Being in the rulebook doesn't make something a rule. I'm starting to think the disconnect here is that people don't understand what I mean by rules.

...

These things are fundamentally different from "Give inspiration if you feel like it" or "Here's a description of what roleplaying is and some suggestions on how to do it".


1. None of those are rules. You could add these paragraphs to Monopoly with minor tweaks. Would that make Monopoly an RPG?


If the things the d&d rule book says about rp are not rules, and transplanting those "not rules" to another game would not make that game an rpg, then the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that neither of you believe D&D is a role playing game. If none of the rp rules in D&D actually count, then by what measure can you say D&D is an rpg? So I ask you plainly, is D&D an RPG?



Another thought experiment:
If you were to hand a copy of D&D to someone who had never read it and removed all the non-rule content (basically all the fluff, just the rules) would they still know that it expects you to play out your character?

The answer is probably no.

You mean if you take out all the rules that tell a player how to do something in a certain game, the players won't know how to do those things? Well of course. That's why these things (despite your protests to the contrary) are rules. If you took out all the paragraphs on mortgages and buying houses and banking from monopoly people wouldn't know to do those things either. Does that imply those aren't rules?

herceg
2017-07-13, 08:28 AM
RPG rules are about conflict resolution - if player (PC) wants A and dm (NPC) wants B, roll the dice, see what happens. If player (PC) attempts X and the possible outcome is X, Y or Z, roll the dice.

To suggest the first ever roleplaying game (inspiring all others) is somehow not about roleplaying because newer games claim louder they are about it or include treats in their rules (as if you NEED to bribe players to play their characters) for things that do not require resolution systems is silly.

Rpg rules only need to tell you what happens if both of you shout "bang!" at the same time while playing cop and robbers.

lacco36
2017-07-13, 08:37 AM
Then why RP rules in other systems?

Let's see...

So the other players expect you to RP your character even if it's not... "optimal".

So you get rewarded for roleplaying. And yeah, I know the argument "good roleplayer does not need in-game rewards, roleplaying is a reward!" and accept it - but I like being rewarded in-game.

And also - some of us like to have mechanics also for other things than combat.


Because the one thing that DOES need mechanics is counter operations between different individuals. Combat simply cannot be done via standard roleplay... trying results in the arguments 5 year olds have on whether or not their toy laser gun hit.
So while 95% of role playing can be adjudicated with rule zero, handling what cannot, mainly combat, needs more detailed mechanics.

Is persuading a bandit to leave the princess be a counter operation between different individuals...?

Also, 95% of combat can adjudicated with rule zero.

Example:
Me: I try to smash the person's head. Do I notice them wearing armor?
DM: Your perception is high enough to notice they have a new hat.
Me: I make an attack roll to deck them in the face.*roll* I got a 2.
DM: You try to smash their face in, but you instead deck yourself in the head.

Would this be fun to play?

For me not - and it depends on what you expect from the game. You expect mechanically-supported combat that has lots of crunchy bits. Ok, I accept that (I usually play RoS, so rule-heavy fast deadly combat is what I want). Some people would maybe like a court RPG where they trade veiled insults and compliments instead of spells and arrows.

But back to the question. I'm no D&D expert. So why play D&D when you want to roleplay? For me, it's not ideal choice, because it does not support roleplay - and while it allows you to roleplay, and allows the GM to reward you... how does it support roleplay?

Also, ask goto124 about D&D supporting roleplay :smallsmile:

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-13, 10:21 AM
If the things the d&d rule book says about rp are not rules, and transplanting those "not rules" to another game would not make that game an rpg, then the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that neither of you believe D&D is a role playing game. If none of the rp rules in D&D actually count, then by what measure can you say D&D is an rpg? So I ask you plainly, is D&D an RPG?
I consider it a dungeon tactics game with some vague roleplay expectations born more from tradition than the game itself. In essence, it is an rpg in a similar sense to what makes Final Fantasy an rpg. Final fantasy similarly doesn't care about your characterizations.

So it's kinda an RPG. Just barely not an RPG since you at least have an individual character and it mentions rp.




You mean if you take out all the rules that tell a player how to do something in a certain game, the players won't know how to do those things? Well of course. That's why these things (despite your protests to the contrary) are rules. If you took out all the paragraphs on mortgages and buying houses and banking from monopoly people wouldn't know to do those things either. Does that imply those aren't rules?

Again, paragraphs saying "you should roleplay" are not a how-to guide or explanation or a rule.

An explanation of a rule's function is not a rule, but there is no rule being explained in your examples.

Again, saying D&D does not care about your roleplaying in any meaningful capacity is not a bad thing. It's literally just a statement of priority.

D&D values tactics and its dungeon delving gameplay loop very highly and the RP portion hardly at all.

You're taking a defensive stance when nothing is being accused. You don't stop being a roleplayer just because the game you play doesn't really support or care about your roleplay.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-13, 10:47 AM
Well at least we're both now in agreement that your statement that the D&D rules don't mention RP was wrong. So let me ask you next, provide an example of a "rule" that you feel tells players how to role play.

And for that matter to ensure we're on the same page, please provide your definition of "role playing"

Edit
-------

And for the record, I'm asking honestly here. I agree with the statement that D&D puts heavy emphasis on role playing a "kill them all and let the gods sort it out" style characters, quick to fight and kill, and does not emphasize mechanics for other forms of conflict resolution, I just can't agree that it doesn't have rules for role playing or support it. Role playing a murder hobo is still role playing, and you can do more with the tools D&D gives you than just role play a murderhobo

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-13, 11:20 AM
RPG rules are about conflict resolution

What would you call a trial or trade negotiation? :smallconfused:

1337 b4k4
2017-07-13, 11:52 AM
What would you call a trial or trade negotiation? :smallconfused:


Conflict resolution. Wouldn't you? A trial is a conflict over differing views on an event. A trade negotiation is a conflict of differing desires and demands. Not all conflict must be acrimonious mind you. But it is conflict none the less.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-13, 11:58 AM
Conflict resolution. Wouldn't you? A trial is a conflict over differing views on an event. A trade negotiation is a conflict of differing desires and demands. Not all conflict must be acrimonious mind you. But it is conflict none the less.

Yes, obviously. They're conflicts. So why wouldn't there be rules for resolving these conflicts if the game wants you to be doing them?

There's a reason why there's a stereotype of the D&D murderhobo party solving all their problems with liberal applications of violence. And that's because violence is the only thing D&D offers detailed support for.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-13, 03:24 PM
There's a reason why there's a stereotype of the D&D murderhobo party solving all their problems with liberal applications of violence. And that's because violence is the only thing D&D offers detailed support for.

Bingo. That's what I'm talking about when I say D&D doesn't really care about your fluffy RP stuff. It cares mostly about your gear and stats. 1 part RPn 9,999 parts killin' stuff.

Again, this isn't bad. It just means that, like all systems, D&D has strengths and weaknesses. It is really really good at dungeondelving, gungho, Winner-takes-all tactical actionmovie fantasy. It's excellent at that.

D&D is garbage for, for instance, political drama. Unless you homerule the hell out of it and/or just don't interact with the rules hardly at all. (At which point why bother? Do we really need to engage the turnbased combat rules just to stab a guy in the back?)

This is the essence of my point. D&D is not appropriate for things that demand more to the RP than just "this is why I kill stuff, etc."

Tanarii
2017-07-13, 05:48 PM
Yup. That's the vague not-really-a-mechanic-at-all that I was referring to.

100% up to the DM's whims by RAW and pretty much not indicative at all of what playing in accordance to any of these things looks like, how often to do this, etc. (Should playing by these traits negatively impact me before I get this? Is this just an extra boon for when I cleverly turn my flaw to my advantage? How do I as a DM know when someone is acting in accordance to the character's personality? How do I know what that personality is? What's the threshold for when this goes? These questions are left unanswered or up to the whims of the DM.)

This is still basically the same mechanic as "The DM can give you XP if you RP good" but slightly less vague and still exactly as much of an afterthought because D&D still doesn't care about your RP. At least, not "for realsies."
You really need to play 5e, or at least read both the PHB and the DMG, because there are many mistakes here.

For starters, Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw are specific things that each player writes on their character sheet. The DM can (and generally should) know what they are for each character. Although it does get a little hard to keep track in pickup groups like AL, especially large ones.

And the DMG expands on the PHB, including recommendations on how often to give it, when it's appropriate to give it, and alternate ways to award it.

Lastly, advantage exactly when you need it is not a small thing. It's huge.

It may not be your cup of tea, but to claim it's not really a mechanic or that 5e doesn't support role playing "for realsies" is utterly false.

Edit: not to mention that your definition of 'roleplaying' is clearly limited to "playing in-character". That's cool and all, I like that kind of thing. But D&D 5e supports making decisions for your character in the fantasy (ie not real) environment just fine mechanically. Which means it has tons of mechanical support for roleplaying in a general sense, as opposed to the more limited "method acting/in-character" sense.

Edit2:

None of these things are rules. Being in the rulebook doesn't make something a rule. I'm starting to think the disconnect here is that people don't understand what I mean by rules.
This is false. Everything in the book is a rule. They are just different kinds of rules. Resolution rules, setting rules, explanation rules, roleplaying rules. Etc. If you are talking about a subset, you need to be more specific. Because some rules cross lines, like roleplaying & resolution rules, or setting & resolution rules.

If you're trying to claim the rules are divided into either mechanical (ie real rules) or fluff (not real rules), well, you're another person making an utterly false claim.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-13, 07:02 PM
Yes, obviously. They're conflicts. So why wouldn't there be rules for resolving these conflicts if the game wants you to be doing them?

There's a reason why there's a stereotype of the D&D murderhobo party solving all their problems with liberal applications of violence. And that's because violence is the only thing D&D offers detailed support for.

There are rules for resolving those conflicts. I mean, again, just to use the 5e free rules, the rules laid out for "Social Interaction" state that it's made up of two parts, the roleplaying as previously described, and ability checks and skills, of which there is an entire chapter describing the abilities and skills and how they're used and how they interact. How you handle contests and when you passively apply these items and when you actively roll. I can't speak for the current full 5e rules, but certainly other editions had such various rules as reaction tables, non combat related spells and abilities. Heck even 4e, which is arguably the most combat focused D&D edition had skill checks and rules for awarding XP and other mechanical tokens for non-combat things, and the DMG has sections dedicated to non-combat encounters, and specific examples of how to apply the skills and challenges, and has specific rules for rewarding specific XP amounts for the completion of non-combat encounters.

