# Is D&D Too Focused on Combat?



## Fandabidozi (Jan 29, 2018)

Well, I like combat and I like exploration and I also like logistics.
But which one's better? There's only one way to find out! Fight!!!


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jan 29, 2018)

Almost everything in D&D revolves around combat. Combat has always been the main course. And there is no shame in that, but we often see attempts made to either apologize or compensate for it unnecessarily. What I loved best about fourth edition was it actually embraced the true nature if the system. It was the most honest and innovative version of the game, and true to form, flawed no less than any of the others.


----------



## pogre (Jan 29, 2018)

If there were truly a goal of representing the three modes of play equally, the rules are too heavily geared around combat. IMO, D&D is biased towards combat because it is the most popular mode of play. I do agree that the history of the game plays a role as well.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2018)

There's no inherent contrast beteen "narrativist" play and combat. Look at super hero comics: combat can be a significant arena for a character to express and exemplify his/her values and commitments.

But "narrativist" combat should be about character and stakes, not ASL-style tactics and logistic. Games like Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic give non-D&D examples. 4e is as close as D&D has come to this.


----------



## jasper (Jan 29, 2018)

No, But since there would be real life combat, thrown dice, hurt feelings, broken chairs, broken mugs. Combat rules are need so the players are on the same page.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jan 29, 2018)

The operative word in the thread's question is "too". That's, I think, almost completely a matter of opinion. 

If you're looking for a heavily story-oriented, narrative game, which is also directly supported by the rules...I'd say D&D is the wrong tree up which to bark.

Of course, tons of D&D play has been narrative and story oriented, but that's more due to the creativity of the DM and players involved...and often their willingness to bend the rules.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 29, 2018)

I don’t thibk it is. Certainly it plays a part, and due to the nature of it, combat requires more rules than other areas. Or at leadt it does in the mechanics used by D&D. 

But exactly how much of the game is devoted to combat will vary greatly from group to group. Even when playing the same published adventure, there can be sognificant difference from one table to the next. The numerous live streams that are available support this. The most popular among them would not, by most, be considered combat heavy.


----------



## delericho (Jan 29, 2018)

I could certainly stand to see some more emphasis put on the Exploration and Interaction pillars of the game in the next few supplements/adventures.

But "too focused" is very much a matter of opinion. Indeed, I'm not convinced it's not entirely a matter for the individual group to answer for themselves.


----------



## BackInAction (Jan 29, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t thibk it is. Certainly it plays a part, and due to the nature of it, combat requires more rules than other areas.



This is so true, should we have 5 pages of rules describing how to convince the barkeeper to give up more town secrets?  And if the social rules are a bit too weak, or thin, what advantage does that give the players?  Whereas weak or thin combat rules can really fubar all sorts things in the game.

The other issue, is that the min/max and a big chuck of the 'on-line' world tends to focus on it, but that doesn't mean your group or the game itself are too focused on combat.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 29, 2018)

While the origins of the game are in miniature wargamming, the same could be said about the hobby, which now includes a myriad of combat lite and storytelling games. 

2e shifted towards a combat focus, as only the thief received experience for treasure and everyone gained it for defeating monsters. That did make combat more preferential. 3e just made this worse with the idea of "balanced" encounters, so PCs tended to assume they could overcome any fight. 

D&D's focus on combat is paradoxical. On the one hand, the hobby has very much grown beyond its wargamming origins and has evolved in many new an innovative ways. But many of the things that make D&D into D&D rather than a generic fantasy RPG are its iconic and consistent elements, which typically tie into combat. You can never entirely divorce D&D from combat. And while you can play D&D without having combat or battles, so much of your characters just fall to the wayside and reduces the need to gain levels or be mechanically rewarded. And at that point, are you still playing D&D or just doing freeform storytelling with the names of your D&D characters?


----------



## LordNightwinter (Jan 29, 2018)

The focus of the game depends on the DM and players. I've gone 10 sessions or more without combat sometimes because the players were more interested in the political intrigue and mysteries I had sprinkled throughout the city they were in. They actively avoided combat by using social graces and standing in the city just so they could continue the exploration/intrigue phases quicker. lol


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Jan 29, 2018)

Well combat needs rules, role playing does not. Players can always play "Lets pretend" There is no die rolling involved when characters are attempting to solve a mystery, or haggling with a merchant to settle on a price, one can roll dice for those things, but that is kind of artificial. I'd rather rely on the player's skills at interacting with people than to roll a d20 die to see if a difficulty class is met to determine an NPC's reaction. As for accumulating money, that is easy enough to put back into the game. One can employ a house rule that the accumulation of 1 gold piece is worth 1 experience point. Lets take D&D 3.5 rules for example. Suppose we did not award experience points for combat encounters or how about this, what if we just cut the experience points in half, and the other half of experience points was awarded on the basis of 1 xp per gold piece value of treasure accumulated?

Not all combat encounters involve treasure, so if one just kills things one does not advance as fast, but treasure helps one to advance quickly. Perhaps to balance things out, maybe the amount of treasure awarded should be cut in half too, that way 50% of experience awarded is through combat encounters and 50% is through the accumulation of treasure, combine the two and one advances as normal. of course one wants to encounter intelligent creatures as they are more likely to have treasure than some random beast in the forest.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 29, 2018)

I'm of the opinion that rules need to be in place where it's obvious, and not in place where creativity, common sense or social skills should take over.

1. Combat/Resolution Mechanics - Yes, by all means rule the living heck out of this because we're not going to beat each other up to see who wins.
2. Exploration - Draw a map.  Describe the process.  Adventure.
3. Logistics - Rules, but only so much as to support Exploration.  (economy of movement and coin mostly)
4. Interaction - Roleplay, it's not hard.  Maybe one die roll to determine initial disposition if players haven't met them before or done anything to influence it.

Now I consider myself to be in the minority of gamers because I write often (mostly crap, but every once in a while something cool happens) but I'm not in the minority of gamers on this site.  I can't imagine anyone would need more fluff to be creative and make their own.  On a personal note, (where I could very well be in the small minority).  I don't want bigger rulebooks or prettier rulebooks that MSRP 50 bucks.  I want streamlined rules that support the genre and I want it to be D&D with a price point around 25 bucks MSRP.  

Only reason I wouldn't is if doing so would take the brand offline.  

Be well
KB


----------



## neobolts (Jan 29, 2018)

D&D hasn't been wargaming for decades. Old-school logistics don't matter anymore and aren't compelling outside of specialized survivalist scenarios. The introduction of Non-combat Proficiencies in 2e inspired actions and narratives in D&D not centered around combat. And story awards mean that clever avoidance of combat can be just as rewarding as fighting (if the DM wants). I would not agree with the premise that D&D is too combat focused these days.


----------



## Narl (Jan 29, 2018)

How long combats take is something to consider. With OD&D and AD&D 1st and 2nd combats went very quickly, which leaves more time for other activities. 3rd and 4th had combats taking much longer, and now we have 5th ending up somewhere in between.

I'm currently running G1-3 with 5th edition. They feel quite combat-heavy (still fun though!). That wasn't as much the case with 1st edition -- the faster combats in 1st left more breathing room for exploration.

With 5th edition, combat is simple so it moves quickly, but the HP economy has monsters staying in the fight longer than they did with 1st edition. Fireballs just don't clear rooms like they used to.


----------



## RSIxidor (Jan 29, 2018)

As long as the combat system is given a codified and complex and interesting structure and non-combat is mostly boiled down to "roll dice and DM tells you if you're cool," combat will always be more important in D&D. While I'm not sure it's gotten there completely, I do think the Adventure's in Middle Earth adaptation of 5E does a decent job of giving other pillars enough complexity to be more interesting (journeys from place to place and audiences with important people are detailed in the rules). Combat still has the most focus and this is clear in the player options but there is at least some thought to other concepts.

A good DM can overcome this issue but it would be nice to see the rules provide structure closer to the amount of detail that's in combat. Indeed, I wouldn't mind if combat was simplified and the other pillars brought into level with it somewhere below its current complexity.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 29, 2018)

Agreed. It all depends where people find their fun, and how the DM chooses to balance that out. In addition to milestones, there are also story awards that can bump XP quite a bit.


All that being said, I don’t mind when players don’t have much of an interest in non-combat activities, but it drives me up a wall when a player starts causing trouble because they’ve gone too long without rolling for damage. I work hard to make sure everyone gets to have fun, so don’t go trying to sabotage it just because it’s not your time in the spotlight.





LordNightwinter said:


> The focus of the game depends on the DM and players.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 29, 2018)

My gut-reaction feeling to this article is "yes". Yes, I know that you can play many sessions of D&D without combat and that mileage will vary at the table. It is incredibly table dependent. But this fact almost seems like a trite truism rather than strong counter-evidence to the claim in question. Because the system mechanics of a game undeniably affect trends in how that game is played. The game mechanics incentivizes and reinforces certain player (and GM) behaviors in relation to the game as played.  D&D is undeniably associated with a certain degree of hack 'n' slash play. when you ask people what's the goal of D&D, you'll likely get an answer akin to "kill the dragon and/or steal its golden hoard." 

As one of the links in the article notes, the primary mechanical benefits of leveling up in D&D is being better at combat regardless of whether you used combat to achieve that experience. (Which is also true for a number of other class-based systems.) Consider also, for example, the sort of characters that you can create in D&D and the sorts that you can't. You can't make a traveling merchant who has no proficiency in armor or weapons, but, rather, puts all their character creation points in social/exploration skills. It's a class-based game that assumes competency in combat. Your character will be proficient with a range of weapons, armor, spells, etc. and your class will give you particular combat-specific benefits. Sure, you can choose not to fight or take less combat-oriented options/stats, but that's about like choosing to be a pacifist in a Mortal Kombat brawler. Not saying its impossible or hasn't been done, but, rather, the overall mechanics establish a heavily-mechanized combat-oriented tone for the system. 



pemerton said:


> There's no inherent contrast beteen "narrativist" play and combat. Look at super hero comics: *combat can be a significant arena for a character to express and exemplify his/her values and commitments.*
> 
> But "narrativist" combat should be about character and stakes, not ASL-style tactics and logistic. Games like Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic give non-D&D examples. 4e is as close as D&D has come to this.



Yes, but I would argue that this rarely plays out this way in D&D at most tables, and I also don't think that the article is claiming that these two are exclusive, but, rather, that the combat pillar has been de-emphasized in a lot of narrativist play, as it tends to redistribute more focus on the other game pillars. And again a big part of that, as you allude, has to do with the associated system mechanics.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 29, 2018)

Fandabidozi said:


> Well, I like combat and I like exploration and I also like logistics.
> But which one's better? There's only one way to find out! Fight!!!




LOL!

IMO you can synergize RP, exploration, combat, and logistics. Here's a very simple example: 

Let's say your characters want to get some healing potions for an upcoming expedition. They go to the alchemist at Ye Olde Alchemist Shoppe in their favorite town Homebase. Ye Olde Alchemist Shoppe is, alas, out of such potions as there has been a run on it due to the tensions between Homebase and Rivaltowne. However, they know where the main ingredient can be acquired... unfortunately it's very dangerous. It's in a swamp that's known to be infested with all sorts of beasties, such as trolls, alligators, and such. So... the PCs can help out and Ye Olde Alchemist Shoppe will give them a nice discount on potions if they get the ingredients, which requires exploring. There are many variations and ways to hook the PCs into the world. The bard character can negotiate this deal. The ranger and druid are obviously going to be needed and indeed be special on this mission. It's a side trek that might take only a few sessions but I suspect it'll be memorable and it has useful consequences. 

A larger, higher level story might be something involving opening up a caravan route that is being plagued by a dragon or some giants.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 29, 2018)

IME over the years combat is where the players focused, then again we always played a wandering adventurer looking for lost temples to raid style of game.   I was planning on running a WHFRP campaign but in the end I just accepted that I would probably constantly be fighting for the players attention as they zoned out as soon as the fighting was done other than a couple of the players.  And if you run that system like D&D you end up with a lot more deaths and downtime as they heal up from injuries. But if I say lets play skirmish wargaming instead they say they prefer a RPG, that they try to play like a mediocre skirmish wargame. 

One thing I miss from that list in the OP is logistics. Today it seems like the we have a multidimensional loot storage area, find 15000 gold, add it to the loot sheet.  Its like Pillars of Eternity. Weight doesn't matter. How you are going to carry it out doesn't matter since "that's not fun".  The backpack is a tardis staffed by a gnome who hands you the exact item you need as you need it. I would prefer a game where decisions  on how to get a large treasure pile out of a dungeon is an issue. Where hirelings become important for such matters.  I'd like the environment to be more of an issue the players have to take into account as well.  I'm playing in a ToA game and honestly the environmental matters are such a non issue that its hard for me to take the game seriously as we romp around the jungles in full plate.  I was hoping it would be a a battle against the environment as much as the enemies.  Maybe its just the DM.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jan 29, 2018)

Of course its still focused more on combat than anything else. Nearly every class ability is used primarily in combat. Characters still have Hit Points as the only codified rules system for determining whether or not they stay in the scene encounter or not. The only way to hurt Hit Points is to Attack in a combat. 

As long as this is the primary form of taking out characters and monsters, this will never change.

One can argue that there are rules for other ways to resolve situations... Technically there isn't. Everything else is GM Fiat and GMs making rulings based on what they want to happen. Milestones is entirely left up to GM Fiat. Players have no say. 

The only say players really have is when combat happens, and initiative is rolled. Then players have some agency. 

As for Exploration and Social encounters... There is no true codified system that tells players they can do something. The GM can always rule, if they choose to, not allow players to roll dice. 

There are No specific rules that say players can do social maneuvering that has real impact in the game system. Even the Bards abilities are presumed to be used in combat. 

So as much as they try to say D&D has evolved... It hasn't. Not in its core essence. 

It's still a murder simulation.  Everything else is the players and GM making it more than its core, basic design. But if we're talking pure game design, then the only thing that truly matters in discussions of game design are the game mechanisms as specifically designed and in this paradigm... Anything left up to the idea of MGs making Rulings are NOT game mechanisms. Its just a fancy way of saying GM Fiat is okay.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 29, 2018)

LordNightwinter said:


> The focus of the game depends on the DM and players. I've gone 10 sessions or more without combat sometimes because the players were more interested in the political intrigue and mysteries I had sprinkled throughout the city they were in. They actively avoided combat by using social graces and standing in the city just so they could continue the exploration/intrigue phases quicker. lol




Absolutely. The way I prefer to run a game is to have a fairly combat-heavy session every three or so. I've both run and played in intrigue-heavy D&D games where RP resolved conflicts. It's totally possible. 

IMO a problem with 5E is that the authors provided too little rules in these other areas. I wouldn't want anything as heavy as the combat rules, but they have about 50% too little space and detail. Things like the personality mechanics are clearly an afterthought.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> There's no inherent contrast beteen "narrativist" play and combat. Look at super hero comics: combat can be a significant arena for a character to express and exemplify his/her values and commitments.
> 
> But "narrativist" combat should be about character and stakes, not ASL-style tactics and logistic. Games like Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic give non-D&D examples. 4e is as close as D&D has come to this.




Funny how the version most claimed for tactical also is the closest to supporting the narrative


----------



## Reynard (Jan 29, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well combat needs rules, role playing does not. Players can always play "Lets pretend" There is no die rolling involved when characters are attempting to solve a mystery, or haggling with a merchant...(snip)




That's a matter of opinion and certainly not a universal truth. Why should social situations rely so heavily upon GM fiat when physical combat ones rely on rules? Social combat rules would offer the same benefits as standard combat rules: codifying the effectiveness of certain strategies over others in specific circumstances and against certain enemies. Why is it okay to build "vulnerable to fire" into the game but not "vulnerable to bribery" or to say "at 0 hp the creature dies" but not "at 0 resolve the NPC capitulates?" I think that the D&D combat systems are generally good foundations on which to build social rules, but would require the same care toward balance and fun.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 29, 2018)

No. 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Jan 29, 2018)

I've been reading a lot of fantastic fiction, both for children and adults, and I've noticed that majority of the stories would actually be hard to reenact using D&D rules, because fighting is so rare.

Mearls and team ought to release a D&D Storybook game where entire novel-sized stories can be easily run with nary a fight. Of course, this can be done with D&D as it exists. Yet it's not hardwired for that.

One way of going about it would be to release a "Tales of D&D: The Storytelling Game" which uses the streamlined, non-combat-oriented Tales of Equestria (My Little Pony) system.

Another point of approach would be to release a 5E D&D Modern rulebook which models not only fight-oriented Modern genres (such as Pulp), but also entirely non-combat oriented fictional genres where there's rarely any guns or shooting at all. Look at the list of Kindle Worlds, and look at how many Worlds and stories would be hard to model with D&D. And then provide story-based 5E rules modules for doing just that.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 29, 2018)

Every version of D&D that I have played since the days of Basic and 1st Ed have run combat heavy, regardless of the group of players or the DM. It is just how they are written to be played. 5E is the first version where I feel that is no longer true and more time can be spent in non-combat situations without the players feeling like that are not advancing their characters. Sure, every version can be played how a group wants to play it, combat heavy or combat light, but 5E just feels like the default is to give more weight to non-combat stuff than any previous edition.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 29, 2018)

Asking this question implies that you wand a different experience than what D&D provides.  I think it's perfectly valid to want a different experience, but not valid to expect D&D to provide that for you.  This is like asking if Monopoly is too focused on money.


