Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Balance:

D&D4E came in for a lot of criticism for not supporting RP and my response has always been that all editions of D&D are primarily about tactical combat. What happens between combats is largely outside of the rules. That's why I was talking specifically about 4E combats. If you wanted to, you could add a story line to the D&D boardgames to "fill in" between encounters. But when combat starts back up, as with 4E, the RP gets "put aside" for a (long, long) moment and we start playing a skirmish game supported by RPG character development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:I'll have to be honest (Maybe it is just the Friday in me today) and say I have no idea what we're even debating anymore.

No worries. The debate seems to be whether rules are external to the experience of gameplay on the one hand or inherent to the gameplay on the other. As far as 4E combat goes, I think the gameplay is defined as "playing the rules" rather than "playing and referring to the guidelines as desired."

Manchu wrote:@Balance:

D&D4E came in for a lot of criticism for not supporting RP and my response has always been that all editions of D&D are primarily about tactical combat. What happens between combats is largely outside of the rules. That's why I was talking specifically about 4E combats. If you wanted to, you could add a story line to the D&D boardgames to "fill in" between encounters. But when combat starts back up, as with 4E, the RP gets "put aside" for a (long, long) moment and we start playing a skirmish game supported by RPG character development.

Which is how I've felt about 4E. I would even assert that 4E better supports game-impacting or rules supported RP by vastly simplifying the skill check system. It's more intuitive which skill you use and much easier to calculate the result. No, it isn't significantly different from 3E in that respect.

My position has always been that systems don't roleplay, people do. The players and the GM determines how much, and what quality, roleplay there is. I've played a system that was increadibly open-ended (the only mechanic was coin flips, and there were no skills. Only what your "stuperpowers" are), and one that was very regimented (Rolemaster, which has a chart, for each weapon, that takes up an 8.5"x11" page), and there was roleplaying in both. Saying that a system prevents roleplaying is complete nonsense.

Ogiwan wrote:Saying that a system prevents roleplaying is complete nonsense.

But saying that systems have nothing to do with how and to what extent the RP goes on is equally nonsensical.

Manchu wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:Saying that a system prevents roleplaying is complete nonsense.

But saying that systems have nothing to do with how and to what extent the RP goes on is equally nonsensical.

I would suggest RP has to impact the game somehow, in a rules based way via skill checks or influencing future DC's, etc. So a game who's RP is entirely outside the rules could, to some groups, feel entirely unnecessary and maybe silly. I like my RP to feel like part of the game, and when I DM I try to reward players who use rules, etc in their RP.

Sure. Anybody can play pretend. You don't need a couple hundred dollars of books to do it. It's when you want to play pretend in a certain way that you need books.

Manchu wrote:Sure. Anybody can play pretend. You don't need a couple hundred dollars of books to do it. It's when you want to play pretend in a certain way that you need books.

Very true, you don't actually need anybooks or game system to do what you want. Though, I think few people have the time or creativity to do all the work necessary for a completely handforged game to be successful. Most of us need a solid set of rules, that are tested for balance already, and offer enough choice that people wont get board. Honestly, there are some many systems, including fantasy based ones, that it's really almost moot to worry too much about once system not being as good as it could be. And people are more than capable of modding a system that only has a few flaws. I think that 3.5 or 4th are both very capable systems to play, and with a few quick mods would be really good.

Zygrot24 wrote:I would suggest RP has to impact the game somehow, in a rules based way via skill checks or influencing future DC's, etc. So a game who's RP is entirely outside the rules could, to some groups, feel entirely unnecessary and maybe silly. I like my RP to feel like part of the game, and when I DM I try to reward players who use rules, etc in their RP.

That is an interesting take because I prefer to reward my players for *not* using the rules in their roleplaying. In fact if a player is trying to bluff someone and comes up with an fantastically plausable explanation for their presence I won't even make them roll for it. I far prefer the roleplaying in my games to *be* the game with the rules only needed when there is some direct conflict with the environment or NPCs that needs to be addressed. Bad dice rolling for skills in my games will not result in completely ruining good roleplaying, meanwhile someone who is trying to be sauve who rolls exceptionally well, but all they say to the target is "Derp, derp, derp" is not going to achieve any kind of succes in my games. The rules support the *story* for me and the roleplaying *is* the story.

Skriker

ZombieJoe wrote:

Manchu wrote:Sure. Anybody can play pretend. You don't need a couple hundred dollars of books to do it. It's when you want to play pretend in a certain way that you need books.

Very true, you don't actually need anybooks or game system to do what you want. Though, I think few people have the time or creativity to do all the work necessary for a completely handforged game to be successful. Most of us need a solid set of rules, that are tested for balance already, and offer enough choice that people wont get board.

All true! And this is why it irks me so much when people talk about how rules and balance don't matter in RPGs. Of course they do.

Skriker wrote:

Zygrot24 wrote:I would suggest RP has to impact the game somehow, in a rules based way via skill checks or influencing future DC's, etc. So a game who's RP is entirely outside the rules could, to some groups, feel entirely unnecessary and maybe silly. I like my RP to feel like part of the game, and when I DM I try to reward players who use rules, etc in their RP.

That is an interesting take because I prefer to reward my players for *not* using the rules in their roleplaying. In fact if a player is trying to bluff someone and comes up with an fantastically plausable explanation for their presence I won't even make them roll for it. I far prefer the roleplaying in my games to *be* the game with the rules only needed when there is some direct conflict with the environment or NPCs that needs to be addressed. Bad dice rolling for skills in my games will not result in completely ruining good roleplaying, meanwhile someone who is trying to be sauve who rolls exceptionally well, but all they say to the target is "Derp, derp, derp" is not going to achieve any kind of succes in my games. The rules support the *story* for me and the roleplaying *is* the story.

Skriker

Mostly I mean striking a good balance. I 've run into a lot of players that take for granted that what they are RPing will effect the game world. People will do things and just look at me expectantly. "What were you trying to do?" "Intimidate." "You wanna roll that?" But I think most players know (and hopefully good DMs) that good play is rewarded by bypassing rolls.

There is a fine line and I've yet to find a competent DM that doesn't understand it.

Zygrot24 wrote:But I think most players know (and hopefully good DMs) that good play is rewarded by bypassing rolls.

I would argue that, rather than bypassing, one should apply modifiers in that kind of a situation. If you're really, genuinely impressed, then you can always add a modifier so high that they cannot fail. I'd rather give situational bonusses and hindrance within the framework of the rules than discard them entirely at key intervals.

EDIT: Bonuses? Boni? Not sure on the spelling of that one.

Zygrot24 wrote:that good play is rewarded by bypassing rolls.

So if I make a character that uses CHA (or equivalent) as a dump stat and waste no points in social skills, but I personally am a charismatic person, I can still get away with convincing or intimidating npcs if I roll play their lack of charisma well?

You guys know what I mean. You're arguing with me against a postion I'm not taking.

Within reason, good RP should be rewarded with modifying rolls, and good rule sets involve RP in the dice rolling part of the game.

Sounds to me like arbitrary rulings. That's fine with some groups.