Now, if you want to argue that these rules are far less detailed than the combat rules and could stand to be fleshed out more, I would agree with that assessment. I would argue they're less detailed for a number of reasons.
For one, I would say that social encounters (trials, negotiating trade) is a much more "fuzzy" activity than combat. How or why an NPC will react to certain behaviors by the PCs is almost entirely dependent on things that are just harder (or impossible) to spell out in rule books. Every NPC will be (or should be) different, with different motivations and different risk-reward concerns. Laying out detailed rules for how a negotiation or trial could go might feel too restrictive.
Secondly, when D&D has tried to be more detailed with social items, it's tended to result in crazy RAW arguments (see mind control Charm and mind control Diplomacy issues from 3.x).
Lastly, D&D is NOT a generic RPG, and it's not even a generic fantasy RPG. It was specifically designed to emulate and pay homage to certain pulp style fantasy fiction, which was often action and adventure oriented and focused less on the wheeling and dealing of merchants or the intricacies of trial by jury or by regent. In fact, given the style of adventures D&D was designed to emulate, I would argue that combat is something every such adventure has a high probability of seeing, where as, the deep mysteries of legislative and legal wrangling would not have been something every (or even most) of the adventures would deal with, so including large amounts of rules for things that would be applicable only to a smaller subset of tables would be counter productive to having more (and fleshing out more) rules for things that will apply to the majority of tables.



D&D is garbage for, for instance, political drama. Unless you homerule the hell out of it and/or just don't interact with the rules hardly at all. (At which point why bother? Do we really need to engage the turnbased combat rules just to stab a guy in the back?)

This is the essence of my point. D&D is not appropriate for things that demand more to the RP than just "this is why I kill stuff, etc."

And this is where I'm going to just say you and I aren't going to come to any agreement on this until we can come to an agreed definition of what role playing is. Because "this is why I kill stuff" is just as much role playing as "this is why I backstab people" (political drama), or "this is why I'm afraid" (horror RPG). I'm 100% behind the idea that D&D is not suited for all sorts of different role playing scenarios. Heck as I've said, I'm 100% behind that it isn't even suited for 100% of all fantasy role playing. But is is role playing, and it does have rules to support role playing, and support it beyond just killing things. Does it have heavy emphasis on killing things? Yes, it's an RPG designed to emulate old pulp adventures. But complaining that it doesn't have intricate rules for running a court room or a royal court is like complaining that Traveller doesn't have detailed rules for medieval sieges, or Call of Cthulhu doesn't have detailed rules for running a world spanning corporation. That's not the game the rules were designed for, but the lack of those rules doesn't mean the games don't support role playing.

Edit
------

I mean let's face it here. The game is literally called Dungeons and Dragons. Based on the title of the game, you can safely assume that the game is going to be about Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore a large chunk of the rules might be about role playing a character who deals with Dungeons and Dragons. To that end, information about how you slay a dragon (or get to the point where you can slay a dragon) is likely to be more prevalent (and relevant) than rules about how you run a merchant ship. But I would not argue that World Wide Wrestling (https://ndpdesign.com/wwwrpg/) doesn't support RP because it doesn't have detailed rules for conducting a trial or negotiating trade. It's called World Wide Wrestling, I would expect most of the rules to revolve around characters that deal with Wrestling.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-13, 07:26 PM
9 really need to play 5e, or at least read both the PHB and the DMG, because there are many mistakes here.

For starters, Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw are specific things that each player writes on their character sheet. The DM can (and generally should) know what they are for each character. Although it does get a little hard to keep track in pickup groups like AL, especially large ones.

And the DMG expands on the PHB, including recommendations on how often to give it, when it's appropriate to give it, and alternate ways to award it.

Lastly, advantage exactly when you need it is not a small thing. It's huge.

It may not be your cup of tea, but to claim it's not really a mechanic or that 5e doesn't support role playing "for realsies" is utterly false.

Edit: not to mention that your definition of 'roleplaying' is clearly limited to "playing in-character". That's cool and all, I like that kind of thing. But D&D 5e supports making decisions for your character in the fantasy (ie not real) environment just fine mechanically. Which means it has tons of mechanical support for roleplaying in a general sense, as opposed to the more limited "method acting/in-character" sense.

1. A set of tags is also not roleplaying rules. Koo talked about what we mean by RP rules.

2. Please do not inform me of my definition of roleplay. It's unbecoming. Roleplaying is, indeed, acting as a character. However, when limited to ONLY this, it will incidentally occur whenever you play as a specific character. I'll put it this way:
If Clue told you the personality tags of Colonel Mustard and crew, and told you that you could get a reroll if you acted like them, would it at its core become an RPG?
I don't have an answer, but my first instinct is to say "maybe, but only just barely."

So this tells you why I consider D&D to be an RPG

Edit2:

This is false. Everything in the book is a rule. They are just different kinds of rules. Resolution rules, setting rules, explanation rules, roleplaying rules. Etc. If you are talking about a subset, you need to be more specific. Because some rules cross lines, like roleplaying & resolution rules, or setting & resolution rules.

If you're trying to claim the rules are divided into either mechanical (ie real rules) or fluff (not real rules), well, you're another person making an utterly false claim.[/QUOTE]

So the table of contents is a rule?
The page numbers?
Any author commentary?
What about the recipe for "apopalypse corn" in the Apocalypse World rulebook?

This is exaggeration that proves the point:
There are things in rulebooks that are not rules. Generally it's anything that... isn't a rule.

Tanarii
2017-07-13, 08:15 PM
1. A set of tags is also not roleplaying rules. Koo talked about what we mean by RP rules.They aren't tags. They are motivations self-select by the player, as desired for their character. The DM then uses those self selected motivations to adjudicate the awarding of Inspiration. They are an important part of the 5e personality rules.

That you try to dismiss hem as 'Tags' indicates again that you don't understand how the 5e personality system works.


2. Please do not inform me of my definition of roleplay. It's unbecoming.I'm not informing you of your definition. I'm telling you what it's coming across as, and if it matches what it's coming across as, then it's a limited subset of the entirety of what Roleplaying actually is. Roleplaying is making decisions for your character in the fantasy (not real) world.

If a player chooses to have their character attack Orc A instead of Goblin B because reasons, that decision is roleplaying. And there are LOTS of rules in D&D to support resolution of those kinds of roleplaying. Decisions to fight, cast spells, explorer, have social interactions, etc.

However, limiting the discussion to support for Roleplaying as in 'in-character acting', and D&D's support (or lack thereof) is fine. My point was to point out that this is a subset of roleplaying.


Roleplaying is, indeed, acting as a character. However, when limited to ONLY this, it will incidentally occur whenever you play as a specific character. I'll put it this way:
If Clue told you the personality tags of Colonel Mustard and crew, and told you that you could get a reroll if you acted like them, would it at its core become an RPG?
I don't have an answer, but my first instinct is to say "maybe, but only just barely."The difference is a board game (or for that matter war game) requires you to follow the rules, and the rules are the entirety of possible actions. In an RPG, the rules are there to provide resolution as best as possible for a sub-set of possible things you can do as best they can, and have someone to adjudicate the actions for things the rules don't cover.

So no, clue would still be a board game even with personalities for the characters.


So this tells you why I consider D&D to be an RPGBecause it tries to provide a framework for resolution of decisions the player makes for their character in the fantasy (ie not real) universe?



Edit2:

This is false. Everything in the book is a rule. They are just different kinds of rules. Resolution rules, setting rules, explanation rules, roleplaying rules. Etc. If you are talking about a subset, you need to be more specific. Because some rules cross lines, like roleplaying & resolution rules, or setting & resolution rules.

If you're trying to claim the rules are divided into either mechanical (ie real rules) or fluff (not real rules), well, you're another person making an utterly false claim.


So the table of contents is a rule?
The page numbers?
Any author commentary?
What about the recipe for "apopalypse corn" in the Apocalypse World rulebook?

This is exaggeration that proves the point:
There are things in rulebooks that are not rules. Generally it's anything that... isn't a rule.Thats a circular definition. Which is my point. Attempts to divide rules books into 'rules' and 'not rules' are always either arbitrary, false claims, or attempts to push an agenda.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-13, 08:21 PM
This is false. Everything in the book is a rule. They are just different kinds of rules. Resolution rules, setting rules, explanation rules, roleplaying rules. Etc. If you are talking about a subset, you need to be more specific. Because some rules cross lines, like roleplaying & resolution rules, or setting & resolution rules.

This is just patently silly. Rules are not suggestions or advice. Rules are things that clearly state a requirement of some sort. "When speaking in character, you must speak with a silly accent or lose 10xp per word said." would be an example of an RP rule. Not a very good one, but a rule nonetheless.

Whether you agree or not isn't really relevant, though. When I'm talking about rules for roleplaying, I'm referring to the sort of rule I describe above. Whether or not other distinct things could be considered rules aren't important to my arguments.


There are rules for resolving those conflicts. I mean, again, just to use the 5e free rules, the rules laid out for "Social Interaction" state that it's made up of two parts, the roleplaying as previously described, and ability checks and skills, of which there is an entire chapter describing the abilities and skills and how they're used and how they interact. How you handle contests and when you passively apply these items and when you actively roll. I can't speak for the current full 5e rules, but certainly other editions had such various rules as reaction tables, non combat related spells and abilities. Heck even 4e, which is arguably the most combat focused D&D edition had skill checks and rules for awarding XP and other mechanical tokens for non-combat things, and the DMG has sections dedicated to non-combat encounters, and specific examples of how to apply the skills and challenges, and has specific rules for rewarding specific XP amounts for the completion of non-combat encounters.

I don't think I've claimed that D&D has no non-combat rules. 3.5e diplomacy exists, for example. What I am claiming is that these rules are a badly designed afterthought tacked on to the overwhelming focus of the game (combat). I've also claimed that specific examples people have brought up are not rules.


It was specifically designed to emulate and pay homage to certain pulp style fantasy fiction, which was often action and adventure oriented and focused less on the wheeling and dealing of merchants or the intricacies of trial by jury or by regent. In fact, given the style of adventures D&D was designed to emulate, I would argue that combat is something every such adventure has a high probability of seeing, where as, the deep mysteries of legislative and legal wrangling would not have been something every (or even most) of the adventures would deal with, so including large amounts of rules for things that would be applicable only to a smaller subset of tables would be counter productive to having more (and fleshing out more) rules for things that will apply to the majority of tables.

Frankly, I don't think it does a particularly good job of action fantasy either. Apart from arguably first edition, every edition of D&D bogs down into tactical combat when serious fighting starts. 4th edition is the worst in this regard. And frankly I don't think spending large amounts of every session on turn/grid based tactical combat emulates the feel of pulpy fantasy very well at all. Something I'd particularly like to see in pulpy fantasy combat RPG is better support for movement/terrain based tactics. Swinging on chandeliers and the like. Dungeon World is a much better game for pulp fantasy.

That doesn't mean you can't appreciate D&D for its tactical grid based combat, if that's your thing.


And this is where I'm going to just say you and I aren't going to come to any agreement on this until we can come to an agreed definition of what role playing is. Because "this is why I kill stuff" is just as much role playing as "this is why I backstab people" (political drama), or "this is why I'm afraid" (horror RPG). I'm 100% behind the idea that D&D is not suited for all sorts of different role playing scenarios. Heck as I've said, I'm 100% behind that it isn't even suited for 100% of all fantasy role playing. But is is role playing, and it does have rules to support role playing, and support it beyond just killing things. Does it have heavy emphasis on killing things? Yes, it's an RPG designed to emulate old pulp adventures. But complaining that it doesn't have intricate rules for running a court room or a royal court is like complaining that Traveller doesn't have detailed rules for medieval sieges, or Call of Cthulhu doesn't have detailed rules for running a world spanning corporation. That's not the game the rules were designed for, but the lack of those rules doesn't mean the games don't support role playing.