----------



## Ry (Jan 29, 2018)

All the ways a player can assert himself in logistics and exploration fail in the face of an opponent.  

Part of the difference between our play selves and our real selves is that in the universe of the game, something's actively trying make you unsafe, cause you harm.  

Maybe we all should have just tried harder to talk with our opponents, but when it comes down to it they will kill us if we don't respond.  Combat, and skill in combat, is a kind of tangible, measurable source of security and also agency.  If the vampire refuses to be convinced by my argument that I should live, at least I can fight the vampire.  If I'm losing an argument in the town square, and I'm ten levels higher than everyone in the town, I can always get respect the hard way, by showing I can duel the ten most battle-hardened veterans in the city, in order, and kill them all without more than a few scratches. That's an intoxicating and persuasive truth even if I don't say it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 29, 2018)

Reynard said:


> That's a matter of opinion and certainly not a universal truth. Why should social situations rely so heavily upon GM fiat when physical combat ones rely on rules? Social combat rules would offer the same benefits as standard combat rules: codifying the effectiveness of certain strategies over others in specific circumstances and against certain enemies. Why is it okay to build "vulnerable to fire" into the game but not "vulnerable to bribery" or to say "at 0 hp the creature dies" but not "at 0 resolve the NPC capitulates?" I think that the D&D combat systems are generally good foundations on which to build social rules, but would require the same care toward balance and fun.



Rules work both ways, and role-playing is fundamentally about making decisions. You are your character, making decisions from their perspective. If the rules say that you capitulate at 0 resolve, then NPCs will attack your resolve to make you capitulate, and then the players aren't making decisions for their characters anymore.

It's okay to kill characters without their consent. It's not okay to change their mind without their consent.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 29, 2018)

IME the more you make rules for social situations, enable players to resolve situations with "I make a skill check" instead of actually going though the conversation with the NPC (DM), the less actual interesting stuff happens in those situations. And the last thing I want is to bog such interactions down with a social combat rule-set.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 29, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Rules work both ways, and role-playing is fundamentally about making decisions. You are your character, making decisions from their perspective. If the rules say that you capitulate at 0 resolve, then NPCs will attack your resolve to make you capitulate, and then the players aren't making decisions for their characters anymore.
> 
> It's okay to kill characters without their consent. It's not okay to change their mind without their consent.



That rings a little hollow in a game with spells like command, charm and dominate. Not to mention lots of games have systems for codifying those kinds of struggles and their potential outcomes.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## Reynard (Jan 29, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> IME the more you make rules for social situations, enable players to resolve situations with "I make a skill check" instead of actually going though the conversation with the NPC (DM), the less actual interesting stuff happens in those situations. And the last thing I want is to bog such interactions down with a social combat rule-set.



Do you feel the same way about tactical choices in physical combat encounters?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 29, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Do you feel the same way about tactical choices in physical combat encounters?
> 
> Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app




To a degree.  In the olden days of 3e I did see more players who thought they only options they had was what they had a feat for.  And in general I don't mind a very abstracted combat, less time spent on each fight and more on exploration and getting into more fights.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 29, 2018)

I don't see why you'd run D&D if you DIDN'T want a fairly combat focused game. The bulk of the rules are on combat. Most abilities tie to combat. There's little narrative player agency outside of casting spells, so virtually no reason not to be a spellcaster in such games. What good is a fighter who doesnt fight basically. 

There are other systems that run a more narrative, social, light combat style much more effectively. It's kind of like asking if an 18wheeler design is too focused on moving heavy loads. It's just what D&D IS. It's a relatively poor universal RPG, but people just seem scared to branch out into a better tool for the job.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 29, 2018)

Reynard said:


> That rings a little hollow in a game with spells like command, charm and dominate. Not to mention lots of games have systems for codifying those kinds of struggles and their potential outcomes.
> 
> Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app




Not to mention fear, intimidate, etc. I have no issue with losing narrative some control of my pc, because the rules say he believes an NPC lie. I don;t care if its a flubbed save or a skill check. If your character gets convinced, you should basically portray them as convinced or suffer an in-game consequence.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 29, 2018)

Reynard said:


> That rings a little hollow in a game with spells like command, charm and dominate.



Those don't change what the character thinks, as much as they prevent the character from being able to think clearly in the first place. 

The real point of an RPG is that the player should have exactly as much agency over their character as the character has within the world. The player should be able to evaluate arguments based on their merit, because that's what the character can do. If the character is put under a magic spell, such that they aren't able to do that anymore, then it would be wrong to let the player ignore that.


Reynard said:


> Not to mention lots of games have systems for codifying those kinds of struggles and their potential outcomes.



A lot of bad games do, and a lot of games are bad _because_ they try to do this. It doesn't stand to reason that it necessarily _can_ be done well.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> Funny how the version most claimed for tactical also is the closest to supporting the narrative



But not a coincidence - it's got tight mechanics.

Also, the bits that get criticised by a certain sort of wargamer - eg the stuff that makes it _rational_ (say) to confront multiple foes at once (Come and Get It, Valiant Strike, etc) or that might discourage hunkering down behind discover - is exactly the stuff that expresses a particular character's archetype and thematic significance.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 29, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> A lot of bad games do, and a lot of games are bad _because_ they try to do this. It doesn't stand to reason that it necessarily _can_ be done well.




That's just silly. Lots of games do it well. If you personally don't like games that include such mechanics that's one thing, but your preferences don't determine whether something is objectively bad.

As to agency: games are designed to model things. You may be the world's greatest roleplayer, but even if that is the case you don't have the cultural or life experiences in the context of the world, not to mention the real life motivations, to respond accurately. So, in order to bypass the litany of skills, experiences and perspectives that would be needed to model such interpersonal struggles, game mechanics present a shorthand -- just as they do with the extremely complex and not at all certain outcome of physical conflict. I mean, people that think the player should have absolute control over every decision their character makes no matter the circumstances must never have been worn down by an argument or terrified into action or bullied or just plain exhausted by the opposition before. Ask a trial lawyer whether there is such a thing as "social combat"and whether it requires specific skills or whether experience level has anything to do with the outcome.


----------



## Blue (Jan 29, 2018)

I feel that D&D makes the assumption that combat will be a lengthy mechanical part of a session whenever it occurs, so that every character should be good at it.  This doesn't mean that you need a lot of combat, or that every session has combat.  It does mean that when it occurs it's going to take a good chunk of time and involve everyone.

And this is part of the definition of what D&D is as a roleplaying game.  That's not good or bad, it's like saying that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red.  You may prefer red, and I prefer blue, and they are both right for us.

Now, if the question was "is D&D too little focused on X", there I might be more opinionated.  For non-casters, it feels like 80%+ of character creation and advancement is about combat-related items.  We get cases where people look at the Fighter (Champion) and say tat it has little feel outside of combat (and the new UA Brute has even less).  

Everyone being useful and having a niche in combat is a sacred cow of D&D and I accept that (and can easily play systems that don't have that when I feel like it), and that I accept.  Where it could grow even stronger is if it too that assumption about combat and applied it across other pillars, so everyone had niches in them and could contribute, instead of only needing one Face, or one tracker, or one PC who can find and disarm traps.  Having multiple feels like it's a small tacked on bonus instead of allowing different niches that naturally complement.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jan 29, 2018)

Follow up question: Can D&D-related discussions take place on this forum without combat-like arguments? Roll to disprove disparaging remarks and use your reaction to take overly-defensive stance! Flame attack! Dispel other game systems as plausible or fun! Yeaarrgh!!


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 29, 2018)

I think that a majority of players find 5e to be middle of the road in combat in rules complexity and bits and bobbles to keep track of. (As the current trends of gaming go.) 

And it seems as long as D&D keeps to that spot with some side systems, then it will keep going strong. 

As a side note: It never hurts that guys like Kevin Crawford keeps cranking out overlay systems, that keep surprising people.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Jan 29, 2018)

man so many people are saying "D&D doesn't need 50 pages explaining social interaction lol", but did it ever occur to anyone that D&D doesn't need 50 pages describing combat either? "combat needs detailed rules" no it doesn't, so many games get away with abstract combat rules and people love playing them. I don't want the combat of D&D to go away but some people are missing the point.


----------



## jbear (Jan 29, 2018)

I honestly don't need any special emphasis to be put on any particular area of the game, personally. I've played D&D where there were detailed rules for every aspect of exploration you could think of. It was exciting to discover these rules, reading them in the books for the first time. But it became quickly clear to me that there were too many rules to learn them off by heart. The practical result was that game play was frequently slowed down while looking up the rules every time a player tried to do something. I also found myself saying - 'No you can't do that, and you can't do this because ...' and then there would be another stop while I looked for the rule I was pretty sure I had read related to that situation somewhere. 

4e I found refreshing because the rule system was so easy to memorise that I was able to learn the fundamental mechanics so thoroughly that I never had to look up rules during play. Then, based on the solid notion of the systems mechanics, I did what I felt needed to be done with it on different occaisions in order to create fun, dramatic, cinematic play experiences - whether those experiences involved combat, social interaction, or exploration ... or logistics I guess (though never really considered that one of the pillars of D&D, personally). 

5e I also found refreshing because it moved a step back towards the style I remember playing when I first began, but with a far tidier engine that again was very easy to memorise, so that books are rarely if ever referenced during game play (except the odd spell reference every now and again perhaps). I personally find 5e to be lacking a touch for my taste in terms of battle complexity, but I do appreciate the speed of play and the flow of most battle scenarios that doesn't need to be defined or balanced as an 'encounter'. This means that 60% of battles that lack in complexity are just fine, because the battle isn't actually the most interesting thing going on; the conflict is just a small part of a bigger story. But the system is tight enough that I can easily turn up the dial and create a fully complex battle scenario (especially after the many things that I learned from 4e regarding interesting battle terrain and having way more interesting goals happening in a battle than solely killing everything and taking the lewt). 

As for the other pillars, exploration and social interactions, do I need more input on how to run them or make them equally interesting play experiences? Not really. Certainly not if that is just going to result in more rules that I'm going to have to try to memorise or that I would have to look up during play, thus slowing down the game. When I want those aspects of the game to really stand out, I invest some of my own time creating a special scenario that will test my players and their characters, and allow the stories the players have created before, the connections they invoke from their characters back stories, or the connections they make to their PCs social networks, to influence the outcome in significant ways that make sense based on the story my players and I are weaving together at the time. I really don't feel any great need for more emphasis on these areas mechanically than I feel the need for a greater need for there to be a greater emphasis on combat (despite my own personal tastes on this matter). My players and I can best handle that ourselves.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2018)

Logistics?  Largely faded away from the game (a negative development)
Exploration?  Fading away from the game (a negative development).
Interaction?  Starting to fade away, replaced in part by combat-like rules (a negative development).
Combat?  Not going anywhere, because it's all that's left.

And why is this?

The simple answer is that today's players and DMs seem to expect/demand a much faster pace of play both in the small scale and in the large.  They approach every normal session as though it's a tournament game where whoever gets the farthest (or levels up the most) wins...and while this is fine for tournaments it really takes a lot out of the game otherwise.

Logistics - the careful tracking of gear, encumbrance, food and water, torches, party treasury, minor personal expenses, and so forth; along with the hiring of henches and porters and the like to carry stuff - take time to do, and thus slow down the pace of play.  Encumbrance was generally the first to go - people just stopped bothering (and of this I too am guilty).  Careful tracking of minor resources (food, water, torches, etc.) was next, along with tracking of minor personal expenses to buy these things (other than maybe during session 0).  And the last reported sighting of anything resembling a hench in RAW was the cohort that came bundled with 3e's leadership feat.  Score a major victory for the anti-realism crew.

Exploration - including careful mapping, trial-and-error magic item testing, puzzles and riddles, etc. - also takes time to do, and worse than that it rudely inserts itself between the exciting fighty swashbuckly bits.  And so it's slowly being abandoned in favour of a few die rolls and-or automatically knowing what an item does once you pick it up and hold it for a moment and-or nobody on either side of the screen bothering with a map.  This is reflected in a steady (though uneven) trend of simplification in dungeon/adventure design as time goes on, along with some elements being hard-written into the rules e.g. the magic item identifying example.

Interaction - the talky bits, role-playing (as opposed to dice-rolling) your way into and out of situations, engaging with the NPCs in character - has been over the last few editions quite strongly encouraged to go away by the RAW, to be replaced by dice.  This started in late 2e days and then was codified in 3e's skill system - diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, etc. - which, modified, remains in place still.  That actual interaction has stuck around as much as it has is a credit to all involved who haven't forgotten that role-playing means playing a role.  

Combat.  Almost everyone likes combat.  Dice fly, things happen, enemies fall, xp pile up...all is good, and the rules support it more or less half-decently in all editions.  Yet what's the biggest complaint about high-level 3e and mid-to-high-level 4e?  Yep, that's right: the combats take too long.

So, how to bring back the Logistics and Exploration aspects of the game?  Supporting and encouraging them - rather than the opposite - within the RAW is step one; but a more important step 2 would be to strongly advise all involved to simply slow down and take the flippin' time.  Don't expect or demand that the campaign simply jump from set-piece to set-piece or encounter to encounter or framed-scene to framed-scene; you're missing everything that can happen in between and turning your back on the rest of the game.  Further; when everything's exciting, nothing is; and you're at constant risk of getting into "how do I top this?" mode.

Another way to look at it: in an average day during a dangerous adventure maybe a sum total of half an hour of game time will be actual encounters or combat or framed scenes.  Why not give some thought to what the PCs are doing with the other 23+ hours in the day?  I'm by no means suggesting playing out every little detail of their day (to forestall the expected criticism I'll get), but for gawds sake allow some role-played downtime between encounters to track resources or chat around the campfire, or allow the players to spend the time between one encounter and the next mapping out where they're going; and every now and then ask how their supplies are doing. (for example: last night my party got up into the mountains and hit some cold weather - it suddenly became very relevant who had winter gear on hand [one character did; another has magical cold protection] and who didn't [everyone else in the party])

With this in mind I see the 4e DM advice to just "go where the action is" (and by implication skip everything in between) as probably the worst thing ever written in a D&D rulebook.

The game is endless.  Play it that way. 

Lan-"putting up the tomato-catching net now"-efan


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 30, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> It's okay to kill characters without their consent. It's not okay to change their mind without their consent.




So, no Fear spells?


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 30, 2018)

Hell, it's not focused on combat enough.  If I wanted to chat with innkeepers, I'd leave them Yelp reviews.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 30, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> So, no Fear spells?



A _fear_ spell doesn't change what someone is thinking. It just makes it so that, regardless of what you're thinking, your body is acting as though you were afraid and now you're running away (or whatever the mechanical effect is).


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 30, 2018)

Blue said:


> I feel that D&D makes the assumption that combat will be a lengthy mechanical part of a session whenever it occurs, so that every character should be good at it.  This doesn't mean that you need a lot of combat, or that every session has combat.  It does mean that when it occurs it's going to take a good chunk of time and involve everyone.




Good point. 




> Now, if the question was "is D&D too little focused on X", there I might be more opinionated.  For non-casters, it feels like 80%+ of character creation and advancement is about combat-related items.  We get cases where people look at the Fighter (Champion) and say tat it has little feel outside of combat (and the new UA Brute has even less).




IMO the Champion is an example of decent design. It's a simple character for the kind of player who really dislikes complicated play mechanics. That's not bad. I do wish they'd supported all characters with some useful non-combat actions, though. The Champion's only really good stuff in this regard is Athletics, short of the player making it happen. 



> Everyone being useful and having a niche in combat is a sacred cow of D&D and I accept that (and can easily play systems that don't have that when I feel like it), and that I accept.




In some respects that's later in D&D's history, though niche protection is old. A number of characters were notably weak in combat in the early days.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 30, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> A _fear_ spell doesn't change what someone is thinking. It just makes it so that, regardless of what you're thinking, your body is acting as though you were afraid and now you're running away (or whatever the mechanical effect is).




Seems like splitting hairs to me, but there are both charms and illusions which most definitely change what your character is thinking. 

Now I agree one should use such things sparingly, but they're a long-established part of the game.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 30, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Seems like splitting hairs to me, but there are both charms and illusions which most definitely change what your character is thinking.
> 
> Now I agree one should use such things sparingly, but they're a long-established part of the game.



It seems distinct enough to me, but I get what you're saying. Really, the big difference is in acceptability. If the DM says that your barbarian is now friends with this guy in a robe who was just trying to kill you a minute ago, because he cast a spell and it's magic making you think things you wouldn't ordinarily think, then that's one thing. If the DM says that your barbarian is now friends with this guy in leather armor who was just trying to kill you a minute ago, because he made a very convincing argument and now you believe that it was an honest mistake, then you might disagree that your barbarian would be so accepting.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 30, 2018)

Panda-s1 said:


> man so many people are saying "D&D doesn't need 50 pages explaining social interaction lol", but did it ever occur to anyone that D&D doesn't need 50 pages describing combat either? "combat needs detailed rules" no it doesn't, so many games get away with abstract combat rules and people love playing them. I don't want the combat of D&D to go away but some people are missing the point.




I'd argue that people who are looking for stronger rules in any category are making "their" point.  I don't think it matters much with "the" point is.

KB


----------



## Sunseeker (Jan 30, 2018)

It started out as a tactical wargame.  The fact that it has _any_ non-combat elements to it should be impressive in that regard.  All these folks who claim that non-combat elements of D&D are dying are, IMO out of their gourd.  Non-combat elements have grown, though yes, _rules_ for them have not, which leads to combat having an apparent over-representation in the rulebook.  But some editions tried adding rules to social and exploration elements of the game, they weren't terribly successful because all they ended up really accomplishing is setting DC's for diplomacy checks on making gods your friends.  That's obviously not the approach we want to see.

Certainly RPGs don't need hard mechanical rules for combat, but I think that, at least for the type of combat D&D wants to have, it's necessary.  Combat in D&D is very fixed-outcome.  Either something happens, or it doesn't.  It's not wishy-washy on its results and I think for combat, that's good.  (I'll add that I generally don't like systems of more "make believe" combat).  Social and exploration is very much less a fixed-outcome sort of deal and I think because of that, it's a lot more difficult to create rules.  We don't know what the outcome of talking to the King is.  We _do_ know what the outcome of swinging a sword is.  The sword is a known variable.  Unless we're going to create rules that say something like "All Kings are the same." in the same way that all longswords are the same, we're never going to be able to have the same kind of rules we have for combat work for social situations.


----------



## Sunsword (Jan 30, 2018)

To me this depends on the table and the mood. Some nights you can tell a combat is what is desired, some nights we don't roll any dice. In my opinion the most successful DMs are the ones who can read the table and go with the flow.


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Jan 30, 2018)

I don't think die roles should ever substitute for players using their brains to figure out a situation.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> I don't think die roles should ever substitute for players using their brains to figure out a situation.




The D&D system is not too bad for character knowledge being greater than player knowledge, but there are plenty of other systems out there that have character skills, proficiencies, etc that many players would have no clue how they work in real life, so having to default to dice rolls instead of figuring it out can and will happen. Also, while I love role playing games, I am not so good at the actual role playing, so there are plenty of times I will just roll the dice rather than trying to act something out, especially CHA related stuff. And DMs need to be smart enough and aware enough to understand when their players are in those types of situations.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well combat needs rules, role playing does not. Players can always play "Lets pretend" There is no die rolling involved when characters are attempting to solve a mystery, or haggling with a merchant to settle on a price, one can roll dice for those things, but that is kind of artificial. I'd rather rely on the player's skills at interacting with people than to roll a d20 die to see if a difficulty class is met to determine an NPC's reaction.




I bet Gygax thought the same way you did.  That's why the early rulebooks went lite on the social roleplaying rules because he thought they weren't needed.

However, lots of people read those rulebooks and came to the conclusion that D&D was purely a combat game because it was full of combat rules and little else.


----------



## R_Chance (Jan 30, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> One thing I miss from that list in the OP is logistics. Today it seems like the we have a multidimensional loot storage area, find 15000 gold, add it to the loot sheet.  Its like Pillars of Eternity. Weight doesn't matter. How you are going to carry it out doesn't matter since "that's not fun".  The backpack is a tardis staffed by a gnome who hands you the exact item you need as you need it. I would prefer a game where decisions  on how to get a large treasure pile out of a dungeon is an issue. Where hirelings become important for such matters.  I'd like the environment to be more of an issue the players have to take into account as well.  I'm playing in a ToA game and honestly the environmental matters are such a non issue that its hard for me to take the game seriously as we romp around the jungles in full plate.  I was hoping it would be a a battle against the environment as much as the enemies.  Maybe its just the DM.




The Outdoor Survival rules and the encumbrance rules in OD&D/ AD&D made for some fun. Players could starve or die of thirst. You couldn't take it all with you. Pack animals were a good idea. You had to plan an adventure / expedition. Add weather and environmental effects and it got really interesting. It was fun.

Magic could mitigate some issues as you advanced in levels of course. Later editions started using more and more magic to evade the problems players encountered on outdoor adventures. Too bad. Worrying about where your next meal was coming from gave players something to worry about besides the next combat. It also helped make the game more immersive and gave it a dose of "reality". My initial group loved it, but then we were straight out of miniature wargaming and these issues came up in miniature campaigns (as opposed to just setting up a single battle).


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well combat needs rules, role playing does not. Players can always play "Lets pretend" There is no die rolling involved when characters are attempting to solve a mystery, or haggling with a merchant to settle on a price, one can roll dice for those things, but that is kind of artificial.



I've seen this argument quite often, but I'm convinced it doesn't hold water.
There's nothing inherently different about combat that it merits being treated different from any other activities in an RPG. In fact there are numerous RPG systems that have seamlessly integrated combat-relevant skills in their skill system. The only reason combat is treated differently from other skills in D&D is that D&D historically didn't have a skill system.

Combat encounters could be resolved purely by roleplaying exactly as any other kind of encounter. And the reverse is just as true: All kinds of encounters benefit from a rule framework, especially those that involve some kind of conflict. It doesn't matter if that conflict is fought with weapons, words or thoughts.

Going back to the article's question, the answer depends entirely on the preferences of the players. D&D has traditionally been focused on combat, so unless players are reluctant to learn any other RPG systems, there's no reason to play D&D if you feel it's _too_ focused on combat. If you feel that D&D has just the right amount of combat, though, you're obviously fine.

Interestingly, the article's author apparently chooses to ignore that there ever was a 4th edition of D&D. However, it was 4e that introduced the concept of skill challenges, i.e. trying to provide a rule framework for encounters involving something other than combat. 4e was also the edition where I as a GM first used milestones instead of tracking xp to decide when it was time for the pc's to level up. I'm not sure where I got the idea, maybe from 4e's DMG2?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2018)

Ry said:


> All the ways a player can assert himself in logistics and exploration fail in the face of an opponent.
> 
> Part of the difference between our play selves and our real selves is that in the universe of the game, something's actively trying make you unsafe, cause you harm.
> 
> Maybe we all should have just tried harder to talk with our opponents, but when it comes down to it they will kill us if we don't respond.  Combat, and skill in combat, is a kind of tangible, measurable source of security and also agency.  If the vampire refuses to be convinced by my argument that I should live, at least I can fight the vampire.



But this really begs the question - in that you assume that it is inherent in combat mechanics that they deliver finality in resolution, but social mechanics can't have the same character.

Classic Traveller doesn't have a universal social resolution system, but it has a few social resolution subsytems (especially for dealing with officials). And it delivers finality of resolution in those areas. One result is that Traveller players don't have their PCs blow up all the police and customs inspectors, because they know that a successful Admin or Bribery check _can_ result in them being convinced.



Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Of course its still focused more on combat than anything else. Nearly every class ability is used primarily in combat. Characters still have Hit Points as the only codified rules system for determining whether or not they stay in the scene encounter or not. The only way to hurt Hit Points is to Attack in a combat.
> 
> As long as this is the primary form of taking out characters and monsters, this will never change.
> 
> ...



In the history of D&D there has been some exceptions to what you say here.

Gygax's DMG has a complex system for establishing social reactions, loyalty and morale, etc. As written, it is applicable to friends and acquaintances, not just hirelings. I'm not sure it's actually playable as written (there are surprisingly many and complex moving parts), but it does offer something other than GM fiat to resolve some aspects of social interaction.

Another exception that tackles head on a lot of your points is the 4e skill challenge - codified resolution framework, player checks matter, finality of resolution. Unfortunately the "died in a fire" (I think that's the technical term).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 30, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> I've seen this argument quite often, but I'm convinced it doesn't hold water.
> There's nothing inherently different about combat that it merits being treated different from any other activities in an RPG. In fact there are numerous RPG systems that have seamlessly integrated combat-relevant skills in their skill system. The only reason combat is treated differently from other skills in D&D is that D&D historically didn't have a skill system.
> 
> Combat encounters could be resolved purely by roleplaying exactly as any other kind of encounter. And the reverse is just as true: All kinds of encounters benefit from a rule framework, especially those that involve some kind of conflict. It doesn't matter if that conflict is fought with weapons, words or thoughts.




Well, words and thoughts generally don't tend to injure, maim, or kill.  The focus many games (not just D&D) place on combat is due to the deadly nature of combat.  Games that go combat light on rules also tend to reduce consequences of combat.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well combat needs rules, role playing does not. Players can always play "Lets pretend" There is no die rolling involved when characters are attempting to solve a mystery, or haggling with a merchant to settle on a price



You can do combat with "let's pretend" also - I played a lot of "cops and robbers" and "armies" when I was a kid.

The reason for dice rolling in combat isn't because combat especially _needs_ it - it's because it provides finality of outcome without people having just to agree on what happens.

You can do exactly the same thing in non-combat arenas of interaction. As I just posted, Classic Traveller had social resolution mechanics in 1977. It's not like this is cutting edge tech if you want it in your game.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2018)

Blue said:


> I feel that D&D makes the assumption that combat will be a lengthy mechanical part of a session whenever it occurs, so that every character should be good at it.  This doesn't mean that you need a lot of combat, or that every session has combat.  It does mean that when it occurs it's going to take a good chunk of time and involve everyone.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Everyone being useful and having a niche in combat is a sacred cow of D&D and I accept that (and can easily play systems that don't have that when I feel like it), and that I accept.  Where it could grow even stronger is if it too that assumption about combat and applied it across other pillars, so everyone had niches in them and could contribute, instead of only needing one Face, or one tracker, or one PC who can find and disarm traps.



I think this would require not only changing PC build rules, but also changing the default approach to non-combat encounter framing.

I don't use a lot of traps or other "exploration"-type challenges in my games, so can't comment on that. But it's very common for the 8 CHA Dwarf fighter in my main 4e game to make social checks in a skill challenge, because he is trying to produce some outcome in the fiction (make someone listen to him, or obey him, or agree with him, or whatever) and there's no other way to bring that about!

But I read a lot of posts which talk about leaving all the talking up to "the face". This suggests that situations are being set up so that none of the other PCs (and thereby the players) have anything distinctive at stake which they need to make social checks to achieve. Contrast the situation with combat, where (typically) every PC is at risk of losing hp.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> I don't think die roles should ever substitute for players using their brains to figure out a situation.



I personally don't think that's very contentious, but it's orthogonal to the issue of whether or not combat is especially in need of rules.



shidaku said:


> some editions tried adding rules to social and exploration elements of the game, they weren't terribly successful because all they ended up really accomplishing is setting DC's for diplomacy checks on making gods your friends.  That's obviously not the approach we want to see.



The only edition that does this is 3E. It's not in AD&D. And it's not in 4e. (I'm not sure about 5e, but I don't think so.)



shidaku said:


> Social and exploration is very much less a fixed-outcome sort of deal and I think because of that, it's a lot more difficult to create rules.  We don't know what the outcome of talking to the King is.



The player can establish the desired outcome when declaring his/her action.



shidaku said:


> Unless we're going to create rules that say something like "All Kings are the same." in the same way that all longswords are the same, we're never going to be able to have the same kind of rules we have for combat work for social situations.



Well, Traveller actually takes that approach to bureaucrats - a uniform resolution scheme for dealing with them. The result is that dealing with bureaucrats is a significant part of Classic Traveller play.

But there are plenty of systems with universal social resolution mechanics that "the same kind of rules" as for combat - eg HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. (Exactly the same in the case of the first and last of those.)


----------



## Reynard (Jan 30, 2018)

"We try to convince the baron to write us a letter so we can get to the capital without being molested by guards" does not need to be handled terribly differently in the game rules than "We try to move down the hallways without setting off any of the pressure plates so we can get to the treasure without being pinioned with poison darts" or "we try to cut our way through the orc line so we can get to the necromancer without having our life force sucked out." Each one represents a bunch of steps and challenges that are based on the capabilities of the PC as written on the character sheet, guided by the strategies and tactics of the players. The problem with treating the first as special, requiring convincing statements, is that it becomes a game of "GM May I?" very quickly. Imagine the opposite where the outcome of combat was determined by how well you described your attacks and feints and was based primarily on whether the GM liked what you said, what their mood was and whether their kids had really rankled them that day. It doesn't make sense for combat (in a game not built around narrative devices, I mean) so it should not make any more sense in a social challenge or a non-combat skill challenge. Players should not have to be adept orators in order to play a con man any more than they should have to know how to fence in order to play a swashbuckler.


----------



## BackInAction (Jan 30, 2018)

One other reason why combat might get more love than some of the parts of the game is the "real life" vs "fantasy" aspect.  In "real-life" I deal with logistics, resources, social interactions, etc. all day long.  I don't cast spells or swing a sword.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 30, 2018)

Reynard said:


> "We try to convince the baron to write us a letter so we can get to the capital without being molested by guards" does not need to be handled terribly differently in the game rules than "We try to move down the hallways without setting off any of the pressure plates so we can get to the treasure without being pinioned with poison darts" or "we try to cut our way through the orc line so we can get to the necromancer without having our life force sucked out." Each one represents a bunch of steps and challenges that are based on the capabilities of the PC as written on the character sheet, guided by the strategies and tactics of the players. The problem with treating the first as special, requiring convincing statements, is that it becomes a game of "GM May I?" very quickly. Imagine the opposite where the outcome of combat was determined by how well you described your attacks and feints and was based primarily on whether the GM liked what you said, what their mood was and whether their kids had really rankled them that day. It doesn't make sense for combat (in a game not built around narrative devices, I mean) so it should not make any more sense in a social challenge or a non-combat skill challenge. Players should not have to be adept orators in order to play a con man any more than they should have to know how to fence in order to play a swashbuckler.



I agree with you last sentence, but...

Having mechanical means for suicidal challenges means that the PCs are subject to the same kinds of social "attacks."  That gets into telling people how their PC acts or thinks or feels.  That's not bad, in and of itself, but it is a big reason people push back against codified mechanics for the social pillar.

I'm okay with having to adopt what mechanics tell me, but I have a few current  players that would hate it.  One of my old players would be enraged -- which is weird because he was a fantastic GM, even of ganes that had social mechanics.  When he played, though, even trying to apply pressure, much less mechanics, turned him into a stubborn mule.


----------



## Sebastrd (Jan 30, 2018)

Personally, I think the greatest failing of D&D is that it doesn't offer robust mechanical support outside of combat. 5E is particularly egregious given that the stated design goals included supporting all three "pillars" (combat, exploration, and interaction), but the rules didn't evolve to cover them. (That said, I'm a huge fan of 5E.)

If anyone has experience with games that do a good job of mechanically implementing exploration and interaction, I'd love to hear about them. I hate glossing over them at my table, but I've yet to come across a better alternative.


----------



## Lord Zack (Jan 30, 2018)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Almost everything in D&D revolves around combat. Combat has always been the main course. And there is no shame in that, but we often see attempts made to either apologize or compensate for it unnecessarily. What I loved best about fourth edition was it actually embraced the true nature if the system. It was the most honest and innovative version of the game, and true to form, flawed no less than any of the others.




Most people may have played the game that way, but this would be because the early developers failed in adequetly communicating their intent. If you tried to go all hack and slash in Blackmoor and Greyhawk your characters would be slain in short order. Personally I find that a game where combat is emphasized over alternative solutions to be far less interesting.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 30, 2018)

R_Chance said:


> The Outdoor Survival rules and the encumbrance rules in OD&D/ AD&D made for some fun. Players could starve or die of thirst. You couldn't take it all with you. Pack animals were a good idea. You had to plan an adventure / expedition. Add weather and environmental effects and it got really interesting. It was fun.
> 
> Magic could mitigate some issues as you advanced in levels of course. Later editions started using more and more magic to evade the problems players encountered on outdoor adventures. Too bad. Worrying about where your next meal was coming from gave players something to worry about besides the next combat. It also helped make the game more immersive and gave it a dose of "reality". My initial group loved it, but then we were straight out of miniature wargaming and these issues came up in miniature campaigns (as opposed to just setting up a single battle).




Yep. I think having to plan an expedition to a jungle like Chuult is cool. As you said its immersive for me.   Instead when we went into the dark dangerous jungle its functionally not much different than an adventure on the Sword Coast. The survival checks are trivial and there are a ton of ways mitigate anything nasty.  And you level so quick that in a handful of sessions its all a non issue.  Just different monsters in the random encounter tables.  For me there is zero immersion, no need to put that much thought into how you are going to approach it.   But I think D&D editions in general have gotten more and more like that, the immersion of having to describe how you are going to interact with the environment the DM has described is largely removed by making a skill check.  Having to think of how I'm going to role play an encounter based on clues the DM has given me in descriptions of an NPC are largely removed by making a skill check.  I never get into the mind of the PC, I'm in the mechanics most of the time.  All of this is IME and all that.  I'm sure for many YMMV. 