I agree that playing a fantasy conquistador butchering the native goblins and taking their stuff is absolutely a valid role to play. But again, I don't think tactical grid based combat is a particularly good way to display that role. See my above example of Torchbearer for a game that also involves nearly 100% dungeon delving and yet gives rules for supporting playing a role and adding characterization to that role. You cannot play Torchbearer without semi-frequently describing ways in which your character's quirks are hindering their chances. If you try you will be dead inside of a few sessions.

goto124
2017-07-13, 08:24 PM
I wonder how OP is doing with the combat-focused, not-so-RP-focused player.

When I play a game, I usually start off with solid mechanics and add on fluff afterwards, because it's much easier to adjust fluff to suit mechanics than to adjust mechanics to suit fluff. The latter is possible with system mastery, just that the former requires far less system mastery. In addition, if I make a mistake in the fluff, it's a relatively small and easy thing to fix compared to accidentally making my character too weak or too powerful. And not every bit of fluff has to line up to mechanics perfectly, even when mechanics provide inspiration for fluff.

herceg
2017-07-14, 02:58 AM
Yes, obviously. They're conflicts. So why wouldn't there be rules for resolving these conflicts if the game wants you to be doing them?

There's a reason why there's a stereotype of the D&D murderhobo party solving all their problems with liberal applications of violence. And that's because violence is the only thing D&D offers detailed support for.

There are, and it follows: talk (in-game), and when you get to a point where it is vital to decide who gets what he wants because participants can't agree (couldn't negotiate a solution), you roll the dice (social skills or iniative, whichever is needed).

Also I'm a bit confused. Do you say that games that have "roll the dice, see what happens" resolution to social situations as primary solution are more roleplay-friendly?

Calthropstu
2017-07-14, 01:13 PM
There are rules for resolving those conflicts. I mean, again, just to use the 5e free rules, the rules laid out for "Social Interaction" state that it's made up of two parts, the roleplaying as previously described, and ability checks and skills, of which there is an entire chapter describing the abilities and skills and how they're used and how they interact. How you handle contests and when you passively apply these items and when you actively roll. I can't speak for the current full 5e rules, but certainly other editions had such various rules as reaction tables, non combat related spells and abilities. Heck even 4e, which is arguably the most combat focused D&D edition had skill checks and rules for awarding XP and other mechanical tokens for non-combat things, and the DMG has sections dedicated to non-combat encounters, and specific examples of how to apply the skills and challenges, and has specific rules for rewarding specific XP amounts for the completion of non-combat encounters.

Now, if you want to argue that these rules are far less detailed than the combat rules and could stand to be fleshed out more, I would agree with that assessment. I would argue they're less detailed for a number of reasons.
For one, I would say that social encounters (trials, negotiating trade) is a much more "fuzzy" activity than combat. How or why an NPC will react to certain behaviors by the PCs is almost entirely dependent on things that are just harder (or impossible) to spell out in rule books. Every NPC will be (or should be) different, with different motivations and different risk-reward concerns. Laying out detailed rules for how a negotiation or trial could go might feel too restrictive.
Secondly, when D&D has tried to be more detailed with social items, it's tended to result in crazy RAW arguments (see mind control Charm and mind control Diplomacy issues from 3.x).
Lastly, D&D is NOT a generic RPG, and it's not even a generic fantasy RPG. It was specifically designed to emulate and pay homage to certain pulp style fantasy fiction, which was often action and adventure oriented and focused less on the wheeling and dealing of merchants or the intricacies of trial by jury or by regent. In fact, given the style of adventures D&D was designed to emulate, I would argue that combat is something every such adventure has a high probability of seeing, where as, the deep mysteries of legislative and legal wrangling would not have been something every (or even most) of the adventures would deal with, so including large amounts of rules for things that would be applicable only to a smaller subset of tables would be counter productive to having more (and fleshing out more) rules for things that will apply to the majority of tables.



And this is where I'm going to just say you and I aren't going to come to any agreement on this until we can come to an agreed definition of what role playing is. Because "this is why I kill stuff" is just as much role playing as "this is why I backstab people" (political drama), or "this is why I'm afraid" (horror RPG). I'm 100% behind the idea that D&D is not suited for all sorts of different role playing scenarios. Heck as I've said, I'm 100% behind that it isn't even suited for 100% of all fantasy role playing. But is is role playing, and it does have rules to support role playing, and support it beyond just killing things. Does it have heavy emphasis on killing things? Yes, it's an RPG designed to emulate old pulp adventures. But complaining that it doesn't have intricate rules for running a court room or a royal court is like complaining that Traveller doesn't have detailed rules for medieval sieges, or Call of Cthulhu doesn't have detailed rules for running a world spanning corporation. That's not the game the rules were designed for, but the lack of those rules doesn't mean the games don't support role playing.

Edit
------

I mean let's face it here. The game is literally called Dungeons and Dragons. Based on the title of the game, you can safely assume that the game is going to be about Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore a large chunk of the rules might be about role playing a character who deals with Dungeons and Dragons. To that end, information about how you slay a dragon (or get to the point where you can slay a dragon) is likely to be more prevalent (and relevant) than rules about how you run a merchant ship. But I would not argue that World Wide Wrestling (https://ndpdesign.com/wwwrpg/) doesn't support RP because it doesn't have detailed rules for conducting a trial or negotiating trade. It's called World Wide Wrestling, I would expect most of the rules to revolve around characters that deal with Wrestling.

Except you can do all of those things in D&D 3.5. I can role play a royal court without a single houserule within the d&d 3.5/pf ruleset using large numbers of skill checks without a single combat encounter. With a combination of skill encounters, you can pretty much play out any scenario you like.
And I, personally, prefer it greatly over the murderhobo style of play.
If all you do is combat, you are missing out on the vast majority of what d&d/pf has to offer.
Right now I have a character running a spy network (PF thrallherd) looking for evidence of an illithid plot. It's quite fun.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-14, 02:43 PM
Except you can do all of those things in D&D 3.5. I can role play a royal court without a single houserule within the d&d 3.5/pf ruleset using large numbers of skill checks without a single combat encounter. With a combination of skill encounters, you can pretty much play out any scenario you like.
And I, personally, prefer it greatly over the murderhobo style of play.
If all you do is combat, you are missing out on the vast majority of what d&d/pf has to offer.
Right now I have a character running a spy network (PF thrallherd) looking for evidence of an illithid plot. It's quite fun.

Once you're houseruling, you've stopped being part of what D&D has to offer because you had to add something in to get that.

This is like saying Whoppers come with bacon because you took one home, cooked up some bacon, and put it on.

When 90% of the rulebook is about one thing, the game is probably about that one thing more than anything else.

So again, this is the Oberoni Fallacy. Houseruling D&D to support more social stuff does not mean D&D natively supports social stuff any more than modding my iphone to run Linux means that iphones natively run on Linux.

ijon
2017-07-14, 02:50 PM
he literally said he's not using houserules though

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-14, 03:22 PM
There are, and it follows: talk (in-game), and when you get to a point where it is vital to decide who gets what he wants because participants can't agree (couldn't negotiate a solution), you roll the dice (social skills or iniative, whichever is needed).

As I've said, these systems are tacked on and perfunctory. Because D&D is not about them. They're a token effort in addition to the actual focus of the game.

It's equally as viable to talk about a fight and then decide who wins that fight without rolling dice. You don't actually need any rules whatsoever to tell a story together, people have been doing it for thousands of years. We add rules because it's fun and because we're playing a game. And adding in rules for social situations is every bit as valid as adding in rules for combat.


Also I'm a bit confused. Do you say that games that have "roll the dice, see what happens" resolution to social situations as primary solution are more roleplay-friendly?

Games are about what the mechanics are about. D&D mechanics are overwhelmingly combat focused, therefore the game is largely about combat. In games with better mechanics for non-combat things then you tend to get more focus on those things.


Except you can do all of those things in D&D 3.5. I can role play a royal court without a single houserule within the d&d 3.5/pf ruleset using large numbers of skill checks without a single combat encounter. With a combination of skill encounters, you can pretty much play out any scenario you like.
And I, personally, prefer it greatly over the murderhobo style of play.
If all you do is combat, you are missing out on the vast majority of what d&d/pf has to offer.
Right now I have a character running a spy network (PF thrallherd) looking for evidence of an illithid plot. It's quite fun.

I'm glad you're having fun. That doesn't change the fact that you're putting a greater focus on these things than D&D intended and the game doesn't do a particularly good job of supporting you. If you're doing social/intrigue games then you would probably be having a better time playing a system that offers better support for these things than D&D does.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-14, 03:40 PM
It's equally as viable to talk about a fight and then decide who wins that fight without rolling dice.

I disagree entirely.

Talking is the same thing that your characters are doing.

To do something equally viable for combat you would all have to put on armor, have real swords, somehow have real magic, and fight real monsters in place of your characters.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-14, 03:49 PM
I disagree entirely.

Talking is the same thing that your characters are doing.

To do something equally viable for combat you would all have to put on armor, have real swords, somehow have real magic, and fight real monsters in place of your characters.

You are not your character. Your characters have skills that you do not have, you have skills that your characters do not have, you are not in the situation your characters are in experiencing what they experience and feeling what they feel.

Tanarii
2017-07-14, 04:03 PM
This is just patently silly. Rules are not suggestions or advice. Rules are things that clearly state a requirement of some sort. "When speaking in character, you must speak with a silly accent or lose 10xp per word said." would be an example of an RP rule. Not a very good one, but a rule nonetheless.

Whether you agree or not isn't really relevant, though. When I'm talking about rules for roleplaying, I'm referring to the sort of rule I describe above. Whether or not other distinct things could be considered rules aren't important to my arguments.Well then, even under your own definition of what are and what are not rules, as best as I can tell where you've drawn the imaginary line, and assuming we're all talking about 'in-character acting' when we say roleplaying moving forward in this thread ... 5e D&D STILL has roleplaying rules. It actually has several, but I'm sure you'd write some of them off as 'not really rules' under your imaginary line for what is and is not a rule, such as Paladin Tenets and Only Evil Casters aSnimate Dead Frequently.

But specifically it has one that provides a mechanical resolution rule benefit based on 'Roleplaying', and defines when you should get it, and defines how to create the customizable categories under which it is adjudicated whether or not you get it.

Is it as good as some mechanical resolution rules of other systems? No way. Not even close, not even in the same ballpark. I'd be making a completely false claim if I tried to say that. As you noted, Torchbearer, which does something very similar with Beliefs, Traits, Nature, etc, does the mechanical aspect of it WAY better. At the cost of incredible complexity, but if you're willing to pay that cost, it's great.

But it exists in the current version of D&D, and in keeping with the goals and intended use of that version, it's relatively simple and easy to use.

(As a side note, D&D 5e does a far better job of providing solid examples of Personality system traits than Torchbearer does for its Beliefs, Goals, and Wises, although Torchbearer Traits aren't bad.)