I think I need to find an old school game.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jan 30, 2018)

Lord Zack said:


> Most people may have played the game that way, but this would be because the early developers failed in adequetly communicating their intent. If you tried to go all hack and slash in Blackmoor and Greyhawk your characters would be slain in short order. Personally I find that a game where combat is emphasized over alternative solutions to be far less interesting.



So your argument is that most people chose to play a certain way because the designers couldn't communicate effectively? Can we assume that you are not playing D&D because it doesn't hold your interest, or have you found ways to make it more interesting like most have done since the beginning? 

Incidentally, Greyhawk and Blackmoor are settings, not actual games unto themselves.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 30, 2018)

There's a lot of good posts in this thread, but I've yet to see one that looks at the problem from a top-down perspective so I'll give it a go.

The question really isn't about combat rules, it's about how all of the rules of the game system fit together.  If you look at them, you see an ebb and flow over the years that support the pillars, it's more about whether the "first look" at the system makes the support readily obvious based on page count and amount of work on the part of the DM vs. amount of stuff detailed in the rules books.

At it's core the game has always been, roll a die or dice and try to get over or under a target number.  Early on the D20 and D100 were used for task resolution and the others were used mostly for damage.  These days it's more about the D20 and hitting a target number threshold.  Really, that's as complicated as the game is in a nuts and bolts way and I don't think that ever needs to change.

To support combat and social situations you add modifiers.  Regardless of flavor, it's a +1 through +5 usually and most mods cap out at +2 to give you a 10% swing on a D20.
To support combat, exploration and logistics you add distance.  This is usually in a number of feet, or number of squares (as an abstraction of feet) per turn.
To support social situations you add an initial disposition table.  This is usually a d10 or d20 adding a modifier (usually charisma)
To support all the pillars you add a basic economy so that things may be purchased, bribed etc.

Everything else is DM fiat.  Which is as it should be.

If there's a bias towards combat rules (there is) it's because 

1. It's the interaction most likely to cause character death and ending of the game. (Highest risk value interaction)
2. Character generation requires classes to be different in context of the highest risk value interaction and many abilities are damage related.  

I don't see this as a particularly complicated discussion because like most DMs I've spent a lot of time working out the economic, logistic, and social structures in my game settings before I play the game.  I don't _need_ those rules to exist.  However, I do like having a combat framework because the time doesn't exist to deliberate every hit roll fairly without that framework as it does/should with every player interaction.  Completely free form combat (meaning no rules at all) given all the character options available would prevent the game from progressing.

Thanks
KB


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You can do combat with "let's pretend" also - I played a lot of "cops and robbers" and "armies" when I was a kid.
> 
> The reason for dice rolling in combat isn't because combat especially _needs_ it - it's because it provides finality of outcome without people having just to agree on what happens.
> 
> You can do exactly the same thing in non-combat arenas of interaction. As I just posted, Classic Traveller had social resolution mechanics in 1977. It's not like this is cutting edge tech if you want it in your game.




This. I don't really see the difference between "I shoot him/"Nuh-uh, you missed" and "I convince him/Nuh-uh, you didn't convince ME". If anything, the latter is even more meta-game and less roleplaying, since its basically a power fantasy avatar rather than playing the character as they interact with the world. 

I like codified social/exploration rules. I have no idea how to mechanically design a trap or disarm it, nor should I need to do so anymore than someone else should have to actually know how to cast a spell. My silver tongue shouldnt really grant me a bonus when my character's stats don't match up. I'm not playing "idealized me, complete with metagame knowledge".


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> I don't think die roles should ever substitute for players using their brains to figure out a situation.



Use of player knowledge was very much expected in the early days, if you look at a lot of older modules. However, there are some real questions raised by it so it's not surprising that skill systems got developed over the years. Examples:

*(1)* What if I'm a rather above average Int person playing an low Int fighter? What if I'm a normal guy playing a wizard with Int 18? 
*(2)* How do we handle situations where players know things their characters really don't? Example: Making gunpowder. Or vice versa, not knowing how to handle a horse or cross a raging river or knowing how to read ancient Sylvan? 
*(3)* How about player knowledge of game content? I've DMed a ton and know the monsters of multiple editions pretty well. However, my _characters _shouldn't know that. 
etc. 

There are reasons why die rolls might well need to overrule players. If you want a way to make it seem less crazy, one way to think about is is that the players make whatever argument they make to the guards to get past the gate but ultimately things come down to the fact that the _characters _need to know or do something. The DM can adjust the difficulty of the roll such as granting advantage or imposing disadvantage, for coming up with a good or bad plan. A roll is often very useful.


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Jan 30, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> I bet Gygax thought the same way you did.  That's why the early rulebooks went lite on the social roleplaying rules because he thought they weren't needed.
> 
> However, lots of people read those rulebooks and came to the conclusion that D&D was purely a combat game because it was full of combat rules and little else.



Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" The DM informs the player that he must roll a D20 to decide the outcome of this encounter. So the player rolls a D20 and the result is a natural 1, so the DM informs the player that the store proprietor gets mad, grabs the sword that is on the table and he attacks the player characters with it, and tells the players to role for initiative to determine the order of combat. The player who rolled the dices asks, "What happened, what did I do?" The DM tells the player, "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" <...> "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."




100% that interpretation of rolls really matters but not all failure escalates that way... most probably shouldn't. I mean, maybe the shop owner just doesn't want to sell or raises the price or angrily kicks the PCs out of his shop? Those seem more proportional. Not all interactions need die rolls either. Buying a sword is an example of one that probably doesn't.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" The DM informs the player that he must roll a D20 to decide the outcome of this encounter. So the player rolls a D20 and the result is a natural 1, so the DM informs the player that the store proprietor gets mad, grabs the sword that is on the table and he attacks the player characters with it, and tells the players to role for initiative to determine the order of combat. The player who rolled the dices asks, "What happened, what did I do?" The DM tells the player, "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."




You're right. that's Terribly ridiculous. A better example (that came directly from my game last week) is if a PC tries to intimidate an NPC with threats of violence into letting them squat in his estate. It was a strange demand, to be sure, and the exchange could really have used a rules frame work to guide the outcome (we are playing Labyrinth Lord, if that matters).

As it is, the aristocrat's bodyguards are going to lay in wait and assassinate the insolent PC, but that's a different issue.


----------



## mcosgrave (Jan 30, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Well combat needs rules, role playing does not.




Absolutely! Put this on a tee shirt! 

If you compare the development of D&D with board war games, you see similarities. Old games like Napoleon at Waterloo are pure force on force, while intermediate era games like Terrible Swift Sword deal with troop quality and command. Recent games like Arquebus are almost entirely driven by command, and commander activation. Obviously, I generalize grossly here, but as time has progressed since the seventies, our understanding of how to model complex real,world interactions in games has developed.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But it's very common for the 8 CHA Dwarf fighter in my main 4e game to make social checks in a skill challenge, because he is trying to produce some outcome in the fiction (make someone listen to him, or obey him, or agree with him, or whatever) and there's no other way to bring that about!
> 
> But I read a lot of posts which talk about leaving all the talking up to "the face". This suggests that situations are being set up so that none of the other PCs (and thereby the players) have anything distinctive at stake which they need to make social checks to achieve.



It's not the situations that are being set up that's causing this, it's caused by the underlying rules clearly and obviously granting a greater chance of success when only the "face" does the interacting.

This is horrible design.  Even when there's something big at stake for the whole party, maximal odds of success come via preventing or strongly discouraging most of the participants from playing!  Whose dumb idea was that?



> Contrast the situation with combat, where (typically) every PC is at risk of losing hp.



If h.p. is all they're worried about losing it's not much of a combat. 

But yes, there's strong encouragement built into the system for most if not all characters to participate in combats; not least of which is that to just leave it all to the tank (analagous to leaving an important social interaction to the face to deal with) means you're going to bury a lot of tanks and then spend a lot of time recruiting (and rolling up) new ones.

Lanefan


----------



## Lord Zack (Jan 30, 2018)

Jacob Lewis said:


> So your argument is that most people chose to play a certain way because the designers couldn't communicate effectively? Can we assume that you are not playing D&D because it doesn't hold your interest, or have you found ways to make it more interesting like most have done since the beginning?
> 
> Incidentally, Greyhawk and Blackmoor are settings, not actual games unto themselves.




I don't really have to do much at all because IMO D&D was never focused on combat to begin with. I just have to encourage the players to not always pursue combat-related solutions. Using a version that has xp for treasure, or adding it myself helps. There was also other stuff like monster reactions, morale, etc. that people tended to ignore.

Also Gygax and Arneson ran the Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns before those were published settings. Indeed they actually were on some level games unto themselves back them because Dungeons and Dragons wasn't published yet so everybody did things there own way.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (Jan 31, 2018)

I am finding it too focused on combat, but that's not because of the amount of rules on combat. It's because of a general lack of rules in other areas and not enough effort to fix it.

Pathfinder is just as combat-heavy as 5E, if not more so, and it still has plenty to do that is part of the rules and isn't killing something. Far, far more than the 5E equivalent splat.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Pathfinder is just as combat-heavy as 5E, if not more so, and it still has plenty to do that is part of the rules and isn't killing something. Far, far more than the 5E equivalent splat.




Could you provide an example or a few of them?


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (Jan 31, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Could you provide an example or a few of them?




A good portion of this book.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> A good portion of this book.




That's an entirely fair example of how a game that's been around since the end of 3rd edition has a huge advantage over a game that's been around for five years. 

However, (and I know this isn't the point of the conversation) if you go back through the editions of D&D, you'll find equivalencies all over 2nd edition (Battlesystem and splats) BECMI (kingdoms) etc.

We can compare Pathfinder and 5e when they're both the same age (never) and it will be a fair assessment.  Right now, of course 5E is behind Pathfinder (Though it's Pathfinder and thus 3e based and well, even though I have a sub to all the PDFs.. I'd rather play 4e than either of the games but I always go with latest rev.)

Be well and Thanks
KB


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> It's not the situations that are being set up that's causing this, it's caused by the underlying rules clearly and obviously granting a greater chance of success when only the "face" does the interacting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there's strong encouragement built into the system for most if not all characters to participate in combats; not least of which is that to just leave it all to the tank (analagous to leaving an important social interaction to the face to deal with) means you're going to bury a lot of tanks and then spend a lot of time recruiting (and rolling up) new ones.



But the example that you give is not about system. It's about situation.

If every combat was framed as a duel between one NPC and the PC "tank", then there would zero encouragement for the thief (or mage, etc) to ever get into combat. But the default in D&D a illustrated in modules; as set out by rulebook advice on encounter design) is not to frame every combat as a duel.

It's the framing that means only the "face" talks. That framing is, in turn, related to bigger issues of encounter and scenario design - for instance, if most interactions with NPCs are of the _get some information out of them_ or _justify why the PCs shouldn't be arrested/attacked for being here_ variety, then of course only the most persuasive PC will do the talking.

But it's not very hard to frame social interactions where those are not the only things at stake. It's as simple as the NPC saying to the fighter, "So, what's your view of this matter?" If the fighter stands there and looks dumb, well, that's a loss (but see further below). If the fighter replies, well, now the fighter is part of the social interaction.

If, in fact, _it doesn't matter_ that the fighter just stands dumb when asked questions by NPCs - that is, if social standing and reputation and good relations with NPCs and the like _don't matter in the game_, then it's going to be hard to frame social encounters that engage all the PCs - just as, if it didn't matter whether or not PCs took damage in combat, then the mages and thieves wouldn't both with fighting and would just leave it to the tanks to mop up. Or to put it another way: social encounters where _it doesn't matter if you're a social failure_ are like combat encounters where _you heal all damage as son as it's taken_, so it doesn't matter if you get hit.

No one would dream of setting up that as the default approach to combat; but I think in many D&D games it probably is the default approach to social interaction.



Thomas Bowman said:


> Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" The DM informs the player that he must roll a D20 to decide the outcome of this encounter. So the player rolls a D20 and the result is a natural 1, so the DM informs the player that the store proprietor gets mad, grabs the sword that is on the table and he attacks the player characters with it, and tells the players to role for initiative to determine the order of combat. The player who rolled the dices asks, "What happened, what did I do?" The DM tells the player, "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."



What you describe is no more or less ridiculous than the following:

The PC walks into a room with an angry orc in it. The orc draws a sword; the player says "Well, I draw too and try and cut the orc down!" The player rolls a 1. The GM, for the orc, rolls a 20, then the damage dice, and the damage result exceeds the hit point total on the PC sheet. The GM announces "You're dead!" The player asks "Why, what happened, what did the orc do?" And the GM answers "Well, I rolled a 20 and you know that's an auto-hit and crit, and the damage roll was more than your hp. Sorry, just bad luck, I guess."

In other words, the core of D&D combat can be resolved without knowing anything more about the fiction than that character A has a weapon in hand, is in the immediate vicinity of character B, and attacks. If that's not a problem for combat, why is it a problem for haggling? Or, if you have techniques for dealing with this issue in combat, than why wouldn't you use the same techniques for a haggling scenario?



Kobold Boots said:


> At it's core the game has always been, roll a die or dice and try to get over or under a target number.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The combat resolution mechanics have never involved just the rolling of a to hit die.

There have always (in the post-Chainmail era) been damage rules, related to rules for hit point ablation and the consequences of that. From time to time there have been facing rules, positioning rules, movement and engagement rules, etc.

And these haven't always just been GM fiat. Gygax's AD&D has intricate rules for facing, how many figures can attack a single figure, when the shield bonus to AC does or doesn't count, when DEX bonus to AC is retained or lost (based on position and other elements of status), etc.

4e has very substantial non-GM fiat elements in its social resolution mechanics (ie skill challenges) (the most important being X successes before 3 failures; but other ones too, like the requirement that the player declare an action for his/her PC that makes sense given the fictional situation; and the distinction between primary checks (that, if successful, will advance the PC's goal in the challenge) and secondary checks (that, if successful, don't directly advance the goal but open up some other resource or opportunity)).

An initial disposition table (ie a reaction roll system) is not essential (4e doesn't have one - the GM sets the "initial disposition" as part of the framing of the situation). And it won't help if there is no system that permits the players, via their PCs, to actually generate changes in the relevant fiction. And I take it as given that the 3E version of that system, in its Diplomacy rules, shows why a simple "Roll X to improve the disposition N steps" mechanic, that has no scope for considerations of framing and context, is not feasible in a game which allows for essentially open-ended bonuses. (Traveller social interaction does use a "roll X to win" system, but bonuses in Traveller are tightly capped. And even then I'm not sure the Traveller system is impervious to breakage.)



Ovinomancer said:


> Having mechanical means for suicidal challenges means that the PCs are subject to the same kinds of social "attacks."



It doesn't have to. In Classic Traveller players make morale checks for their PCs on the same basis that the GM makes them for NPCs; and in Burning Wheel the GM can call on a player to make a (comparable) Steel check.

But in AD&D and Moldvay Basic PCs are immune from the morale rules. And in Traveller, while players can make Admin and Bribery checks to resolve interactions with officials, there is no system that allows the GM to make Admin or Bribery checks on behalf of NPCs to resolve interactions with the PCs.

In 4e, a social situation may be resolved via a skill challenge, but the only way for an NPC to "win" the challenge is for the players to lose (ie 3 failures before N successes). What consequences flow from the NPC "win) (= player and PC failure) is up to the GM to narrate based on the logic of the ingame situation, but I think it is a matter for individual tables to decide whether or not a failure can include a PC having his/her mind changed.

I wouldn't do that at my table. The closest I have come is much more minor manipulations of PC behaviour as consequences for failed checks on the way through the challenge. Eg one time the PCs were negotiating with some witches, one of whom was a Pact Hag (and thus has, on her statblock, a whole host of verbal manipulation abilities backed by magic). A player failed a check, and I descibed the result as being that, as the hag talked to the PC, she led him to move through the room from point A to point B - point B being where there was a trapdoor, which the hag then activated by pulling on a cord so as to drop the PC into a pit.

For me, in 4e, that's about the limit of "mind control"-type consequences I will impose on player for a failure in a social skill challenge (in combat terms, it's a modest amount of forced movement). When I have posted that example in the past, though, many responders have thought that it broke the limits of acceptable consequence narration. But it's quite feasible to resolve social interactions via the skill challenge mechanics without using even consequences of that sort.



Sebastrd said:


> If anyone has experience with games that do a good job of mechanically implementing exploration and interaction, I'd love to hear about them. I hate glossing over them at my table, but I've yet to come across a better alternative.