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-14, 04:38 PM
he literally said he's not using houserules though

Woops. My bad. I misread it. A case against posting from work.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-14, 04:52 PM
Well then, even under your own definition of what are and what are not rules, as best as I can tell where you've drawn the imaginary line, and assuming we're all talking about 'in-character acting' when we say roleplaying moving forward in this thread ... 5e D&D STILL has roleplaying rules. It actually has several, but I'm sure you'd write some of them off as 'not really rules' under your imaginary line for what is and is not a rule, such as Paladin Tenets and Only Evil Casters aSnimate Dead Frequently.

But specifically it has one that provides a mechanical resolution rule benefit based on 'Roleplaying', and defines when you should get it, and defines how to create the customizable categories under which it is adjudicated whether or not you get it.

Is it as good as some mechanical resolution rules of other systems? No way. Not even close, not even in the same ballpark. I'd be making a completely false claim if I tried to say that. As you noted, Torchbearer, which does something very similar with Beliefs, Traits, Nature, etc, does the mechanical aspect of it WAY better. At the cost of incredible complexity, but if you're willing to pay that cost, it's great.

But it exists in the current version of D&D, and in keeping with the goals and intended use of that version, it's relatively simple and easy to use.

(As a side note, D&D 5e does a far better job of providing solid examples of Personality system traits than Torchbearer does for its Beliefs, Goals, and Wises, although Torchbearer Traits aren't bad.)

I don't think anyone argued that it has 0 rules for RP. Not even me. Just that it has a bare minimum, and they are vague and illformed compared to the combat rules.

Literally the entire point I and KR have been getting at is that D&D is clumsy at best when it comes to RP. (Many page long Paladin arguments, alignment arguments, diplomacy arguments....) Things that generally don't occur for systems with better RP rules.

Yes, the Paladin Tenents are basically an RP rule. In the most stripped-down form. (Here's a list of no-no actions for you, etc.) A good starting point, used almost exclusively as a stick with no real carrot unless you count lack-of-stick as a carrot.

Most RP stuff in D&D follows this no-no list formula, restrictions rather than allowances or positive guidance.

D&D is, as a system, about what it is about. Namely, killing stuff in dungeons. This is to say, to bring it back to the point, that someone playing D&D primarily for killing stuff in dungeons is not playing it wrong. In fact, they're playing more in line with what the system is good at than those who don't.

Again, this is not an attack or accusation or badspeaking of D&D. It's a hammer. Other systems are screwdrivers. Yes, a hammer can put in a screw and a screw can put in a nail, both with some difficulty, but it can be done. You'd just have an easier time using a more appropriate tool.

Tanarii
2017-07-14, 05:07 PM
D&D is, as a system, about what it is about. Namely, killing stuff in dungeons. This is to say, to bring it back to the point, that someone playing D&D primarily for killing stuff in dungeons is not playing it wrong. In fact, they're playing more in line with what the system is good at than those who don't.

Again, this is not an attack or accusation or badspeaking of D&D. It's a hammer. Other systems are screwdrivers. Yes, a hammer can put in a screw and a screw can put in a nail, both with some difficulty, but it can be done. You'd just have an easier time using a more appropriate tool.
Can't disagree with that. Although to be more complete description, it's about killing stuff and getting loot in dungeons, with the emphasis on which is more important varying from edition to edition.

Torchbearer is a really good contrast. It's a game about killing stuff and getting loot and roleplaying in dungeons. Roleplaying (meaning in-character 'acting') is a key component in the game. If you don't do it, you're going to have a Bad Time.

(And in both, making decisions for your character. Which I harp on partly because I consider that to be the core of all roleplaying games. But also because I think it's the most interesting part. :smallwink: )

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-14, 05:31 PM
Well then, even under your own definition of what are and what are not rules, as best as I can tell where you've drawn the imaginary line, and assuming we're all talking about 'in-character acting' when we say roleplaying moving forward in this thread ... 5e D&D STILL has roleplaying rules. It actually has several, but I'm sure you'd write some of them off as 'not really rules' under your imaginary line for what is and is not a rule, such as Paladin Tenets and Only Evil Casters aSnimate Dead Frequently.

I've never said D&D doesn't have roleplaying rules. What I have said is that those rules aren't the primary focus of the game and are rarely well designed.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-14, 07:49 PM
Can't disagree with that. Although to be more complete description, it's about killing stuff and getting loot in dungeons, with the emphasis on which is more important varying from edition to edition.

Torchbearer is a really good contrast. It's a game about killing stuff and getting loot and roleplaying in dungeons. Roleplaying (meaning in-character 'acting') is a key component in the game. If you don't do it, you're going to have a Bad Time.

(And in both, making decisions for your character. Which I harp on partly because I consider that to be the core of all roleplaying games. But also because I think it's the most interesting part. :smallwink: )

I mentioned the loot as part of the gameplay loop enough in previous posts that I figured it went without saying by now.

Tanarii
2017-07-14, 08:19 PM
I mentioned the loot as part of the gameplay loop enough in previous posts that I figured it went without saying by now.
The reason it jumped out at me is it was pretty much the primary purpose for a while. After gygax reduced the creature XP from oD&D significantly, loot was the way to advance. I've player BECMI pretty close to BtB somewhat recently, and the best way to advance is to avoid combat as much as possible, while finding as much loot as possible. Combat is lethal and doesn't provide much XP, so there isn't a lot of incentive to engage in it.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-15, 11:33 AM
Frankly, I don't think it does a particularly good job of action fantasy either. Apart from arguably first edition, every edition of D&D bogs down into tactical combat when serious fighting starts. 4th edition is the worst in this regard. And frankly I don't think spending large amounts of every session on turn/grid based tactical combat emulates the feel of pulpy fantasy very well at all. Something I'd particularly like to see in pulpy fantasy combat RPG is better support for movement/terrain based tactics. Swinging on chandeliers and the like. Dungeon World is a much better game for pulp fantasy.


I would generally agree with you that Dungeon World is now a better game for emulating those old pulp stories. But I would point out that part of that is because D&D over the years has changed from trying to emulate old pulp fantasy, to emulating D&D fantasy. The game almost completely defined it's own new sub-genre of fantasy, and as a consequence has moved away from those older pulp stories to modern D&D style fantasy. Dungeon World also has the benefit of being a new system, with decades of game design experience behind it. D&D on the other hand is saddled with a legacy that gives it weight and prestige but also constrains how much it can do to fundamentally alter how the game is played. Look at it this way, even 5e, with their stated goal of moving away from simple +X magic items, still couldn't get away from +X magic items.



I agree that playing a fantasy conquistador butchering the native goblins and taking their stuff is absolutely a valid role to play. But again, I don't think tactical grid based combat is a particularly good way to display that role.

If all (or even most) of your time in a D&D game is spent in tactical grid based combat, that's an issue with your GM, not the game. All the other rules are there to be used, a failure to use them is the fault of the table.


Except you can do all of those things in D&D 3.5. ... It's quite fun.

My friend, I believe you and I are in violent agreement.


I don't think anyone argued that it has 0 rules for RP. Not even me.

If you haven't claimed it, you've come awful close. I mean the quote that got me into this discussion from you was this:

"So when we say that D&D doesn't care about RP, we can demonstrate it. The rules don't talk about it. At all. Even Diplomacy doesn't actually require RP. You can just say what you're convincing them of and go. "

But I'm willing to call that an "enthusiastic overstatement of the point", as arguing over what you actually meant is far less interesting than discussing the game.


Literally the entire point I and KR have been getting at is that D&D is clumsy at best when it comes to RP. (Many page long Paladin arguments, alignment arguments, diplomacy arguments....) Things that generally don't occur for systems with better RP rules.

Yes, the Paladin Tenents are basically an RP rule. In the most stripped-down form. (Here's a list of no-no actions for you, etc.) A good starting point, used almost exclusively as a stick with no real carrot unless you count lack-of-stick as a carrot.


I would argue that if those games were played on the scale that D&D is played on, you would see many such arguments. The thing a lot of these smaller games have going for them is a smaller fan base. As a result those fans, both GMs and players alike, are far more invested in the game. Take Dungeon World for example, the Druid "Good" alignment move is "Help something or someone grow". The Fighter's "Neutral" move is "Defeat a worthy opponent." The "Chaotic" Theif: "Leap into danger without a plan." The neutral Wizard: "Discover something about a magical mystery.". All of those are as vague and GM handwavy as any of the D&D paladin rules are, and they're all dependent on your GM providing you the opportunities in the first place. I posit that if Dungeon World was played on the same scale that D&D was, we'd see just as many Talkeal horror stories about bad Dungeon World GMs and Player/GM expectation mismatches as we do for D&D.



Most RP stuff in D&D follows this no-no list formula, restrictions rather than allowances or positive guidance.


Unfortunately, since AD&D, D&D has been largely more and more about what you can't do than what you can. This isn't an RP rules problem, but the result of trying to control and constrain bad (or just inexperienced) players with rules, and trying to get consistency across tables.


D&D is, as a system, about what it is about. Namely, killing stuff in dungeons. This is to say, to bring it back to the point, that someone playing D&D primarily for killing stuff in dungeons is not playing it wrong. In fact, they're playing more in line with what the system is good at than those who don't.

Again, this is not an attack or accusation or badspeaking of D&D. It's a hammer. Other systems are screwdrivers. Yes, a hammer can put in a screw and a screw can put in a nail, both with some difficulty, but it can be done. You'd just have an easier time using a more appropriate tool.

Again though, you're now back to arguing that killing stuff in dungeons is somehow less role playing than backstabing people in a royal court. Role playing is role playing, whether it's killing stuff in dungeons, political intrigue, interplanetary trade, transhuman horror, running a wrestling company, or helplessly going insane against the abyss. Some games will have rules that focus more on one of these aspects than the others (D&D, World Wide Wrestling, Eclipse Phase, CoC, Traveller etc). Others will go for a more generic approach, neither focusing nor neglecting any one aspect (FATE, Savage Worlds (to a degree), GURPS etc). Just because a game focuses somewhere doesn't make it not a role playing game, nor does it make what that game is focusing on not role playing.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-15, 06:02 PM
My friend, I believe you and I are in violent agreement.
You can indeed use D&D for political drama in the same way you can use a hammer to put in a screw, but you'll have a harder time of it than with a screwdriver. More on this below.




If you haven't claimed it, you've come awful close. I mean the quote that got me into this discussion from you was this:

"So when we say that D&D doesn't care about RP, we can demonstrate it. The rules don't talk about it. At all. Even Diplomacy doesn't actually require RP. You can just say what you're convincing them of and go. "

But I'm willing to call that an "enthusiastic overstatement of the point", as arguing over what you actually meant is far less interesting than discussing the game.
Yes. I was overstating since at that point I'd talked about the minimal coverage several times and tempering myself at that point seemed like redundancy.



I would argue that if those games were played on the scale that D&D is played on, you would see many such arguments. The thing a lot of these smaller games have going for them is a smaller fan base. As a result those fans, both GMs and players alike, are far more invested in the game. Take Dungeon World for example, the Druid "Good" alignment move is "Help something or someone grow". The Fighter's "Neutral" move is "Defeat a worthy opponent." The "Chaotic" Theif: "Leap into danger without a plan." The neutral Wizard: "Discover something about a magical mystery.". All of those are as vague and GM handwavy as any of the D&D paladin rules are, and they're all dependent on your GM providing you the opportunities in the first place. I posit that if Dungeon World was played on the same scale that D&D was, we'd see just as many Talkeal horror stories about bad Dungeon World GMs and Player/GM expectation mismatches as we do for D&D.
My one counter to this idea is that there are forums dedicated to these systems, and they're actually fairly popular and still growing.

Even in such dedicated forums, these sorts of discussions are rare. What those Systems do that D&D doesn't is make the rules for arbitrating what suffices for those rules GM-facing rather than Player Facing. And, it has better support for other RP functions than just those tags, which are a small part of the whole system.




Unfortunately, since AD&D, D&D has been largely more and more about what you can't do than what you can. This isn't an RP rules problem, but the result of trying to control and constrain bad (or just inexperienced) players with rules, and trying to get consistency across tables.
Are you trying to infer that D&D has been making worse and worse rules overall over time, but that their RP rules are exempt from this downward spiral or...?

I'd think that worsening rules generally and worsening RP rules are totally divorced. They're certainly trying harder nowadays, but it's not exactly like they're trying anything new.




Again though, you're now back to arguing that killing stuff in dungeons is somehow less role playing than backstabing people in a royal court. Role playing is role playing, whether it's killing stuff in dungeons, political intrigue, interplanetary trade, transhuman horror, running a wrestling company, or helplessly going insane against the abyss. Some games will have rules that focus more on one of these aspects than the others (D&D, World Wide Wrestling, Eclipse Phase, CoC, Traveller etc). Others will go for a more generic approach, neither focusing nor neglecting any one aspect (FATE, Savage Worlds (to a degree), GURPS etc). Just because a game focuses somewhere doesn't make it not a role playing game, nor does it make what that game is focusing on not role playing.

Then allow me to explain why this doesn't follow.

If you want to RP a bunch of people killing stuff in dungeons for reasons that probably aren't going to be explored much, D&D is great. It has its wheelhouse and stays pretty firmly within it.


The only real layer of RP it gives support for is its most basic layer:
Make decisions for a character based on what's happening around them.

While you could say this is a sufficient description of what roleplaying is, it is insufficient in the same way describing Sculpting as "the art of taking some stuff and making it look like something" is insufficient while still technically being accurate.

In Political Drama, things like opinion, alliance, betrayal, diplomacy, secrecy, powerplays, and etc are in the forefront. In essence, that someone gets stabbed is not the important interaction when the King has one of the messengers killed. A life was ended, but that's the SECONDARY interaction. If the intent is to intimidate the foreign king, a system like The Burning Wheel will handle that kind of thing way better, because its skill system can handle that kind of thing with a depth appropriate to the actual interaction.

So yes, there is more RP in Political Drama stuff just because there is much more meaning behind the action. Backstabbing a Goblin is probably not filled with the same level of risk and payoff as backstabbing your uncle to unite the divided kingdom under your banner, and the mechanics for the second should maybe go beyond "Is he dead yes or no?" And the GM should be provided with the tools to guide such interactions.

D&D does not care who you are stabbing or why. It is only concerned with the stab itself. This is not true of all systems. Those systems have better support for deeper and more nuanced RP.

TL;DR
Roleplay is not a binary Present or Not Present.
There can be support for more or less or certain types and certain interactions. RP has a very broad and deep possible range. D&D covers a very small portion of that range.

World Wrestling can do the myriad interactions common to the Wrestling World, but its core system will break down and be unhelpful for Introspective Noir-type things. Because it doesn't care about that stuff. It also covers a pretty small portion of that range.

Other games cover broader ranges. Some cover even narrower ranges.

Games supply more or less support to the GM and Players within that envelope. D&D doesn't particularly care about who you're stabbing or why it's important. (Well, it cares about the who inasmuch as to check their stats for stabbing purposes.) So their RP support is small.

This is not a qualitative call stating that people who RP dungeoncrawling are doing less RP. It is a statement of system and system only.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-16, 01:11 AM
My one counter to this idea is that there are forums dedicated to these systems, and they're actually fairly popular and still growing.

Even in such dedicated forums, these sorts of discussions are rare. What those Systems do that D&D doesn't is make the rules for arbitrating what suffices for those rules GM-facing rather than Player Facing. And, it has better support for other RP functions than just those tags, which are a small part of the whole system.

There's literally no additional rules on arbitrating alignment satisfaction in DW. The whole section on Alignment in the rules reads exactly like the sort of soft "suggestions" that you previously dismissed as "not rules". But beyond that, the existence and popularity of those forums dedicated to those systems is still besides the point, that those systems are played by a much smaller subset (and a much more dedicated subset) of the TTRPG population that D&D is. Our hobby is tiny as it is, and these indie games are an even smaller chunk of the hobby. To demonstrate, the DnD subreddit has 288k subscribers. The Dungeon World one has 5k, FATE has 3k, and Burning Wheel has 1k. That's 1.7%, 1% and 0.3% of subscribers compared to D&D. Even if those ratios aren't directly representative of their player base (due to for example, the fact that say BW players don't surf reddit), they will work for the point I'm trying to make.

Let's assume that all of these subscribers are representative and play and post online. Let's further assume that 5% of these players will encounter problems with the vagueness of the rules for role playing in their chosen system each year. That would mean that on the D&D forum, they would see 14,400 instances per year (more than the whole player base of any of the other games), or almost 40 posts a day. The other games break down as follows:

DW: 250 / year, about 5 times a week

FATE: 150/year, about 3 times a week

BW: 50 / year, about once a week.

Just by the very fact that these games are played by smaller subsets of players means the number of issues you see from them will be vastly dwarfed by the number you see from D&D. Then if you consider the likelihood that D&D is far more likely than DW, FATE or BW to be the entry point for new and inexperienced players, and you'll probably find the D&D's problem reporting is higher than the others on a per capita basis as well, just due to that. These other games are not subjected to the substantial real world beatings that D&D is subjected too, and so I would argue that any attempt to use the amount of issues complaints you find online about them to measure their relative completeness or quality is a flawed analysis.



Are you trying to infer that D&D has been making worse and worse rules overall over time, but that their RP rules are exempt from this downward spiral or...?

I'd think that worsening rules generally and worsening RP rules are totally divorced. They're certainly trying harder nowadays, but it's not exactly like they're trying anything new.

Through the 3.x era, D&D steadily tried to make more and more rules that had the ultimate effect of being a list of things your character can't do. This is why we got so many discussions in the 3.x era of "does the fact that there is a skill X or feat Y mean that if you don't have said skill or feat you can't do it at all?" This affected combat and non combat rules alike, so no I don't think the "RP" rules were exempt or that their worsening is divorced from the overall "rules as sticks" period that D&D went though. 4e is just a weird time and I"m excluding it from this analysis, and 5e has taken steps back from "rules as sticks" towards "rules as frameworks"

As for them not trying anything new, frankly they can't do much. Look at how much virtual ink and blood was spilt over bounded accuracy and dis/advantage. The verdict now that the game is out and people have been playing seems to be that it actually works well in practice, but in the lead up to the release, you would have thought the world was ending there was so much clothes rending.




TL;DR
Roleplay is not a binary Present or Not Present.
There can be support for more or less or certain types and certain interactions. RP has a very broad and deep possible range. D&D covers a very small portion of that range.

I would argue D&D covers breadth, but not depth. D&D has rules for diplomacy, it has rules for trade, it has rules for negotiation. Depending on your version it has rules for actually running a kingdom. It's not that D&D doesn't support role play, because it does. Your issue appears to be that it doesn't support role play in a given aspect with the depth that you would like. And that's ok, and it's likely something I would agree with you on. But that is a fundamentally different statement than "D&D doesn't support role playing" or "D&D doesn't support role playing well". Both of those statements are as silly as saying "D&D doesn't support fantasy" because the rules don't do Naruto well.

But at this point, I think we're arguing in circles, largely because you and I appear to be using very different definitions of "role playing". I more or less subscribe to what you called the "most basic layer", and you clearly have more. I've asked for your definition and to my recollection you haven't provided it. I don't think you and I are going to get any further in this until and unless we're using the same definition, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation now. It was fun.:smallsmile:

goto124
2017-07-16, 01:34 AM
As I recall, DnD Diplomancy is roll dice, add Charisma modifiers, and see who wins.

War_lord
2017-07-16, 01:43 AM
As I recall, DnD Diplomancy is roll dice, add Charisma modifiers, and see who wins.

For a roll to apply there needs to be a chance of success or failure. Terrible diplomacy has no chance of success, great diplomacy is guaranteed to work.

Guizonde
2017-07-16, 06:32 AM
As I recall, DnD Diplomancy is roll dice, add Charisma modifiers, and see who wins.

i remember an alternate rule regarding diplomacy involving playing it out between your character and the dm and then rolling the dice, the modifiers of which were based on cha and skill points along with a modifier based on what you said. couldn't for the life of me remember where i saw it though, could be in the 3.0 dmg or the hardcover unearthed arcana for all i know.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-16, 09:34 AM
There's literally no additional rules on arbitrating alignment satisfaction in DW.
You'll need to check the Agenda and Principles, especially the How to GM section therein. I may be mixing it up with Apocalypse World, but I'm fairly certain there's a bit in the GM's section describing, almost word for word, that "it is your job to support the players, not deny them bonuses." And, a heavy emphasis on acting with honesty. (And these are codified in a way D&D only suggests. PbtA games tend to make the GM follow rules. DW does exactly that. There isn't really a Rule 0.)

As for the rest, we really don't have many numbers beyond "D&D has many and others have less" and I am one of those poor souls who tried to find TRPG market data. And let me tell you... it was hard to find anything concrete.



Through the 3.x era, D&D steadily tried to make more and more rules that had the ultimate effect of being a list of things your character can't do. This is why we got so many discussions in the 3.x era of "does the fact that there is a skill X or feat Y mean that if you don't have said skill or feat you can't do it at all?" This affected combat and non combat rules alike, so no I don't think the "RP" rules were exempt or that their worsening is divorced from the overall "rules as sticks" period that D&D went though. 4e is just a weird time and I"m excluding it from this analysis, and 5e has taken steps back from "rules as sticks" towards "rules as frameworks"
Thanks for clarifying.



As for them not trying anything new, frankly they can't do much. Look at how much virtual ink and blood was spilt over bounded accuracy and dis/advantage. The verdict now that the game is out and people have been playing seems to be that it actually works well in practice, but in the lead up to the release, you would have thought the world was ending there was so much clothes rending.
There are ways to change things up without angering many. For instance, a lighter, "for-beginners" D&D released as a companion system to an edition could be a place for experimentation. It would especially help given how many people I've either talked to personally or online about wanting to get into D&D but being intimidated by the size and cost of the books. (The Entrance Fee, as it were.)





I would argue D&D covers breadth, but not depth. D&D has rules for diplomacy, it has rules for trade, it has rules for negotiation. Depending on your version it has rules for actually running a kingdom. It's not that D&D doesn't support role play, because it does. Your issue appears to be that it doesn't support role play in a given aspect with the depth that you would like. And that's ok, and it's likely something I would agree with you on. But that is a fundamentally different statement than "D&D doesn't support role playing" or "D&D doesn't support role playing well". Both of those statements are as silly as saying "D&D doesn't support fantasy" because the rules don't do Naruto well.
As I said, there are varying amounts of support regardless of breadth. Those two things don't correlate. They just coexist.