Exploration's not really my thing, but OD&D used the Outdoor Survival game which some liked (eg someone just upthread mentioned it favourably); Moldvay Basic's dungeon exploration rules are highly regarded and are the inspiration for the contemporary game Torchbearer.

I think Classic Traveller's jump space mechanics work nicely, because (like the Moldvay exploration rules) they use a tight resolution sequence: roll for an encounter as you leave the system; roll checks for drive failure and misjump; spend a week in jump space (which can inclue a roll for hijacking if there are NPCs on board; and other situations the GM chooses to run, but none are obligatory); roll for an encounter upon arrival in the destination system. (It's quite similar to Moldvay's _move the PCs their movement rate_, map, resolve any declared checks to look for traps or secret doors, mark off the appropriate number of turns, roll a wandering monster check every X turns.)

Conversely, Classic Traveller has poor rules for planetary surface exploration. The weakest moment of play in my current Traveller game occurred when we got stuck in these rules - which are basically "GM fiats all distances and directions,  the players roll for vehicle malfunction every ingame day, the GM checks for an encounter/event twice a day, every day uses X amount of rations/oxygen". Everything turns on the passage of ingame days, but these are just parcelled out by GM fiat. (On the return trip I had the PCs, in their ATVs, under bombardment from an orbiting starship, and used the "quickie" resolution system that is intended for when a small craft comes under attack from a starship. That system worked well, and let us avoid the tedium and fiat of the proper rules.)

For a completely different sort of exploration resolution system there is Cortex+ Heroic. The default published version of this is Marvel Heroic RP, but the Cortex+ Hacker's Guide has a number of variant rules, including exploration rules for fantasy gaming. The basic unit of play in Cortex+ Heroic is the _scene_. In MHRP these are either action scenes or transition scenes; the Hacker's Guide introduces exploration scenes. In my own Cortex+ Fantasy game I don't use exploration scenes, but just treat them as a species of transition scene; and by a combination of house ruling plus induction from various rules that are part of MHRP, I use a rule that in a transition scene each player is allowed to declare a single action (rolled against the Doom Pool). If that succeeds, then the player can establish an asset - so a player might make a check to establish a Found the Path Through the Forest asset, which would then provide a bonus die on salient actions in the next Action Scene.

Exploration-type assets can also be created in Action Scenes; when the PCs were trying to rescue some villagers who were locked up inside a giant chieftain's steading, one of the player's established a Hole in the Pallisade asset which then gave a bonus die for the action to rescue the villagers (which, from memory, in mechanical terms was an action aimed at degrading the Imprisoned Villagers Scene Distinction).

In 4e skill challenges can be used to resolve exploration - I've done a few of those, as well as slightly more conventional approaches.

For social resolution I'm finding Traveller fine at present (it has a few subystems - a generic reaction roll, which I let the players make as a type of "influence" check; the systems for resolving bureaucratic encounters; the patron encounter system for estabilshing contacts/recruiters). Burning Wheel is very different - it has the Circles mechanics for establishing friends/contacts; and the Duel of Wits (which can bind on players/PCs as much as the GM/NPCs) for resolving disagreements/persuasion attempts.

In Cortex+ Heroic social conflict is resolved in a mechanically identical fashion to any other conflict, but instead of Physical Stress and complications like Stuck on the Top of the Washington Monument, you deal Emotional or Mental Stress and inflict complications like Smitten. (Those are examples from actual play: in the end, Ice Man resolved the conflict between the PCs and B.A.D. by riding in on ice slide and carrying Diamondback off into the sunset (in mechanical terms, stepping up her complication to a disabling level).)

In 4e skill challenges work well for social conflict resolution. Here's an actual play example.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The combat resolution mechanics have never involved just the rolling of a to hit die.




Pem - You know I don't mind chatting with you, but if you're going to write a book, at least make an attempt to actually understand what I wrote and stop yourself before you write a book that isn't relevant to what I wrote, or better yet, don't quote me to make your point.

Other than this I have no reply to you.  My post is accurate and stands on its own.  The fact that it may not be accurate based on whatever it is you rambled on about doesn't matter.

Be well.
KB


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 31, 2018)

> [h=3]The Third Mode: Logistics[/h]Logistics have largely fallen out of favor today due to onerous nature of keeping track of encumberance, equipment, and gold.




I just can not believe that there are Players who think that keeping track of Gold is onerous.  

Excepting that obviously there must be Players out there who think that because it is the internet afterall.  What is next, leveling up just because the DM can not be bothered to keep track of XP?


----------



## talien (Jan 31, 2018)

To be more specific:
* The weight of items one can legitimately carry.
* The bulk of items, even if they're light, that can be carried.
* The weight and bulk of coins

There's plenty of tools to keep track of equipment, and my kids are having a blast playing a Minecraft-stye hexcrawl game using a D&D 5E version of Gamma World (and lots of tokens).  Logistics is one of their favorite parts of the game.  But it's not for everybody, and there seems to be magical banks that just automatically allow exchanges and withdrawals even when PCs aren't near civilization.  

So yeah, there are definitely players who consider it onerous and they're not the minority.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (Jan 31, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> That's an entirely fair example of how a game that's been around since the end of 3rd edition has a huge advantage over a game that's been around for five years.
> 
> However, (and I know this isn't the point of the conversation) if you go back through the editions of D&D, you'll find equivalencies all over 2nd edition (Battlesystem and splats) BECMI (kingdoms) etc.
> 
> ...




Eh. 5E could solve it with just one release. It's really not that hard to fully address.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 31, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But I read a lot of posts which talk about leaving all the talking up to "the face". This suggests that situations are being set up so that none of the other PCs (and thereby the players) have anything distinctive at stake which they need to make social checks to achieve. Contrast the situation with combat, where (typically) every PC is at risk of losing hp.




I would imagine that leaving all the talking to the "Face" character would be similar to leaving all the damage taken to the "Tank" character.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 31, 2018)

talien said:


> To be more specific:
> * The weight of items one can legitimately carry.
> * The bulk of items, even if they're light, that can be carried.
> * The weight and bulk of coins
> ...




I like Minecraft and on the other hand Minecraft logistics are really funky.

View attachment 93531


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Eh. 5E could solve it with just one release. It's really not that hard to fully address.




Sure, and Pathfinder fixed a lot with Ultimate Campaign, but that was also four years after the initial game released


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 31, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I would imagine that leaving all the talking to the "Face" character would be similar to leaving all the damage taken to the "Tank" character.



In practice, leaving all of the talking to the "Face" character is a lot like leaving all of the lockpicking to the "rogue" character -- it's extremely efficient for everyone concerned.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jan 31, 2018)

So why do we categorize every aspect as combat and non-combat? Why not exploration and non-exploration, etc.? Oh, yeah... Because it is a combat-focused game! It always has been. Every edition, every derivative system. That is the game, and hooray for that because we need/like it that way! 

Now what is the point of arguing so strongly against it like it's a bad thing? D&D does what it does best, and can diverse itself just enough to give everyone their favorites on the side. Regardless how you slice it, you're still just rolling a die trying to beat a number to determine a pass/fail situation which is the simplest (and out-dated) mechanic in RPGs. So keep fighting the good fight, I guess.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 31, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In practice, leaving all of the talking to the "Face" character is a lot like leaving all of the lockpicking to the "rogue" character -- it's extremely efficient for everyone concerned.




There are lots of problems with this Saelorn, not the least of which is how your extreme metagame aversion is incoherent with this position.

1)  In reality (you're extremely predisposed toward extrapolation via internal causality), both informal and formal parlay (regardless of stakes and goals) among groups (associates/peers, would-bes, or strangers) typically involves multi-layered interactions.  One of the most important in the animal kingdom is unspoken signalling such as postures and respect for courtesies or social norms.  For instance, if someone is spoken to and they are ill-equipped to interact or aloof/rude/non-credible in their interactions, it damages the prospects of getting what a side wants out of the interchange.  This speaks to both (i) framing (a GM engaging a non-"face" character during interaction) and (ii) lack of consequences/fallout if either the non-"face" character eschews the interaction or the "face" character steps in and denies the NPC their interchange with the other PC.  In the real world, that typically doesn't fly and you'll draw the ire of someone ("I was talking to him/her") or they'll lose respect for both parties (due to the beta nature of the former and/or the unsolicited, rude interruption of the latter).

It may be "metagame cozy" to have the face do all the interactions (because of action resolution maths), but that should be a big problem of internal causality for anyone accustomed to varying social interactions in real life.  And a GM who is insufficient at framing "non-face" characters into social interaction needs to step their game up.  And a resolution system (GMing ethos or mechanics) that doesn't play into this paradigm is also likely a problem.

2)  While this won't move you at all, genre fiction (upon which plenty of people draw genre logic inspiration from) isn't exactly starved of tense social engagements with non-specialists (either because they imposed their will upon the situation or the situation was imposed upon them).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Pem - You know I don't mind chatting with you, but if you're going to write a book, at least make an attempt to actually understand what I wrote



THis claim:

At it's core the game has always been, roll a die or dice and try to get over or under a target number. Early on the D20 and D100 were used for task resolution and the others were used mostly for damage. These days it's more about the D20 and hitting a target number threshold. Really, that's as complicated as the game is in a nuts and bolts way and I don't think that ever needs to change.​
is not correct.

The nuts and bolts of D&D combat are not roll to hit a target number. They never have been. (There are games that fit this description: HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel, just to give two examples, allow combat to be resolved this way.)

Initiative; position; damage and hit points rules; these aren't add-ons to D&D combat. They're absolutely at it's core.

You can't even begin to work out who won a D&D combat just be finding out who hit how many target numbers.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 31, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> There are lots of problems with this Saelorn, not the least of which is how your extreme metagame aversion is incoherent with this position.



It's not metagaming _if_ that's how the world actually works. Your argument basically amounts to saying that the world doesn't really work that way, which may or may not be true of the real world, and may be true in your particular game world, but isn't necessarily true of my game world or any other game world I've ever played in. In most D&D worlds I've seen, you should leave fragile negotiations to the bard or paladin, because any interjection from the barbarian will cause negotiations to fail.



Manbearcat said:


> 2)  While this won't move you at all, genre fiction (upon which plenty of people draw genre logic inspiration from) isn't exactly starved of tense social engagements with non-specialists (either because they imposed their will upon the situation or the situation was imposed upon them).



In genre fiction - depending on what genre you think this is - non-specialists rarely accomplish anything useful through grace or eloquence of speech. More often than not, one side has a trump card which makes negotiation superfluous, or the opponent pretends to be convinced so they can betray the heroes later on in a dramatic fashion. Translating that into D&D terms, the die isn't usually rolled in those situations, or the villain succeeds in bluffing past the nonspecialist's insight. 

And that holds in D&D, as well. The barbarian may choose to negotiate with the Big Bad by holding the MacGuffin hostage, or otherwise giving them no choice. You don't need to send in the Face, because skill is a non-factor in this situation.


----------



## Lylandra (Jan 31, 2018)

And this is why people who love talking the talk as well as fighting the fight tend to invest into diplomacy etc. as much as they'd do in perception. The only problem there is often a lack of skillpoints or available proficiencies. Because I'd love to have each character be able to contribute to social encounters, both in terms of roleplaying AND in terms of mechanics.  

And this is where one could argue that D&D is "too combat focused". Because everyone *has* to be able to contribute in a fight and not everyone *has* to be able to contribute in social or exploration situations per RAW.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 31, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> It may be "metagame cozy" to have the face do all the interactions (because of action resolution maths), but that should be a big problem of internal causality for anyone accustomed to varying social interactions in real life.  And a GM who is insufficient at framing "non-face" characters into social interaction needs to step their game up.  And a resolution system (GMing ethos or mechanics) that doesn't play into this paradigm is also likely a problem.



I can't say for certain, since you're the one choosing your language, but it sounds to me like you aren't talking about meta-gaming or framing at all. It sounds more like you think the DM is roleplaying their NPCs inauthentically, and that they're getting away with it because there are no system mechanics with which to hold them accountable.

As an example, if the party is in town and the local loan shark starts harassing the fighter over some past debts, you think the fighter shouldn't be able to get away with simply letting the bard handle it; even though the fighter negotiates at -1 and can't possibly bluff, while the bard is absolutely guaranteed to convince the loan shark that the debts had already been paid. Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

Assuming this to be the case (so I can finish my point before going to bed), it sounds like you're confused by the concept of meta-gaming. The colloquial definition of the term refers to a character _within_ the game world acting on information from _outside_ of the game world. If the fighter chose to talk instead of the bard, based on the real-world rules of etiquette, then that would be meta-gaming because the world _they_ live in doesn't actually work that way; only in _our_ world would the fighter feel such a social pressure to speak for themself. Within the game world, allowing the bard to handle it is the correct course of action, because their world really does allow such deflections to be handled in that manner (it all comes down to the skill check, after all).

If you want to say that D&D is too combat-oriented because it has a lot of rules for combat and not enough rules to compel group participation in social interactions, then that's certainly a valid position (and it wouldn't even rely on DM framing to carry out). I would just argue that you could solve this example equally well by nixing the social skills entirely, such that the bard _couldn't_ save the fighter trivially, and the fighter was not mechanically penalized for speaking on their own behalf.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 31, 2018)

Sebastrd said:


> If anyone has experience with games that do a good job of mechanically implementing exploration and interaction, I'd love to hear about them. I hate glossing over them at my table, but I've yet to come across a better alternative.



"The One Ring" has pretty good rules for exploration; basically, every party member is assigned a particular role when traveling.
"The Burning Wheel" has a "Duel of Wits" to determine the outcome of social conflicts. In Ars Magica there's an elaborate system to determine the winner of a debate.


Ovinomancer said:


> Well, words and thoughts generally don't tend to injure, maim, or kill.



Maybe not directly, but definitely indirectly: It's quite a common meme that the heroes are (falsely?) accused of committing a crime and have to talk their way out of it to avoid being punished. That punishment may well be fatal.


Thomas Bowman said:


> Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" The DM informs the player that he must roll a D20 to decide the outcome of this encounter. So the player rolls a D20 and the result is a natural 1, so the DM informs the player that the store proprietor gets mad, grabs the sword that is on the table and he attacks the player characters with it, and tells the players to role for initiative to determine the order of combat. The player who rolled the dices asks, "What happened, what did I do?" The DM tells the player, "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."



That's a rather weird example. But apparently you're so focused on combat that you cannot imagine any negative outcome that doesn't involve the pcs being attacked?
I'd expect a roll of '1' to indicate that the store proprietor will flat out refuse to sell any weapons to the pcs. It's still a pretty bad example because usually you don't use a single die roll to determine the outcome of an encounter.


Shasarak said:


> I just can not believe that there are Players who think that keeping track of Gold is onerous.
> 
> Excepting that obviously there must be Players out there who think that because it is the internet afterall.  What is next, leveling up just because the DM can not be bothered to keep track of XP?



Well, I think, it's much more elegant to have a system using abstract wealth categories to determine what kind and quality of equipment you have access to. Such systems are e.g. used by Shadowrun and Ars Magica.
And tracking xp? It's already a thing of the past for me. Using milestones is way better. It neatly solves a bunch of problems, e.g. leveling up when there's no time to rest, lagging behind the expected power level due to missed encounters, and most importantly the freedom to solve conflicts and quests in whatever way the players prefer without having to fear that they'll be punished for not picking a solution that would grant them xp according to the rules.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of RPGs that don't use the concept of 'levels'.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 31, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, I think, it's much more elegant to have a system using abstract wealth categories to determine what kind and quality of equipment you have access to. Such systems are e.g. used by Shadowrun and Ars Magica.



Since when does Shadowrun use abstract wealth? Last I checked, money was still tracked to the nuyen, and ammunition could be purchased by the shot.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 31, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Since when does Shadowrun use abstract wealth? Last I checked, money was still tracked to the nuyen, and ammunition could be purchased by the shot.



Maybe I'm misremembering. You're right that it's not purely abstract, some things like weapons and implants are tracked. But almost everything else is subsumed under 'lifestyle', iirc.

Ars Magica also isn't purely abstract. You just don't count individual pennies. You do track expenses to upkeep your covenant like the cost of adding a new tower to your fortress. But starting equipment of characters is determined purely by your social status, e.g. a knight will start with a warhorse, plate mail and a set of weapons of good quality. The important thing is you don't have to worry about nit-picky details.


----------



## Rhianni32 (Jan 31, 2018)

Seems like a lot of people are confusing what they want out of RPing vs what the D&D ruleset focuses on. GMs and players can make whatever they want out of their game but if using D&D rules, and they want non combat situations and challenges, they have to put in a lot more extra work on their own vs what is given in the rules.

D&D has always been a Monster Murder Simulator rule set. They toss in some non combat rules in sidebars.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

Rhianni32 said:


> Seems like a lot of people are confusing what they want out of RPing vs what the D&D ruleset focuses on. GMs and players can make whatever they want out of their game but if using D&D rules, and they want non combat situations and challenges, they have to put in a lot more extra work on their own vs what is given in the rules.
> 
> D&D has always been a Monster Murder Simulator rule set. They toss in some non combat rules in sidebars.