D&D stops, for most characters, at the WHAT layer.
"What are you doing?"
It sometimes dips down to the How layer
"How are you doing it?"
And only rarely dips down to the Why layer
"Why are you doing it?"
(Again, this is the SYSTEM. I don't care what questions your GM asks, the system doesn't tell him to ask questions.)

Burning Wheel lives in the Why area and derives the other two from there.



But at this point, I think we're arguing in circles, largely because you and I appear to be using very different definitions of "role playing". I more or less subscribe to what you called the "most basic layer", and you clearly have more. I've asked for your definition and to my recollection you haven't provided it. I don't think you and I are going to get any further in this until and unless we're using the same definition, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation now. It was fun.:smallsmile:

I'd go into detail about it but it would take a long time to go through in the same way you can't talk about what Art is without talking about what Painting and Sculpture and Architecture and Acting and Writing are. Ya feel me?

But yes, it was very fun.

Tanarii
2017-07-17, 05:00 PM
You'll need to check the Agenda and Principles, especially the How to GM section therein. I may be mixing it up with Apocalypse World, but I'm fairly certain there's a bit in the GM's section describing, almost word for word, that "it is your job to support the players, not deny them bonuses." And, a heavy emphasis on acting with honesty. (And these are codified in a way D&D only suggests. PbtA games tend to make the GM follow rules. DW does exactly that. There isn't really a Rule 0.) I disagree. Strongly.

I've recently read through Apocalypse World & Dungeon World, and they are about as FAR from codified as you can get. The entire concept of Agenda & Principles is just advice & rule 0 phrased in flowery language. There's nothing codified about it at all. Same with almost all the 'rules' (moves).

At this point having read these systems, it blows my mind that anyone can complain about 5e's DM adjudication system being so DM fiat. (Referring to DC setting here.) Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are DM Fiat on steroids.

Torchbearer has rules that not only encourage in-character acting, but provide an immediate effect if the player does so. Those are strong 'roleplaying' mechanical rules. Apocalypse World and Dungeon World barely have rules, let alone mechanical rules that encourage in-character acting.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-17, 06:43 PM
I disagree. Strongly.

I've recently read through Apocalypse World & Dungeon World, and they are about as FAR from codified as you can get. The entire concept of Agenda & Principles is just advice & rule 0 phrased in flowery language. There's nothing codified about it at all. Same with almost all the 'rules' (moves).

At this point having read these systems, it blows my mind that anyone can complain about 5e's DM adjudication system being so DM fiat. (Referring to DC setting here.) Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are DM Fiat on steroids.

Torchbearer has rules that not only encourage in-character acting, but provide an immediate effect if the player does so. Those are strong 'roleplaying' mechanical rules. Apocalypse World and Dungeon World barely have rules, let alone mechanical rules that encourage in-character acting.

Matter of opinion, then. Or in the case of "Rule-0 but flowery" either a misunderstanding of what Rule 0 is or a misunderstanding of what the systems say. Dungeon World outright commands the GM to follow the rules, quite the opposite of saying the rules are only suggestions to be changed as you see fit. And the Agenda and Principles are also firmly laid out as gospel for the GM. If you just googled them, you may miss that. Also if you only skimmed them for damming evidence. Maybe neither happened and you just missed it? Apocalypse World makes it fairly clear. Give me a moment.




There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this.

So the "not rules" and "just rule 0" are blatantly false as shown in the text. The GM follows those rules or else you're not playing Apocalypse World. End of story.

But then again most people coming from a background of games where mechanics stand alone and aren't triggered necessarily by fiction, they can be difficult to parse.

I'll explain it this way:
If you aren't acting as your character, the system will not support you and the GM, by rules, won't let you make moves if you just call out moves you want to do. He will say, quoting the book, "Cool. But what do you DO?" Because what the character is doing in the fiction is what matters. I really don't care that you want to Sieze by Force from nowhere. I need to know what you're DOING and sometimes you're flat-out wrong about what move you're triggering if you go backwards like that.

In short, if you aren't acting as your character, THE SYSTEM JUST DOESN'T WORK.

The rules are all codified in pretty standard programmer logic, just with fuzzy inputs. (The outputs are fairly concrete.)

IF (you are threatening physical violence) THEN (roll this)

It uses fuzzy inputs because many things may count as this. There is no one way to threaten physical violence, but you know it is happening when it is happening.

The issue comes when you try to use a move backwards, trying to Roll without establishing the What and the Why. The GMs job is to honestly translate the actions in the fiction into moves.
(ALWAYS SAY: What Honesty Demands and If You Do It, DO IT. from AW) this is why I encourage new MCs to watch a lot of movies and translate various happenings into Moves and their outcomes. Because that's the direction it is supposed to go. Fiction flows into mechanics, and the only time that flow is reversed is in some Beginning of Session Moves (and of those, I think only Fortunes from 2e AW). Which are the vast minority.

For a brushup on where the guided RP rules lie, for AW look at the following:
-HX sections on playbooks
-Seduce/Manipulate rules
-Re-read the GM section without being on a witchhunt.
-PC-NPC-PC triangles section of The First Session
-How to Make NPCs section
Etc.

An incomplete reading will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Tanarii
2017-07-17, 10:46 PM
I read through the entirety of AW carefully and about half of DW so far. I still disagree with your assessment. The system is designed to heavily promote 'generate the story as you go', or generating a 'narrative' in play, which is awesome. I'm glad I read it so I could see what a system focused around that might look like. But it's no more codifying in-character acting than any other system does. It codifies character actions, followed by narrative outcomes (as opposed to causal ones). The goal of the system may encourage in-character acting due to strong associations with narrative /story-generating focus, but it doesn't directly encourage it. But codifying generic actions, followed by GM fiat (within guidelines) as to interpreting the the in-game results in a narrative generating fashion, is not the same thing. Even if isn't is distinctly different from codifying more specific actions, with more specific resulting outcomes, as D&D often does.

In short, narrative-oriented results based on GM fiat for character actions does not equal a mechanical system modified by in-character acting.

Again, I'll contrast this to torchbearer traits, where utilizing your in-character personality directly impacts an action being undertaken. Not only that, it encourages acting in-character in both ways that mechanically assist you right now, and mechanically hurt you immediately right now, in return for future benefit. In other words, it encourage playing to your character's personality in ways that can both benefit and hurt you mechanically.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-18, 07:23 AM
I read through the entirety of AW carefully and about half of DW so far. I still disagree with your assessment. The system is designed to heavily promote 'generate the story as you go', or generating a 'narrative' in play, which is awesome. I'm glad I read it so I could see what a system focused around that might look like. But it's no more codifying in-character acting than any other system does. It codifies character actions, followed by narrative outcomes (as opposed to causal ones). The goal of the system may encourage in-character acting due to strong associations with narrative /story-generating focus, but it doesn't directly encourage it. But codifying generic actions, followed by GM fiat (within guidelines) as to interpreting the the in-game results in a narrative generating fashion, is not the same thing. Even if isn't is distinctly different from codifying more specific actions, with more specific resulting outcomes, as D&D often does.

In short, narrative-oriented results based on GM fiat for character actions does not equal a mechanical system modified by in-character acting.

Again, I'll contrast this to torchbearer traits, where utilizing your in-character personality directly impacts an action being undertaken. Not only that, it encourages acting in-character in both ways that mechanically assist you right now, and mechanically hurt you immediately right now, in return for future benefit. In other words, it encourage playing to your character's personality in ways that can both benefit and hurt you mechanically.

HX rules,
DW's Bond system (which directly turns character interaction into XP)
The other rules I mentioned previously,
stats (doubly so for Highlighted stats)
And others still support my point.

Which, as it happens, is not that Apocalypse World has mechanical incentives as its primary form of support for RP. (It has that, too with Hx and Highlighted Stats, I'll leave you to play the game and learn why) Rather, Apocalypse World (unlike D&D) actually cares that you do. The system grinds to a halt if you don't rp, by RAW. I've watched this happen a few times in the 3 years I've been playing the game. Apocalypse World provides support for RP in the same way rich soil supports plant growth. It's a better environment for it to take place in, and provides this support using means less overt than just "Do RP, get cookie." Which is a great way to do it, but is not the entirety of possible methods.

Tanarii
2017-07-18, 10:31 AM
Hx is just a mechanical rule for resolving inter-character actions*. It has nothing to do with in-character personality "acting".

Like I said, the thing that makes AW more "fertile ground" is the strong association between narrative-generating rules (which AW and DW most decidedly are) and in-character personality playing. The rules write a lot about playing your character personality. But that's not the actual focus of the mechanical aspects of the rules. The 'fiction' is ... the interaction of the character's actions and reactions with the in-game world.

And guess what? That's what almost all D&D mechanical rules are for too. The difference is that (historically) in D&D, the mechanical rules for resolving character actions are often considered a separate concrete thing from DM narration. AW links the two together in a clear way, both mechanically and in explaining the importance of it.

If you consider AW rules to be mechanical roleplaying rules, then so is the entirety of D&D. Because both are about the broader sense of Role Playing. Making decisions regarding your character's actions in a fictional world. They just approach that differently.

*Edit: I missed what you meant. Yes, Hx, which is based on your character's perceptions of each other in a in-character personality way, definitely is an in-character acting affecting the mechanics rule. But being limited to inter-character actions, it is incredibly niche. Even D&D 5e's (unlinked to the personality action) inspiration granting 'advantage on any roll' is more generally applicable, let alone torchbearer's using your Trait for or against yourself in a directly linked personality action.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-18, 10:56 AM
I think the distinction is the concept of "Fiction First" in the PbtA games.

You describe what your character is doing narratively and if those descriptions trigger a move then you roll dice. In D&D you typically very much decide what you're doing mechanically and then sometimes you add in a description after that.

Tanarii
2017-07-18, 11:02 AM
I think the distinction is the concept of "Fiction First" in the PbtA games.

You describe what your character is doing narratively and if those descriptions trigger a move then you roll dice. In D&D you typically very much decide what you're doing mechanically and then sometimes you add in a description after that.
That's not how I run D&D personality at the moment. But that's only because I dropped battle mat play and heavily tactical combat focus after playing that way from 2e C&T through the end of 4e. :smallbiggrin:

So yeah, I agree that D&D is often played as fiction follows, not fiction first. And yes, that usually has implications on player's ability to do in-character acting, trying to play an alternate personality that is not their own.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-18, 11:04 AM
Hx is just a mechanical rule for resolving inter-character actions*. It has nothing to do with in-character personality "acting".

Like I said, the thing that makes AW more "fertile ground" is the strong association between narrative-generating rules (which AW and DW most decidedly are) and in-character personality playing. The rules write a lot about playing your character personality. But that's not the actual focus of the mechanical aspects of the rules. The 'fiction' is ... the interaction of the character's actions and reactions with the in-game world.

And guess what? That's what almost all D&D mechanical rules are for too. The difference is that (historically) in D&D, the mechanical rules for resolving character actions are often considered a separate concrete thing from DM narration. AW links the two together in a clear way, both mechanically and in explaining the importance of it.

If you consider AW rules to be mechanical roleplaying rules, then so is the entirety of D&D. Because both are about the broader sense of Role Playing. Making decisions regarding your character's actions in a fictional world. They just approach that differently.

*Edit: I missed what you meant. Yes, Hx, which is based on your character's perceptions of each other in a in-character personality way, definitely is an in-character acting affecting the mechanics rule. But being limited to inter-character actions, it is incredibly niche. Even D&D 5e's inspiration granting 'advantage on any roll' is more generally applicable, let alone torchbearer's using your Trait for or against yourself.

You also missed Highlighted stats, that Stats don't represent just capability but also personality (Hard is not just Strength, and doing things that require strength that require a roll +Cool if that's the more important happening. (Say, lifting a log off someone before the shelter burns down would be Cool, not Hard.)

You also missed Bonds from DW....

Oh, and the Seduce/Manipulate move as applied to PCs. Same with Go Aggro and, I think, the Battlebabe's Dangerous and Sexy move (more on remembering the right move than its content)
Help/Interfere rules tying directly into Hx mechanics....

There's a lot of small ways that RP and Mechanics intertwine once you actually play. From reading, you may not see it. In play, it becomes obvious. The mechanics foster RP through methods more nuanced than "Do RP, get Cookie." As I said.

D&D has improved a lot from 3.5 to 5e, but it's still not at the AW level of support and would need to make deep and fundamental changes to get there, such as throwing out Rule 0 and establishing a Correct Way To GM (Both of which AW did.) They would also need to codify and make official the Fiction turns into Mechanics, not the other way workflow. On paper this is a minor change. In the same way that the difference between water flowing uphill vs. Downhill is a minor change... but with major consequences.

Calthropstu
2017-07-19, 02:56 AM
Once you're houseruling, you've stopped being part of what D&D has to offer because you had to add something in to get that.

This is like saying Whoppers come with bacon because you took one home, cooked up some bacon, and put it on.

When 90% of the rulebook is about one thing, the game is probably about that one thing more than anything else.

So again, this is the Oberoni Fallacy. Houseruling D&D to support more social stuff does not mean D&D natively supports social stuff any more than modding my iphone to run Linux means that iphones natively run on Linux.

Whoever spouts oberoni fallacy is committing real fallacies. The Oberoni fallacy is not actually a fallacy.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-19, 09:56 AM
Whoever spouts oberoni fallacy is committing real fallacies. The Oberoni fallacy is not actually a fallacy.

Let me beat this by applying the general illogic as applied specifically by the Oberoni Fallacy and you tell me if the following statement follows:

Person 1: Your pipe is cracked and leaking water on the floor. I think your pipe might be broken.
Person 2: No, the pipe is not broken because duct tape exists.

Does person 2 make sense?

If no, the Oberoni Fallacy is a valid fallacy.

If yes, I don't want to live in your house.

Reason:
The Oberoni Fallacy is a specific and common form of Non Sequitur seen on these kinds of forums.

Namely, the logic of:
System has an error.
It is possible for a person to solve that error.
Therefore the error doesn't exist.

"Oberoni Fallacy" is shorthand for this Non Sequitur specifically.

The error exists whether rule 0 exists or not. Arguing that you can't point out errors because of Rule 0 os fallacious in the extreme, and based on inherently faulty logic.

Tanarii
2017-07-19, 12:06 PM
ImNotTrevor the problem is we're both thinking of things as complete separate that are strongly interrelated, and both conflating things that are separate but strongly interrelated. :smallbiggrin:

On Roleplaying:
There's making decisions for your character (meta-level or ur-roleplaying), there's playing your character's personality (acting roleplaying), and interactions between your character and another character or NPC (talking roleplaying).

On making rulings:
There's Rule 0 ruling (changing an existing system rule), there's DM-fiat ruling (requires DM to make decisions while arbitrating, either due to a lack of a rule or embedded in the rule), there's clarification ruling (arbitrating which interpretation of a rule is correct) and there's applying the mechanical resolution without any ruling*.

On rules and their purpose:
There's mechanical resolution rules, rules about making decisions for your character, rules related to playing your personality (ie gaining D&D 5e inspiration or using torchbearer traits), rules related to PC interactions (AW's Hx), rules related to NPC interactions (D&D 5e's DMG Social Table), rules related to player interactions (AW's Highlighting), rules related to how to DM/MC, rules related to how to narrate/describe, etc
There's hard rules and soft rules. (Often referred to as 'guidelines' and 'real rules' by people trying to push a certain rules agenda.)
There's prescriptive rules (rule determines outcome/narrative) and descriptive rules (action/narrative determines rule).

(I'm sure I'm missing some things these are just the places I've noticed we're focusing on so far.)


Whoever spouts oberoni fallacy is committing real fallacies. The Oberoni fallacy is not actually a fallacy.lol.

More importantly, DM-fiat is not the same thing as Rule 0, so the Oberoni fallacy does not apply. Rule 0 is about changing existing rules, often mechanical. Oberoni is about doing that to fix a problem with a mechanical rule not being a sufficient 'fix' for the problem. DM-fiat is about a DM making a decision as part of the adjudication. Either because there is no existing rule, or because A lack of rules that utilize or encourage playing your character's personality has nothing to do with rule 0. Adding rules that built in DM-Fiat to 'fix' it (unofficially) has nothing to do with Oberoni.

Circling back and critiquing my own arguments, nor does the game officially adding rules that utilize DM-fiat to change that mean there are effectively no rules. Which is a fallacious statement I made about AW upthread. It has rules for the MC that are completely DM-fiat. That doesn't make them not rules. However, those rules still have almost nothing to do with characters playing their personality. They are primarily rules for the fiction / narrative.

Edit: *completed this sentence.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-19, 01:22 PM
ImNotTrevor the problem is we're both thinking of things as complete separate that are strongly interrelated, and both conflating things that are separate but strongly interrelated. :smallbiggrin:


I'll just repeat what I said before and add 1 additional piece of anecdotal evidence to take or leave as you so choose. It doesn't really factor in my argument.

So the repeat:
There is more than one way to foster a good RP environment. A fiction -> mechanics workflow is one such method. Giving direct rewards for RP is another. Rewarding interaction and arbitrating inter-PC conflict in ways that allow agency (AKA Seduce/Manipulate) and a few others are also examples. On that much we agree. Where we disagree comes mostly from that workflow direction, which I'll sum up with my anecdote.

In my experience, brand new players who have never played a TRPG before get into the roleplaying side much faster with Apocalypse World than with D&D. Since the system literally requires RP before anything else can happen, things tend to move in the direction of fostering RP. D&D doesn't really require it on the same fundamental level. It can give you boosts, but it is highly secondary in the design. It's an add-on, not a core component. So, in my experience, new players get caught up in the complicated mechanics of D&D and don't grasp the RP need until much later. (Unless they already engage in some version of this, but even then it is slow compared to AW ime)

That's really it.

Tanarii
2017-07-19, 01:34 PM
That's really it.Except it isn't, because you aren't being clear what roleplaying is. Just that you think it's more than making decisions for your character in the fictional environment.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-19, 03:14 PM
Except it isn't, because you aren't being clear what roleplaying is. Just that you think it's more than making decisions for your character in the fictional environment.

All of the aspects you listed I agree with, and find to each individually be insufficient. As I said to another poster, describing my exact definition of RP would take a long time. (In large part because I've done it in more capacities than just TRPGs) There are aspects of the Actor, the Author, the GM, concepts like Bleed, and other facets all play their own roles in how I view roleplay. And yes, the tactical decisionmaking, even the metagame elements can be a part of the roleplaying.

You could probably have a many hours long Socratic Discussion on "What is Roleplay?" And I'd greatly enjoy it.

But that's why I say there are more ways to foster and support Roleplay than "Do RP, Get Cookie." In the same way there's more ways to feed the hungry than passing out soup. That one is the most obvious, yes. But not necessarily the most impactful or the most important, depending upon circumstance.

Calthropstu
2017-07-20, 10:25 AM
Let me beat this by applying the general illogic as applied specifically by the Oberoni Fallacy and you tell me if the following statement follows:

Person 1: Your pipe is cracked and leaking water on the floor. I think your pipe might be broken.
Person 2: No, the pipe is not broken because duct tape exists.

Does person 2 make sense?

If no, the Oberoni Fallacy is a valid fallacy.

If yes, I don't want to live in your house.

Reason:
The Oberoni Fallacy is a specific and common form of Non Sequitur seen on these kinds of forums.

Namely, the logic of:
System has an error.
It is possible for a person to solve that error.
Therefore the error doesn't exist.

"Oberoni Fallacy" is shorthand for this Non Sequitur specifically.

The error exists whether rule 0 exists or not. Arguing that you can't point out errors because of Rule 0 os fallacious in the extreme, and based on inherently faulty logic.

The problem here is that you aren't thinking correctly.
"Oh, my pipe is leaking. I will tape it up so that there is no ponger a problem. Problem is now solved."
You are griping that the problem existed, which is silly. Duct tape fixed the problem, so the problem no longer exists.
In the case of D&D, it is more like purchasing an air bed. The air bed comes with instructions as well as some patches. The instructions say that small holes may develop over time, and that the patches will work to fix the issue.
Is the bed worthless because of that? No. Same with D&D.

goto124
2017-07-20, 10:28 AM
Nice use of the word 'patches' :smallbiggrin:

Though, does DnD provide those patches? If so, what are they?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-20, 10:32 AM
That's a bad analogy. The airbed gives you instructions on how to patch the hole and materials with which to do so.

A better analogy would be if it told you "Sometimes the airbed may develop holes. You have the right to fix it however you want."

Calthropstu
2017-07-20, 10:38 AM
Nice use of the word 'patches' :smallbiggrin:

Though, does DnD provide those patches? If so, what are they?

Rule zero can act as a patch for anything the gm doesn't like. Disallow any problem abilities fixes overpowered abilities, limiting book choices allows the gm to limit the field to rules he knows well, houseruling allows the gm to alter rules he dislikes.

D&D/PF gives 100% control to the GM giving him free reign to act as he likes to set the game as he wants.

Calthropstu
2017-07-20, 10:41 AM
That's a bad analogy. The airbed gives you instructions on how to patch the hole and materials with which to do so.

A better analogy would be if it told you "Sometimes the airbed may develop holes. You have the right to fix it however you want."

Actually, D&D gives you patches... (FAQ, errata etc) but gives you the "Other methods may work, feel free to improvise."

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-20, 03:14 PM
The problem here is that you aren't thinking correctly.
"Oh, my pipe is leaking. I will tape it up so that there is no ponger a problem. Problem is now solved."
You are griping that the problem existed, which is silly. Duct tape fixed the problem, so the problem no longer exists.
In the case of D&D, it is more like purchasing an air bed. The air bed comes with instructions as well as some patches. The instructions say that small holes may develop over time, and that the patches will work to fix the issue.
Is the bed worthless because of that? No. Same with D&D.

The existence of a solution does not invalidate the existence of a problem.