That's not "confusing" anything -- it is answering the question posed by the article. And for many people, the answer is "yes" -- although there is a good bit of variation in what the "yes" really means.

For my part, I don't want to see fewer combat rules so much as I want to see more robust "social combat" rules -- rules that involve the whole party in negotiations, trials or whatever, with options and consequences as interesting as physical combat. I'd like to see non combat, non social rules of a similar sort, too. This is all achievable, either through a strong core mechanic that applies equally to combat and other situations, or by robust sub systems.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You can't even begin to work out who won a D&D combat just be finding out who hit how many target numbers.




At no point in time was I talking about resolving any of the pillars to its entirety.  Within the bounds of my post, damage is a modifier to the end result of the hit.  Location and position were mentioned in the second line as one of the add ons to support the game.

So again, if you don't like what I've written enough to comment without reading things first, either read fully or just put me on block so you don't waste your time.  

Be well
KB


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Jan 31, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> "The One Ring" has pretty good rules for exploration; basically, every party member is assigned a particular role when traveling.
> "The Burning Wheel" has a "Duel of Wits" to determine the outcome of social conflicts. In Ars Magica there's an elaborate system to determine the winner of a debate.
> Maybe not directly, but definitely indirectly: It's quite a common meme that the heroes are (falsely?) accused of committing a crime and have to talk their way out of it to avoid being punished. That punishment may well be fatal.
> That's a rather weird example. But apparently you're so focused on combat that you cannot imagine any negative outcome that doesn't involve the pcs being attacked?
> ...



Whether there is combat or not is up to the individual DM, the Game designers can't control what sort of DM he is going to be, using abstract die rolls as a substitute for social interactions is not every DM's style. Lots of DMs simply use common sense, for example the store proprietor is there to make money, to logically his actions are geared toward selling items to customers so he can make money and keep his shop open. If we use die rolls to determine what he does, he ends up behaving erratically, he would probably end up in jail if he attacked a customer like I just described. People's actions typically have some sort of logic behind them unless they are crazy.

Another practice I use in combat is to roll dice to determine which Player Character a monster attacks, that probably is not a realistic way to run a combat, after all players don't roll dice to determine what monster they attack. To give an example, lets suppose there is an Orc right next to a PC, the Orc gets the initiative, the PC is a wizard with a dagger and a spell he is about to cast. So the DM roles a die and determines that the Orc right in from of the Wizard attacks Bernie the Fighter, who is in a full suite of plate male, and so far he has never been hit in this combat. So the Orc pulls out a javelin and hurls it at Bernie the Fighter who is on the other side of the room, the wizard goes next, casting a sleep spell on the Orc right in front of him and then slits his throat with his dagger. Lucky wizard, he die roll determined that the orc was a moron and attacked the wrong PC, If he attacked the Wizard instead as common sense would dictate, this combat would have ended differently. It is much the same in social interactions.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> There are lots of problems with this Saelorn, not the least of which is how your extreme metagame aversion is incoherent with this position.
> 
> 1)  In reality (you're extremely predisposed toward extrapolation via internal causality), both informal and formal parlay (regardless of stakes and goals) among groups (associates/peers, would-bes, or strangers) typically involves multi-layered interactions.  One of the most important in the animal kingdom is unspoken signalling such as postures and respect for courtesies or social norms.  For instance, if someone is spoken to and they are ill-equipped to interact or aloof/rude/non-credible in their interactions, it damages the prospects of getting what a side wants out of the interchange.  This speaks to both (i) framing (a GM engaging a non-"face" character during interaction) and (ii) lack of consequences/fallout if either the non-"face" character eschews the interaction or the "face" character steps in and denies the NPC their interchange with the other PC.  In the real world, that typically doesn't fly and you'll draw the ire of someone ("I was talking to him/her") or they'll lose respect for both parties (due to the beta nature of the former and/or the unsolicited, rude interruption of the latter).
> 
> ...




Not to be contrary, but this is going to sound that way.

If I'm with a group of people in a car and we get pulled over by a cop, the "face" is going to be the sober guy driving and not the rest of us who have been drinking all night.
If I'm with a group of people at work and we're in a meeting, the "face" is going to be the person we all defer to "the person with the best chance of getting what we want done".
If I'm a teenager and on a hockey team, there's the captain of the team who is going to get better girls and teach us how to get better girls ourselves.  He's the "face"

"Face" activity in RPGs is not metagaming.  It happens every day in real life and it's entirely realistic.  If I'm a dwarf fighter with a CHA of 8, and at least a passing WiS, provided that I'm going to get in trouble if I don't let the Bard CHA 18 speak for me, I'm going to.  After that works once, I'm more likely to shut up and let it happen again within the same boundaries.  Just like the drunk buddies, work associates or hockey jocks above.

Of course, the "face" isn't always going to be there for me.  That's the breaks.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> "Face" activity in RPGs is not metagaming.  It happens every day in real life and it's entirely realistic.  If I'm a dwarf fighter with a CHA of 8, and at least a passing WiS, provided that I'm going to get in trouble if I don't let the Bard CHA 18 speak for me, I'm going to.  After that works once, I'm more likely to shut up and let it happen again within the same boundaries.  Just like the drunk buddies, work associates or hockey jocks above.




What I hope for is a system that removes the whole idea of the singular face. that is, a social interaction system that is as inclusive for the whole party as combat is. A fight scene where only one character is useful is not very much fun. Why should we expect that a social scene would be? Part of that is of course people knowing this in advance and building characters -- and the GM building encounters -- to support this. But a big part of that is the game system making sure everyone is viable in the scenario.

One subsystem that i think manages this pretty well overall is Starfinder's ship combat. Ship combat roles are disassociated from character classes -- the technomancer is as good a potential pilot as the soldier for example -- and each role has mechanical actions they can take that have specific results. Commanders can give orders and offer support, gunners attack, science and engineering can mitigate damage or improve attacks and defenses and so on. So maybe a "social combat" system could be developed that keeps the "face" (the "pilot" of the social encounter) but adds an advisor role and a bodyguard role and a so on. Then you add a back and forth system where the sides are trying to wear down each others resolves and resistances and when enough "social damage" is done, the encounter is over and the consequences take place.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> What I hope for is a system that removes the whole idea of the singular face. that is, a social interaction system that is as inclusive for the whole party as combat is. A fight scene where only one character is useful is not very much fun. Why should we expect that a social scene would be? Part of that is of course people knowing this in advance and building characters -- and the GM building encounters -- to support this. But a big part of that is the game system making sure everyone is viable in the scenario.
> 
> One subsystem that i think manages this pretty well overall is Starfinder's ship combat. Ship combat roles are disassociated from character classes -- the technomancer is as good a potential pilot as the soldier for example -- and each role has mechanical actions they can take that have specific results. Commanders can give orders and offer support, gunners attack, science and engineering can mitigate damage or improve attacks and defenses and so on. So maybe a "social combat" system could be developed that keeps the "face" (the "pilot" of the social encounter) but adds an advisor role and a bodyguard role and a so on. Then you add a back and forth system where the sides are trying to wear down each others resolves and resistances and when enough "social damage" is done, the encounter is over and the consequences take place.




I hear where you're coming from Reynard, but it's not the responsibility of the rules system to ensure that all players have fun.  That's largely on the DM and players.   What you're suggesting, to me at least, looks like the rules being responsible such that every player gets a "participation trophy" even if they aren't specifically geared for whatever is going on at the time.

I don't subscribe to that being a great way to structure a game and think it takes too much away from the actual people at the table.  Balance doesn't have to mean, every character useful all the time.  "Social combat" to me, means "Write better plot and take ideas from the players so they are engaged"

Thanks
KB


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

You can play any and all versions of D&D as a court intrigue game were no one attacks anyone with a sword 99% of the time. 
You can play any and all versions of D&D as a kick in the door, kill the monsters, take their look game.
You can play any and all versions of D&D super serious where everyone stays in character 100% of the time at the table.
You can play any and all versions of D&D as a beer and pretzels game with Monty Haul (sic) loot and frequent Monty Python quotes.

The people sitting around the table (or sitting at the computer of a virtual table) and only those players determine what kind of D&D game is being played.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I hear where you're coming from Reynard, but it's not the responsibility of the rules system to ensure that all players have fun.  That's largely on the DM and players.   What you're suggesting, to me at least, looks like the rules being responsible such that every player gets a "participation trophy" even if they aren't specifically geared for whatever is going on at the time.
> 
> I don't subscribe to that being a great way to structure a game and think it takes too much away from the actual people at the table.  Balance doesn't have to mean, every character useful all the time.  "Social combat" to me, means "Write better plot and take ideas from the players so they are engaged"
> 
> ...




Do you feel the same way in regards to combat? Do you think the game is trying to give PCs "participation trophies" in combat, too? Do you think combat is a situation in which players should not expect to necessarily be able to participate or meaningfully contribute?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Do you feel the same way in regards to combat? Do you think the game is trying to give PCs "participation trophies" in combat, too? Do you think combat is a situation in which players should not expect to necessarily be able to participate or meaningfully contribute?




Yup.  Characters are not going to be able to meaningfully contribute in all cases and all scenarios.  That's why character generation and how you choose to build your character matter.
However, that's not to say that players don't think outside the box and make a difference or that if I run into a fully optimized team I'm not going to have done the math on their builds and know how to kill them.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> You can play any and all versions of D&D as a court intrigue game were no one attacks anyone with a sword 99% of the time.
> You can play any and all versions of D&D as a kick in the door, kill the monsters, take their look game.
> You can play any and all versions of D&D super serious where everyone stays in character 100% of the time at the table.
> You can play any and all versions of D&D as a beer and pretzels game with Monty Haul (sic) loot and frequent Monty Python quotes.
> ...




These statements are true, but it is undeniable that the game rules offer support for some of those over others. The questions seem to be whether that is as it should be, and if not how to go about changing it.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 31, 2018)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> I am finding it too focused on combat, but that's not because of the amount of rules on combat. It's because of a general lack of rules in other areas and not enough effort to fix it.




Yeah they really lowballed non-combat areas. Just having some suggested tasks you can accomplish with skills helps provide structure and a tutorial for DMs who are relatively new. You don't need it to be tons and tons, just some lists of suggested DCs and some reasonably worked through examples. Nope. For example, I can't think of a much more useless skill in 5E than Medicine, which doesn't even have the decency to connect with the Healer feat, which is, from a game mechanical standpoint, vastly better. So what's the point of even having Medicine? 

I've heard a bunch of post-hoc rationalizations about how this "frees the DM", but fundamentally I think the design team was just lazy on this.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> These statements are true, but it is undeniable that the game rules offer support for some of those over others. The questions seem to be whether that is as it should be, and if not how to go about changing it.




Personally, I'm fine with it the way it is.  I really don't want the designers telling me how to play the game beyond frameworks that already exist.  Then again, I've spent tons of time filling in the holes over the years and feel that if I hadn't, I wouldn't have learned how to DM well.

Of course "well" is open to anyone's opinion once they play with me.  I'm not gassing myself up, just stating how I feel about it.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 31, 2018)

Rhianni32 said:


> Seems like a lot of people are confusing what they want out of RPing vs what the D&D ruleset focuses on. GMs and players can make whatever they want out of their game but if using D&D rules, and they want non combat situations and challenges, they have to put in a lot more extra work on their own vs what is given in the rules.
> 
> D&D has always been a Monster Murder Simulator rule set. They toss in some non combat rules in sidebars.




I agree with you about the origin of the game, and its lingering impact, but I don't know if I agree about it requiring more work to add missing or less defined elements to the game. It may be so....coming up with entire modules of rules to add onto the existing chassis could be a very complex and difficult task. But that need not be the only approach. GM judgment can substitute for actual rules in cases where the existing rules don't serve.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah they really lowballed non-combat areas. Just having some suggested tasks you can accomplish with skills helps provide structure and a tutorial for DMs who are relatively new. You don't need it to be tons and tons, just some lists of suggested DCs and some reasonably worked through examples. Nope. For example, I can't think of a much more useless skill in 5E than Medicine, which doesn't even have the decency to connect with the Healer feat, which is, from a game mechanical standpoint, vastly better. So what's the point of even having Medicine?
> 
> I've heard a bunch of post-hoc rationalizations about how this "frees the DM", but fundamentally I think the design team was just lazy on this.




I'm more bothered by Perform. If you have a lyre and are proficient in Perform, can you play the lyre with proficiency? If not (and by the rules no is probably the answer), what does Perform proficiency do? If you are using Perform for acting, shouldn't you use Decpetion instead? If you are using Perform for giving a rousing speech, shouldn't you use Persuasion instead? When does Perform do something?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 31, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I agree with you about the origin of the game, and its lingering impact, but I don't know if I agree about it requiring more work to add missing or less defined elements to the game. It may be so....coming up with entire modules of rules to add onto the existing chassis could be a very complex and difficult task. But that need not be the only approach. GM judgment can substitute for actual rules in cases where the existing rules don't serve.




I think there's an intermediate position between super detailed rule systems and nothing/leave it up to DM judgment. WotC erred on the side of nothing. 4E had some pretty good material in this, with some suggested tasks and DCs. Even just three or four possible tasks under each heading with some examples of consequences would be nice. It doesn't have to be complicated and over-burdened. 

There are two reasons to flesh things out a little: Suggestions are helpful to both players and DMs, especially newbies, who may be wrapping their heads around how one would make use of skills and have little to work from. The other is that some players---including some folks I play with---are uncomfortable winging it on a lot of things. It doesn't make them bad players, but they like things a bit more cut and dried and laid out and it cuts way back on arguments when there are some rules to point to on common and/or life threatening tasks. My understanding is that the current WotC folks are a bunch of freeform drama types but not everyone is.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm more bothered by Perform. If you have a lyre and are proficient in Perform, can you play the lyre with proficiency? If not (and by the rules no is probably the answer), what does Perform proficiency do? If you are using Perform for acting, shouldn't you use Decpetion instead? If you are using Perform for giving a rousing speech, shouldn't you use Persuasion instead? When does Perform do something?




Very good point. It's one of the most useless skills and is totally undermined by tools proficiencies. It really should be connected to bard abilities, but it's not.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think there's an intermediate position between super detailed rule systems and nothing/leave it up to DM judgment. WotC erred on the side of nothing. 4E had some pretty good material in this, with some suggested tasks and DCs. Even just three or four possible tasks under each heading with some examples of consequences would be nice. It doesn't have to be complicated and over-burdened.




In an effort to simplify things, they over did it. There's no reason why the detailed skill descriptions found in 3.x could not have found their way into 5E. Replacing "ranks" with advantage is sufficient simplification. But losing all of the specifics found in a full skill description is not  sufficient. 

I would even like to have seen the skill descriptions say "normal ability score" and "alternative ability score" to decouple skills from abilities a bit more, especially for Intimidation.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> These statements are true, but it is undeniable that the game rules offer support for some of those over others. The questions seem to be whether that is as it should be, and if not how to go about changing it.



I suppose I was not clear. You can replace D&D in my list of play styles with GURPS, V:TM, even Toon. The group has more influence over play style than the game system.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> I suppose I was not clear. You can replace D&D in my list of play styles with GURPS, V:TM, even Toon. The group has more influence over play style than the game system.



Sure but you can't simply dismiss what the rules do and do not support and whether the support or lack thereof determines the group's engagement with those playstyles. 

"The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games. So in a game like D&D that relies on fairly intricate rules for combat, telling people to just handwave courtly intrigue or perilous exploration is dismissive and unhelpful.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Sure but you can't simply dismiss what the rules do and do not support and whether the support or lack thereof determines the group's engagement with those playstyles.
> 
> "The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games. So in a game like D&D that relies on fairly intricate rules for combat, telling people to just handwave courtly intrigue or perilous exploration is dismissive and unhelpful.




And yet, millions of people for 44 or so years have managed to do just what you say they shouldn't have to do. The original game rules were rules for fighting at 1:1 scale combats. And with those rules, people played out palace intrigues, heist style capers, dungeon crawls, all other mixes of combat or non-combat. The rules for all RPGs are just toolkits. And where those toolkits are found wanting, the GM fills in the blanks. And the game continues, and people show up session after session. 

Frankly, if the need you say is truly necessary, truly a glaring hole in the rules, at some point, those rules would already exist and by now, after 13 revisions (od&d, Holmes Basic, AD&D, Moldvay Basic/Expert, AD&D UA, Metzner B/E/C/M/I, AD&D2, AD&D2 Skills and Powers, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, D&D 4.5, D&D 5 (and I left out Rules Cyclopedia and OSR versions, etc)), after hundreds of official books, etc. we still do not have these rules. And yet, people are still able to do palace intrigue without specific rules for it. So, don't tell me I'm handwaving or being dismissive. I have 44 years of history behind my statement that such rules are not *necessary*. Necessary is the important word. I did not say it would be bad to have such rules. But even if they existed, some population of players would ignore them, some population would use them, and the rest would house rule them to varying degrees of recognition. _Just like they do with all the other rules in the books._


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm more bothered by Perform. If you have a lyre and are proficient in Perform, can you play the lyre with proficiency? If not (and by the rules no is probably the answer), what does Perform proficiency do? If you are using Perform for acting, shouldn't you use Decpetion instead? If you are using Perform for giving a rousing speech, shouldn't you use Persuasion instead? When does Perform do something?