And in this case, the bed already comes with holes. It is not unreasonable to expect an airbed to not come with holes in it already that you have to patch before it will work.

The system did not develop all of its holes over time. IT CAME WITH THEM. This is not a positive quality, patches or not.

And again, you have not solved the Non Sequitur.
It is inherently self-contradictory.
"You can't complain about the existence of a problem if you can solve it."
BS.

Dr_Dinosaur
2017-07-20, 09:13 PM
I'm starting to think my definition of roleplay is completely different than many people on this board. See, I think every in-character decision you make during play is roleplay, because your character is performing the action and you are playing the role of your character. That's anything from choosing between moving to flank for the Rogue instead of patching up the downed Fighter to standing around talking in character about exotic spice trade deals for six hours to rolling Diplomacy to convince someone of something. It's all roleplaying and you can do it in D&D.

And people always hold WoD as High Roleplay but it restricts your play just as much as D&D, just in a different way and while constantly patting itself on the back for being a "storytelling game"

Boci
2017-07-20, 09:42 PM
The existence of a solution does not invalidate the existence of a problem.

And in this case, the bed already comes with holes. It is not unreasonable to expect an airbed to not come with holes in it already that you have to patch before it will work.

The system did not develop all of its holes over time. IT CAME WITH THEM. This is not a positive quality, patches or not.

And again, you have not solved the Non Sequitur.
It is inherently self-contradictory.
"You can't complain about the existence of a problem if you can solve it."
BS.

So what would be the ideal system for a political drama game? Because to me, political drama requires a fleshed out world with coherent ideals and competing factions that the players have a stake in, which doesn't really rely on a system.

goto124
2017-07-20, 10:05 PM
See, I think every in-character decision you make during play is roleplay, because your character is performing the action and you are playing the role of your character. That's anything from choosing between moving to flank for the Rogue instead of patching up the downed Fighter

Everything in this post is IMO.

Roleplay consists of in-character decisions, right? But they have to be in-character. If I choose to flank instead of heal because my character prioritises taking out the enemy over taking care of my allies, that would be roleplay, for better or for worse. But if I make the same decision because my OOC self thinks taking out the enemy ASAP is the most tactical decision, with no consideration for my character's personality, that is not roleplaying.

I could make my character a tactican master, or someone who has the same level of tactics as I do. But that's isn't roleplaying, that's dodging roleplay altogether because I conciously make a character who is the same as me. Roleplay is about being someone who is different from me and has a decision-making process different from mine. Sometimes the decisions happen to line up, especially in the more clear-cut life-or-death situations, but roleplay should sometimes involve my character making decisions that I the player would not make.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-20, 10:08 PM
So what would be the ideal system for a political drama game? Because to me, political drama requires a fleshed out world with coherent ideals and competing factions that the players have a stake in, which doesn't really rely on a system.

The Burning Wheel.

Your relationships, traits, personality, stereotypes (both that you adhere to and that others place upon you), and intentions have mechanical weight just as much as, if not moreso, than how hard you swing a blade.

These can be leveraged both for and against you in a way that is not just fiat or handwaving, but with predictable effects. The intentions of your actions matter just as much as the What.
(For instance, dueling someone with the intent of impressing the king is A DIFFERENT ROLL than doing it with the intent of killing your opponent, but both will involve your Swordsmanship skill.)
This sort of thing is CRUCIAL to get the sort of double-purpose powerplay actions that occur in political drama without just handwaving and hoping it turns out right.

And of course, those things can exist free of system... but why not have a system that will allow those things to have an actual meaning and effect on your rolls, character sheet, and character development than be bits of scenery?

Boci
2017-07-21, 12:55 AM
And of course, those things can exist free of system... but why not have a system that will allow those things to have an actual meaning and effect on your rolls, character sheet, and character development than be bits of scenery?

Because some people don't think mechanics should govern those things?

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-21, 05:43 AM
Because some people don't think mechanics should govern those things?

There's a difference between governing and supporting. The rules don't dictate what the relationships should be, their scope, anything about the setting, or any of the important bits.

But they do make it so that being the secret lover of the Duchess' daughter can have actual impact. For instance, it can actually help you (or hinder you, depending on context) in a non-arbitrary way. The fiction turns into mechanics, not the other direction. You figure out the fiction first, in any case.

There's no reason why receiving a bonus to some rolls or having a clear and upfront understanding of the stereotypes affecting your character (and the abikity to turn these into XP) means that the system is governing over those things.

Spellbreaker26
2017-07-21, 06:21 AM
I think the reason that this argument keeps arising is that DnD (5e, especially) has room for roleplaying but doesn't demand it. Therefore despite the fact that huge amounts of the rulebook are dedicated purely to roleplaying advice, it isn't vital to play, so either camp can claim that DnD supports or doesn't support it.

People saying "DnD should just be a dungeon/combat simulator" - that's what DnD does really well, but it isn't the only thing that it can do. A little roleplaying can help contextualise the bread and butter dungeon crawling.

Bread and butter is actually the right term. Imagine the combat/dungeoneering as the bread, the roleplaying as the jam. Too much jam and it turns into a big mess; but too little, and it's just bland, and DnD allows a group to adopt the level of roleplaying that's right for them.

Tanarii
2017-07-21, 09:13 AM
I'm starting to think my definition of roleplay is completely different than many people on this board. See, I think every in-character decision you make during play is roleplay, because your character is performing the action and you are playing the role of your character. That's anything from choosing between moving to flank for the Rogue instead of patching up the downed Fighter to standing around talking in character about exotic spice trade deals for six hours to rolling Diplomacy to convince someone of something. It's all roleplaying and you can do it in D&D.I used to say "in-character decision" as well, but that's actually too limited. It's the player making decisions for their character in the fictional environment.

Otherwise you end up excluding people that are playing their character as an avatar of their own personality. And you still have a 'definition' that enables method acting role players to say something is not REAL role playing when it clearly is. Or people that think metagaming* is a real thing to wring their hands and cry about something that's still roleplaying. Or people who can't understand the difference between a board game and an RPG to make bad analogies.

*the metagame is a real thing. But not the way most people use it, as a derogatory about making decisions based on information the character 'can't have', or game rules. That's a BS thing that method actor RPers have invented from the whole cloth.
Edit: Two good articles on what I'm talking about re metagaming and roleplaying
http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/
http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

Guizonde
2017-07-21, 09:36 AM
I used to say "in-character decision" as well, but that's actually too limited. It's the player making decisions for their character in the fictional environment.

Otherwise you end up excluding people that are playing their character as an avatar of their own personality. And you still have a 'definition' that enables method acting role players to say something is not REAL role playing when it clearly is. Or people that think metagaming* is a real thing to wring their hands and cry about something that's still roleplaying. Or people who can't understand the difference between a board game and an RPG to make bad analogies.

*the metagame is a real thing. But not the way most people use it, as a derogatory about making decisions based on information the character 'can't have', or game rules. That's a BS thing that method actor RPers have invented from the whole cloth.
Edit: Two good articles on what I'm talking about re metagaming and roleplaying
http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/
http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

i always assumed metagaming was a way of gaming the game mechanics, counting spells expended and what not. things that are not known to the character because they have no knowledge of how to play the game. for what most people call "metagaming" on this board, i use "knowledge: 4th wall", which allows characters to have slightly out of character insight or reactions. it's a powerful tool to be lent by the dm at his discretion, but we play in a survival-horror black-comedy post-apocalyptic world, so the odd jarring humor bit is par for the course.

a typical "knowledge 4th wall" check might be:
pc 1:"i'm pretty sure this dude's got plot armor".
pc 2:"how do you know?"
pc 1:"well, he's been monologuing for 5 minutes in full view of us, and we haven't shot him yet"
dm: do a "4th wall" check.
pc 1: *rolls* 4 degrees of success.
dm: "you're damn right he's got plot armor! i didn't write this speech for the peanut gallery!"

it might also involve call-backs to previous campaigns that happened centuries ago, or visions of the past explaining current events. usually involves drugs and sanity checks, though.

we call out metagaming when somebody is counting bullets or calculating enemy damage reduction, armor points, or things like that. especially when it's in character. so rather than stigmatize all metagaming, we made it a mechanic that enhances the story. it is a homebrew system, after all.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-21, 01:14 PM
From the DMG page 110:

HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS
Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing
it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be
prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who
pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who
use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be
excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not
invite them to participate again.


Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who
are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types
typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their
characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though
the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being
instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters
would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or
orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible
under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will
then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other
players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable
activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the
game.


Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die,
obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes
by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the
heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of
charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If
these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and
stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a
problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.

Calthropstu
2017-07-21, 01:36 PM
The existence of a solution does not invalidate the existence of a problem.

And in this case, the bed already comes with holes. It is not unreasonable to expect an airbed to not come with holes in it already that you have to patch before it will work.

The system did not develop all of its holes over time. IT CAME WITH THEM. This is not a positive quality, patches or not.

And again, you have not solved the Non Sequitur.
It is inherently self-contradictory.
"You can't complain about the existence of a problem if you can solve it."
BS.

I guess you don't play many modern video games. Many have 1st day release patches. Games have a different bar than things like beds.
The goal of someone playing a game is to enjoy themselves. I enjoy myself playing D&D. Ergo, in my view it: performs as advertised, gives me what I want from it and is infinitely adaptable.
As such, it is by no means "broken."

TheYell
2017-07-21, 01:44 PM
IN MY DAY when the game was broke you bought another game *shakes fist* and it cost a quarter!

Boci
2017-07-21, 02:44 PM
There's a difference between governing and supporting. The rules don't dictate what the relationships should be, their scope, anything about the setting, or any of the important bits.

Some people don't like it supporting either, especially if you trust your DM and have a relationship with them going back. For new groups, sure I can see the appeal of having a system to guide them.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-21, 03:22 PM
I guess you don't play many modern video games. Many have 1st day release patches. Games have a different bar than things like beds.
The goal of someone playing a game is to enjoy themselves. I enjoy myself playing D&D. Ergo, in my view it: performs as advertised, gives me what I want from it and is infinitely adaptable.
As such, it is by no means "broken."

1.Videogames with Day 1 patches are harmful to the industry as a whole, so this is a bad argument. No one argues that releasing a shoddy product and fixing it afterwards (kind of) is a good thing. Nobody in the industry, anyways. Criticism of Day 1 patches has a long history, and is exactly as deserved.

2.Fun is not a design goal. Or at least, it's meaningless.

3. "I like it" is not a valid counterargument to anything I've said.

4. D&D is not by any means infinitely adaptable. There will come a point where you are not playing anything resembling D&D.

5. None of what you said addresses the existence of the problems and that fixes to the problems do not make those problems no existant or not the subject of valid criticism.

Are we done here?

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-21, 03:24 PM
Some people don't like it supporting either, especially if you trust your DM and have a relationship with them going back. For new groups, sure I can see the appeal of having a system to guide them.

Support =/= guidance, either.

Having trust in your DM is exactly as necessary for games with RP mechanics. Heck, I prefer them as a DM because they put less stress on me. (No RP mechanics means I must arbitrarily rule EVERYTHING. I don't want to expend that much mental energy on top of everything else I already do. )