I actually don't mind that some of these things are a bit nebulous. I think it promotes multiple paths to success. It can be a bit sloppy in places from a design perspective, yes, but at my table? doesn't bother me in the slightest. 




Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think there's an intermediate position between super detailed rule systems and nothing/leave it up to DM judgment. WotC erred on the side of nothing. 4E had some pretty good material in this, with some suggested tasks and DCs. Even just three or four possible tasks under each heading with some examples of consequences would be nice. It doesn't have to be complicated and over-burdened.
> 
> There are two reasons to flesh things out a little: Suggestions are helpful to both players and DMs, especially newbies, who may be wrapping their heads around how one would make use of skills and have little to work from. The other is that some players---including some folks I play with---are uncomfortable winging it on a lot of things. It doesn't make them bad players, but they like things a bit more cut and dried and laid out and it cuts way back on arguments when there are some rules to point to on common and/or life threatening tasks. My understanding is that the current WotC folks are a bunch of freeform drama types but not everyone is.




I agree about the intermediate approach. They could have used a bit more with the skills, and a few other areas of the game. I think that they likely went with the approach they did...to provide a minimal framework....because they expected that this would be the part of the game that would vary the most from table to table, regardless of how many rules they implement. So perhaps they saw a highly detailed approach to be not worth the effort? There's no way to know, but that's how it seems to me. 

They could have included more examples and suggestions. But I also think they were moving back toward DM judgment rather than codified rules. So winging it, or the DM making a ruling, is baked into the game. Neither approach is right nor wrong, but will of course appeal to different people. For me, 5E was a breath of fresh air in getting rid of codified rules and leaning on rulings, but I recognize that for others, it's more like an incomplete system.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 31, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> And tracking xp? It's already a thing of the past for me. Using milestones is way better. It neatly solves a bunch of problems, e.g. leveling up when there's no time to rest, lagging behind the expected power level due to missed encounters, and most importantly the freedom to solve conflicts and quests in whatever way the players prefer without having to fear that they'll be punished for not picking a solution that would grant them xp according to the rules.
> And let's not forget that there are plenty of RPGs that don't use the concept of 'levels'.




View attachment 93553


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> Frankly, if the need you say is truly necessary, truly a glaring hole in the rules, at some point, those rules would already exist and by now, after 13 revisions (od&d, Holmes Basic, AD&D, Moldvay Basic/Expert, AD&D UA, Metzner B/E/C/M/I, AD&D2, AD&D2 Skills and Powers, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, D&D 4.5, D&D 5 (and I left out Rules Cyclopedia and OSR versions, etc)), after hundreds of official books, etc. we still do not have these rules.




Almost all of those editions have some versions of those rules, from the War Machine to the Wilderness Survival Guide to Birthright. The issue here (for me) is why 5E is so weak on them.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> "The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games.



I want to zoom in on this. Among the more popular (or even less popular) rules systems, how many of them support these other styles of play? Not many, I presume, but I could be wrong. Enlighten me.

I know such rules aren't really in generic games like GURPS and HERO. 

Does WoD have rules for palace intrigue? I mean that's the wheelhouse of V:TM, right, with it's princes of cities and houses?

Aspect games like FATE don't really have rules for intrigue since it all hinges on the aspects you create.

I'm also curious what these rules would look like. Are you envisioning something like 4E skill challenges (but fixed)? Or are you hoping for some kind of social points analogy to hit points?


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Jan 31, 2018)

The more rules there are for everything, the harder the game is to play! You ever try to play GURPs? The Generic Universal Role Playing System has a lot of volumes and a lot of rules for every little thing. There is a Core rulebook in fact, but if you want to have a fantasy game with any depth to it, you need to buy a few other volumes, you need a setting, you need a list of spells which is a separate volume, you need a list of creatures to challenge your players, that is another volume, and if you want to play another race beside a human, you probably need to consult yet another volume for that! That is five books! Dungeons & Dragons has just three, the information is organized differently. If you are a player, you keep the player's handbook handy, if you are a DM, you need the DM's guide and a Monster manual as well as the Player's handbook.

Now as a GURPS player what do you need? The Core Rulebook, probably GURPS Fantasy. Now imagine there are several players at your gaming table and they are fighting over the Core rule book, GURPS magic because some of them want to cast a spell and GURPS fantasy because they want to look up the particular abilities of the fantasy race of the character they are playing, and they want to buy some stuff, so they need to look at GURPS High Tech! See the problem?


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

It isn't so much the idea of "more rules" as it is "similarly complex rules." So if players have lots of options and tactical choices in combat I think a game should have similarly complex social mechanics. In games with more breezy combat mechanics, breezy social mechanics are fine.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Almost all of those editions have some versions of those rules, from the War Machine to the Wilderness Survival Guide to Birthright. The issue here (for me) is why 5E is so weak on them.




WSG came out 10-11 years after the PHB and DMG. Birthright came out 6+ years after AD&D2. Neither of them are in the DMG for their respective editions. (I have no idea what War Machine is.) And I don't own either of them so I don't know what rules you are talking about. But still, they weren't including, apparently in 3e, 4e, or 5e.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 31, 2018)

Coming into this late, and haven't kept up with the thread. But D&D is focused on combat, and that's right for it. Other games tickle my itch for non-combat; but if normally I want a lot of fighting (or potential fighting and running away, old school style) so D&D is just right.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> WSG came out 10-11 years after the PHB and DMG. Birthright came out 6+ years after AD&D2. Neither of them are in the DMG for their respective editions. (I have no idea what War Machine is.) And I don't own either of them so I don't know what rules you are talking about. But still, they weren't including, apparently in 3e, 4e, or 5e.




I think we are probably talking past one another at this point, but I just wanted to point out I was giving examples. D&D has always been focused on dungeon style adventures in the core set, sure, but then adventures and supplements expand upon that framework pretty quickly. Some editions have whole settings dedicated to specific non-combat style play while others used splat books. 5E has been interesting in its light and very focused supplement schedule. I do not own Xanathar's so it is possible that book has covered some of these things, but it is notably light on codified rules for things to do outside of combat.

I also want to point out that I don't think GMs are somehow limited from including those playstyles in their home campaigns. They can wing it, adapt earlier edition systems or even systems from entirely different games. They can design their own systems. But all of those options are ultimately less attractive than official support for different playstyles, if for no other reason it gives a sense of D&D officially supporting all broad definitions of fantasy you see on the store bookshelves. It may not be that D&D wants or needs to do that, but I prefer it when it tries (hence 2nd Edition being my favorite from a varied support stance).

It is probably the case that this is the sort of thing WotC wants to offload to GMsGuild creators and 3rd party companies, though.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2018)

Sqn Cdr Flashheart said:


> Coming into this late, and haven't kept up with the thread. But D&D is focused on combat, and that's right for it. Other games tickle my itch for non-combat; but if normally I want a lot of fighting (or potential fighting and running away, old school style) so D&D is just right.




Absolutely but that doesn't mean the other pillars should not get the same amount of care in the rules.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 31, 2018)

Xanathar's has the downtime rules from UA in them. But that's not really the outside of combat you are talking about. And it doesn't solve the magic "economy" issue.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (Jan 31, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> Xanathar's has the downtime rules from UA in them. But that's not really the outside of combat you are talking about. And it doesn't solve the magic "economy" issue.




Xanathar's approach I am incredibly unhappy with.

It basically felt like they took the idea of random rolls and went, "Let's do this for everything!" Even in areas where such random rolls are very much not helpful, and actually end up removing a lot of the noncombat roleplaying. If you're suddenly going to end up married just because a roll of the dice said so, then what's the point of even bothering to be in-character to begin with? With Xanathar's, even your roleplaying is just rollplaying.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Feb 1, 2018)

Hi Reynard - 

You're posting rather eloquently and succinctly regarding your point of view so I feel like it's reasonably safe to reply to a couple of your points.



Reynard said:


> It isn't so much the idea of "more rules" as it is "similarly complex rules." So if players have lots of options and tactical choices in combat I think a game should have similarly complex social mechanics. In games with more breezy combat mechanics, breezy social mechanics are fine.
> 
> Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app




The above makes perfect sense from a completeness point of view but every game on the market is going to have what it is known for and D&D has its roots in combat, so many of the structures of resolution are going to be around combat.  I'd also like to point out that many games well known for the social aspects, don't really have much in the way of rules around social interactions, but have a lot of time spent on building out settings and plot devices (Masquerade comes to mind)

Gygax also did a lot of social dynamics work in his Dangerous Journeys: Mythus game but I have to be honest with you, the game is so rules-heavy that while I personally love the system it doesn't stand up well in actual game play.  It's too crunchy and it actually distracts from the role-playing as a result.



> Sure but you can't simply dismiss what the rules do and do not support and whether the support or lack thereof determines the group's engagement with those playstyles.
> 
> "The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games. So in a game like D&D that relies on fairly intricate rules for combat, telling people to just handwave courtly intrigue or perilous exploration is dismissive and unhelpful.




It may not be the most reasonable response at first look, but I can tell you that if you have to make a decision between a rules-heavy and a rules-light system, you really want to skew towards rules-light.  If I have to make a choice between supporting your statement of "equal rules for all pillars" and work inside the D&D combat frame as the level of detail required to apply to social situations, I think I'd pass and a whole lot of players would too.

End of day, if I want a framework for social situations in the campaign, I'm starting with the economy, then the feudal situation vs. mercantile situation, then the religious background and about 100 years worth of history in a small area of the game world, then putting the players into the mix as members of the families in direct opposition to each other, but pulling them together to take on a regional threat.  Guarantee you that the players themselves will rp the intrigue and you won't need rules for it.  It'll happen naturally.

Be well
KB


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 1, 2018)

Yes, but it's a feature, not a bug.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 1, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Absolutely but that doesn't mean the other pillars should not get the same amount of care in the rules.




They could, but they never have over the decades. DnD is a combat game, from inception. The 75% of rules on combat has worked well so far!


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 1, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" The DM informs the player that he must roll a D20 to decide the outcome of this encounter. So the player rolls a D20 and the result is a natural 1, so the DM informs the player that the store proprietor gets mad, grabs the sword that is on the table and he attacks the player characters with it, and tells the players to role for initiative to determine the order of combat. The player who rolled the dices asks, "What happened, what did I do?" The DM tells the player, "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."




That's TOO ridiculous!  What would actually happen is the shopkeeper would go, "that weapon is defective, sir" since the 1 means the PC picked a weapon that is defective.  The shopkeeper would then tell the PCs that he doesn't have anymore of that type and recommends they go to another shop/location if he/she wants to buy one of that weapon type.  As a punishment for rolling a 1, the PCs have to spend more time to buy that weapon.

What the PCs don't know is that they embroiled themselves in a spy adventure!  A secret agent from a foreign land was suppose to come in and ask for a broken weapon, and get told to go to buy it somewhere else, and go get it there.  You see, that weapon (somehow) stores a great deal of super important information and this process was all a super secret way to get that information to the secret agent.  

So buying that weapon from the other location will ensure that SOMETHING will attack the PCs.  Either the foreign agent trying to get the info storing weapon, or some other powerful entities/town guard/counter spy/mercenaries trying to prevent the agent from getting it!  That's what would happen!


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 1, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Whether there is combat or not is up to the individual DM, the Game designers can't control what sort of DM he is going to be, using abstract die rolls as a substitute for social interactions is not every DM's style. Lots of DMs simply use common sense, for example the store proprietor is there to make money, to logically his actions are geared toward selling items to customers so he can make money and keep his shop open. If we use die rolls to determine what he does, he ends up behaving erratically, he would probably end up in jail if he attacked a customer like I just described. People's actions typically have some sort of logic behind them unless they are crazy.



Well,
1) in my game you don't get to roll a die unless you've described what you intend to do, and no, "I diplomate the shop-keeper" isn't sufficient. So, a die roll is never abstract. In fact, a good description of your actions may grant you a bonus on the roll, and a brilliant one may grant you an automatic success.
2) There's no such thing as common sense. It's a myth. Trust me on this.
3) What rolling dice in a social encounter does, is to move from a pre-determined outcome by GM fiat to a variety of different but likely outcomes. Rolling a crit or a fumble results in an outcome that is less likely but still entirely within reason. Such an unexpected result can be the seed for a whole new story idea: Why would the weapons merchant refuse to sell to the pcs? Obviously someone with sufficient influence must have told the merchant about the pcs and instructed him not to sell weapons to them. If the pcs have backgrounds, made contacts, allies, and enemies in the past, such a development is actually quite easy to integrate into an ongoing campaign.
4) I already explained why I think your example is an unreasonable scenario.


Thomas Bowman said:


> The more rules there are for everything, the harder the game is to play!



1) This is wrong. 2) Who says that you need more rules to model encounters that deal with something else than combat? What I'm proposing is to use the same system to resolve encounters, i.e. using a skill system. Why should using a weapon skill be inherently different from using a debate skill? Both can be determined by a die roll with a target number derived from the opponent's abilities. This actually results in fewer rules, not more.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 1, 2018)

Reynard said:


> What I hope for is a system that removes the whole idea of the singular face. that is, a social interaction system that is as inclusive for the whole party as combat is.



I would really start with framing and consequences first, because that's how combat works: GMs (typically) frame combat so that all the PCs get drawn in; and there are consequences for all players in combat (ie their PCs take hp loss). If you are playing the weakling mage, and choose not to roll any attacks, that doesn't stop the GM declaring attacks against you that sap your hit points.

So what is going on that players who never have their PCs say anything, and leave it all to the "face", never suffer consequences? Never have anyone try and speak to them? Ask them their opinion on the matter? Never develop reputatios as buffoons? Etc.

Once the framing and consequence issue has been indentified, then it makes sense to look at a system for integrating the multiple checks of multiple players into a single resolution of the encounter. Personally I think 4e's skill challenges work well for this, but one could go more gritty (eg like Duel of Wits) if desired.

The last step would be to think about giving different classes/roles different abilities to engage the situation. In the skill challenge framework, in my experience, having a CHA stat is enough. A more gritty/intricate system would probably need more (4e saves almost all of its intricacy for combat!).


----------



## RevTurkey (Feb 1, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> That's TOO ridiculous!  What would actually happen is the shopkeeper would go, "that weapon is defective, sir" since the 1 means the PC picked a weapon that is defective.  The shopkeeper would then tell the PCs that he doesn't have anymore of that type and recommends they go to another shop/location if he/she wants to buy one of that weapon type.  As a punishment for rolling a 1, the PCs have to spend more time to buy that weapon.
> 
> What the PCs don't know is that they embroiled themselves in a spy adventure!  A secret agent from a foreign land was suppose to come in and ask for a broken weapon, and get told to go to buy it somewhere else, and go get it there.  You see, that weapon (somehow) stores a great deal of super important information and this process was all a super secret way to get that information to the secret agent.
> 
> So buying that weapon from the other location will ensure that SOMETHING will attack the PCs.  Either the foreign agent trying to get the info storing weapon, or some other powerful entities/town guard/counter spy/mercenaries trying to prevent the agent from getting it!  That's what would happen!




I like it! Making roll-playing drive the role-playing. It’s kind of like grabbing the ‘OSR stick of righteousness’ (common magic item) and beating the old grognards over the noggin with it 

I’m more of a describe it rather than roll it kind of Gm. In the encounter imagined...I’d maybe head for the dice if the players were trying to extract more than a basic purchase...getting a discount, or maybe some plot information for example. So, I ‘might’ make them roll for that situation...with the 1 resulting in say, double the price but being convinced the item is very special when it isn’t (and of course maybe in the long run something interesting does get discovered about the item..maybe a curse on it etc)...or maybe the information gained is fake and maybe the merchant is a bit dubious and part of the Thieves Guild and sets up the group as a potential mark for robbery etc...

That’s how I tend to go...not going to either polar opposite...judge it by what will make the players enjoy the game...if there has been a lot of dice rolling happening...then a pure storytelling/narrative section of play might be good to break things up and vice versa...if the player’s tongues are getting tired of waggling along describing every last detail, then they probably appreciate a change in pace and just roll to resolve a situation.

Is D&D too combat heavy? You can dial it whichever way you want and don’t have to stick to that choice. Don’t let things become predictable or they become boring pretty soon in my experience. I think combat is a good area to throw some tactical/rule depth at. More than for social interactions for certain...but then it can be nice to introduce say something like Skill Challenges from 4th edition once in a blue moon just to give the players the unexpected.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 1, 2018)

Sqn Cdr Flashheart said:


> They could, but they never have over the decades. DnD is a combat game, from inception. The 75% of rules on combat has worked well so far!




Yep, and I think a lot of DMs are fine with not having detailed rules for situations that have been handled with player and DM interaction in the past. 

When I'm running a game and a player says they want to convince the burgermeister of Diertburg of something, I want them to think what they are going to say and roleplay it out, give me a synopsis of what they are trying to say to him, or even jump into the skin of the PC and play it out like they are the PC talking.  As a DM I know what will convince the NPC or what will influence them.  If  I was a good DM  I dropped a lot of hints in that regard as well.  Of course mechanical things like a high CHA score or skill will influence how I have the NPC react but what I get now is just "I'll make a persuasion check".  I hate that and its the farthest thing from immersion to me.  Plus it puts uncertainty in a situation where there may not need to be any.  I may ask for a skill check after that or CHA check if its iffy and the situation needs a check to resolve a questionable outcome but why rush to that point?

Having a social combat and defense value and rolling that out like physical combat no thank you.  To me RP needs to be more than leveraging the numbers on your sheet against other numbers.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 1, 2018)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Having a social combat and defense value and rolling that out like physical combat no thank you.  To me RP needs to be more than leveraging the numbers on your sheet against other numbers.




I think this suggests a hard dividing line between combat and role-playing that isn't necessary or desirable (IMO obviously). When characters engage the enemy in combat, the players are still role-playing. it is just that the process of combat is a lot more granular than other aspects of the game, meaning that their role-play involves their character sheets and rules a lot more. This doesn't need to be the case. D&D combat could just as easily (and satisfactorily) be treated the same way as the negotiation you described: the player tells you what they plan to do, their tactics and approach, and if you think that leaves some ambiguity they make a single "attack roll" to determine whether they win the fight or not, and what the consequences are of either. That's a perfectly viable way to conduct combat in D&D -- and in a lot of cases, especially when talking about combats that ultimately don't matter and exist primarily to drain party resources or eat game time, it is preferable. Sometimes, though, a fight should be a long drawn out affair with every parry and thrust and spell desrcibed in full.

What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 1, 2018)

The issue of combat vs. social amounts to more than simply making skill checks. Other systems and subsystems may be at play as well. 

In Fate, for example, the social pillar of the game is frequently tied into the characters' high concept, trouble, and other aspects. If you have the (high concept) aspect "Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric" then this gives the GM and character a lot of material for pushing the social dimension of the campaign forward via compels. This character aspect gives us information that the GM can "use against" the player. We know that the character is "disgraced," and that his character is tied to another character named "Prince Alfric" (and his associates), and that he served as his "bodyguard."  This ties the character in question deeply into the story and the social world in which the characters inhabit. This would be "your character" and that provides more social information about who and what the character is about than simply "Level 7 Human Champion Fighter." This aspect could even be invoked in support of the exploration pillar: e.g., "Because I am the 'Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric,' I happen to know a lot of secret entrances of how to get in and out of this palace, and so I remember an underground path that leads from the inner chamber to a shed on the garden grounds."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 1, 2018)

Reynard said:


> I think this suggests a hard dividing line between combat and role-playing that isn't necessary or desirable (IMO obviously). When characters engage the enemy in combat, the players are still role-playing. it is just that the process of combat is a lot more granular than other aspects of the game, meaning that their role-play involves their character sheets and rules a lot more. This doesn't need to be the case. D&D combat could just as easily (and satisfactorily) be treated the same way as the negotiation you described: the player tells you what they plan to do, their tactics and approach, and if you think that leaves some ambiguity they make a single "attack roll" to determine whether they win the fight or not, and what the consequences are of either. That's a perfectly viable way to conduct combat in D&D -- and in a lot of cases, especially when talking about combats that ultimately don't matter and exist primarily to drain party resources or eat game time, it is preferable. Sometimes, though, a fight should be a long drawn out affair with every parry and thrust and spell desrcibed in full.
> 
> What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.




Yes, you could have a largely diceless narrative game for sure. But where I want the system to dictate things is combat where every swing of the weapon is uncertain.  Nobody in my group has sword fought to the death, but they are all experience in BS'ing, persuading, cajoling, and flattering people that they can use at the table in a roleplay situation. So we need mechanics in that area far less than combat.   To me its more fun and immersive as a player to think of how I'm going to talk to a town official than thinking well I"ve got a +8 and I need to pass a check.   Of course there is way to combine them both and many don't agree with me.  Heck I'd get rid of all skills that aren't really tied to a class function so I'm an outlier I'd wager. All IMO, YMMV and that.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Feb 1, 2018)

Reynard said:


> What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.




I posted half of this answer in another post you've acknowledged with XP, so I'll only add the other half. 

Objective tasks like combat require a lot of rules to handle properly and are bloated by character guidelines that increase word count.
Subjective tasks like social situations can't be modeled well given the same word count, it's actually less effective because you have far more nuance with the interaction

Here's something that works for my table:

Player trying to convince a merchant to lower pricing.  
1. How strapped is the merchant - If he's doing well he'll be inclined to haggle -2 to difficulty.  If not less so +2
2. How good of a mood is he in today - start at 10, roll 2d10.  First die is 1-5 good mood, 6-10 bad.. second die is the modifier
(range of 0-20) sets the initial difficulty.  So final diff is no check necessary to 22 - really bad day.

Roleplay because I don't allow a check without a trigger and the conversation itself is that trigger.

Player rolls against desired skill or attribute depending on what version of the game we're playing.
If they beat the target we continue the conversation favorably.  If they fail it we continue the conversation less so unless it's really botched.

What I just typed up is all that's really needed when a contest is expected socially.  You don't really need more.  The responsibility is on the DM to set table rules for what has to happen before a check is allowed.  If you require some rp then you'll get much more of it over time.  If you don't, then none will happen or it will happen sporadically.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Feb 1, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> The issue of combat vs. social amounts to more than simply making skill checks. Other systems and subsystems may be at play as well.
> 
> In Fate, for example, the social pillar of the game is frequently tied into the characters' high concept, trouble, and other aspects. If you have the (high concept) aspect "Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric" then this gives the GM and character a lot of material for pushing the social dimension of the campaign forward via compels. This character aspect gives us information that the GM can "use against" the player. We know that the character is "disgraced," and that his character is tied to another character named "Prince Alfric" (and his associates), and that he served as his "bodyguard."  This ties the character in question deeply into the story and the social world in which the characters inhabit. This would be "your character" and that provides more social information about who and what the character is about than simply "Level 7 Human Champion Fighter." This aspect could even be invoked in support of the exploration pillar: e.g., "Because I am the 'Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric,' I happen to know a lot of secret entrances of how to get in and out of this palace, and so I remember an underground path that leads from the inner chamber to a shed on the garden grounds."




My reply to this would be "Have your players write a one page background prior to sitting down at the table".  Alternatively, create a game around it at session zero.

It's a good thing to have backgrounds that kick off the imagination, but I don't necessarily think that's the level of detail folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 1, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> My reply to this would be "Have your players write a one page background prior to sitting down at the table".  Alternatively, create a game around it at session zero.
> 
> It's a good thing to have backgrounds that kick off the imagination, but I don't necessarily think that's the level of detail folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.



Using Bonds, Flaws and so on as something analogous to FATEs Aspects works pretty well in my experience. 

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## Kobold Boots (Feb 1, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Using Bonds, Flaws and so on as something analogous to FATEs Aspects works pretty well in my experience.
> 
> Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app




In my case, I usually have a session zero where players can mad lib their backgrounds with other players and the DM chiming in while using poker chips as a currency to buy their story.  If anyone wants to add or change something they need to outbid or equal whatever was spent to get to that point.

I started doing this because any character's backstory has an effect on the campaign but also affects every other player at the table.  The natural preventer that stops players from being jerks to each other is that anything they spend on someone else's story is less they have to spend on themselves and jerks get rooted out fast.

Ex. 

"I am friends with all nobles and courtiers of the noonah empire, they love me and I'm always chatting with them to influence the world" - dick move.
GM vibes in with similar coin  "Your friends are imaginary".. table erupts.
Another player chimes in.. "Imaginary in the sense that you're a seer and the friends give you visitations"
Last player.. "the noonah empire was overrun and replaced with the various city states of the game."
GM vibes in.. "and on occasion the ghosts will give you flashbacks or intel that help the party."

Player happy, and stunned that something cool came out of his power play but more respectful of the process.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 1, 2018)

A thread about opinions!  Everyone loves giving opinions, so I'll post too!

I think D&D has a large number of rules concerning combat - really more than anything else - which tends to make it seem focused on combat.  (4.0 was 10x more focused this way.)

But D&D is a game about people sitting around and telling stories to each other, and that means that each group will have its own focus based on its own tastes.  So to claim something like "D&D is too focused on combat" is pointless because any group that wants less can have less.

And now, the statistically meaningless personal anecdote:  we don't have a lot of combat in our game because we don't like it as much.

Opinion granted!  Please place it in the pile of 8 (and growing) pages' worth of other people's opinions who also won't be read by most people who are more eager to give their own opinions than read others'.    (I sure didn't read anyone else's.)


----------



## Kobold Boots (Feb 1, 2018)

evilbob said:


> A thread about opinions!  Everyone loves giving opinions, so I'll post too!
> 
> I think D&D has a large number of rules concerning combat - really more than anything else - which tends to make it seem focused on combat.  (4.0 was 10x more focused this way.)
> 
> ...




thanks evilbob.


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Feb 1, 2018)

I think a lot of D&D, especially at higher levels is player characters preparing for combat, for example buying equipment for one's army and building a castle, there is a lot of detail involved in this. I used to sit down with my players and we'd talk about how much its going to cost to hire and equip mercenaries, what you want to equip them with, usually the PCs do this with the treasure they accumulated from the last Dungeon expedition, or sometimes they would just randomly travel around, having random encounters, and killing whatever attacks them and taking their treasure, and sometimes they would go on dragon hunts, trying to find a dragon's lair so they could steal its treasure, with all the money accumulated, they could build a keep, hire a bunch of mercenaries to patrol its walls, and enforce the law in he surrounding town that they built.


----------



## rmcoen (Feb 1, 2018)

IME, if you don't have a good story, the (RPG) rules don't matter.  The players will go play a boardgame that fills their "combat itch".  Having said that, the way the rules are written can and will influence the will the story is told and played.  If you are playing a grim & gritty game system, players will (tend to) play more conservatively; if you are "high fantasy" with full health 5 minutes away, more risks (and brashness and arrogance) will be seen.  If a fireball clears a room, expect more fireballs; if it just announces "Roll for Initiative!" (4e, I'm looking at you), expect fewer fireballs.

I played Ars Magica in college for awhile (alongside D&D campaigns).  The rules rewarded character growth.  I hated when we had to leave the homebase and "deal with something", because it got in the way of my studies (XP and level-up, in D&D).  Encounters were interruptions, problems "in the way", not methods of getting better/faster/stronger.  [They were, though, opportunities to demonstrate *being* faster/better/stronger, so there was still some appeal.]

In GURPS, when I knew a single axe-hit could kill me (but a rapier thrust couldn't), it changed the way I entered combat.  I played for the story, but the *way* I played changed.

I've run multi-year campaigns in 2e, 3e, and 4e now.  The type of story I tell has been influenced by the game system (4e in particular, with the concepts of Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers), and in turn, the way the players have chosen to play has been influenced.  My 2e campaign was heavy in Logistics... until it wasn't, because no one enjoyed it.  The 3e campaign, then, started with logistics to set the mood - under equipped, rain, weather disruption from the Big Bad Event... then dropped, when that initial campaign goal was complete.  the 4e campaign has only had to deal with Logistics for specific set-piece adventures - "the one on the frozen undead-covered island", or "the one in the swamps of Carceri", or "the one in the plane-locked drow city, where divine magic sets off alarm bells".

I like Exploration, I love that part of a 4X, and I'd love to bring that to a new campaign... but D&D isn't the system for it, and I'm not comfortable as a GM "winging it".


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I would really start with framing and consequences first, because that's how combat works: GMs (typically) frame combat so that all the PCs get drawn in; and there are consequences for all players in combat (ie their PCs take hp loss). If you are playing the weakling mage, and choose not to roll any attacks, that doesn't stop the GM declaring attacks against you that sap your hit points.
> 
> *So what is going on that players who never have their PCs say anything, and leave it all to the "face", never suffer consequences? Never have anyone try and speak to them? Ask them their opinion on the matter? Never develop reputatios as buffoons? Etc.*
> 
> ...




I think this is an important takeaway.  A lot of DM's won't engage people who don't _want_ to engage with non-combat encounters, and I understand that some players just don't enjoy that element of the game as much as others.

But I do think that social encounters to function similarly to combat in that the NPCs can choose who they engage with.  There's no reason that your NPC is going to engage with Billy just because Billy has high social scores.  He may find John attractive.  He may think Sue did something special last week and she's the only one with a brain on their shoulders.  A non-face party member may have title or standing that the others do not.  A spellcaster NPC may refuse to talk to non-spellcasters.  There could be race or gender or other social issues.

As you say, the players don't get a choice if the bad guys want to attack them.  Social really shouldn't be any different.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 1, 2018)

rmcoen said:


> IME, if you don't have a good story, the (RPG) rules don't matter.  The players will go play a boardgame that fills their "combat itch".  Having said that, the way the rules are written can and will influence the will the story is told and played.  If you are playing a grim & gritty game system, players will (tend to) play more conservatively; if you are "high fantasy" with full health 5 minutes away, more risks (and brashness and arrogance) will be seen.  If a fireball clears a room, expect more fireballs; if it just announces "Roll for Initiative!" (4e, I'm looking at you), expect fewer fireballs.
> 
> I played Ars Magica in college for awhile (alongside D&D campaigns).  The rules rewarded character growth.  I hated when we had to leave the homebase and "deal with something", because it got in the way of my studies (XP and level-up, in D&D).  Encounters were interruptions, problems "in the way", not methods of getting better/faster/stronger.  [They were, though, opportunities to demonstrate *being* faster/better/stronger, so there was still some appeal.]
> 
> ...




As someone running a 5e exploration focused game with one exploration focused houserule (I changed rests to move hp gain from long rest to a new category full rest that requires 24 hours in a safe location), I kinda disagree.

The core books offer some great suggestions for exploration:  tasks.  One Ring expanded on this, but the core 5e rules still have the suggestions.  When travelling, everyone does something.  For me, I have navigating, trailblazing, foraging, mapping, being alert for danger, looking for points of interest, and other.  You can do one job at a time.  Foraging works just as the PHB says.  Navigating works pretty much as the PHB says.  Trailblazing is trying to reduce the travel time through terrain by picking paths.  Being alert for danger means you don't have disadvantage to notice hostiles like everyone else doing something else.  Looking for points of interest means you can roll to discover things that may be hidden while you travel (not all things are on the map visibly).  Other is for things like tracking, or tending to a wounded comrade, or carrying the wounded comrade, etc.  This means that players have to organize and make choices on what's important to them when they travel. Add in random travel encounters (I build mine base on the area but you can use those in Xanthar's) and you have a neat, pretty much by the book exploration subsystem.  Set some DCs and roll out (pun semi-intended).

For social encounters, I have a few rulings I fall back on.  Social rolls are only made once a player has stated a goal and a method to achieve it.  This can be 'I try to bribe the guard 50g to let us in' to 'I try to convince the King to grant me a patent of nobility or I will reveal that his Queen is having an affair with his Royal Advisor!"   The ask has to be reasonable -- the King would never give you all of the money in the vault, for instance, and the guard won't let you in armed to the teeth.  The DC is set based if the attitude of the person towards you.  Friendly is DC 10, indifferent is DC 15, and hostile is DC 20.  This is modified by whether the ask is dangerous or trivial to the individual.  For trivial things the DC is lowered by 5.  For things that are neither trivial or dangerous, no change.  For things that are dangerous -- either physically or to social status -- the DC is raised by 5.  

If the player can leverage a trait, bond, flaw, or ideal in their ask that the target has, they gain advantage.  If the target can leverage one of the player's trait's, bonds, flaws, or ideals, the player gets disadvantage.  This would mean that if a character that had loyalty to the King as a bond trying to blackmail the king would be at disadvantage.  If the player can provide some other kind of leverage, they can also gain advantage for that.  If the player making the check isn't the one that benefits from the check - ie, you're asking for someone else - the check is at disadvantage -- asking a friend to help your other friend is harder than asking them to help you, for instance.  So, if you're 'facing' for another player, you can, at best, get a straight roll against the DC if you can gain leverage in the situation.  This encourages players to do their own thing, if they can work it.  Also, the DC is set for the person asking, so if you try to get the face to help you convince your friend, their DC is already 5 high than yours and it's at disadvantage.

I've run out of time, so I'll leave this here and pick it up when I can get back.  There are a few more things like consequences for failure I'd like to touch on.


----------



## GMMichael (Feb 1, 2018)

talien said:


> Is combat overemphasized in D&D?



No; a game about killing monsters for XP should probably focus on combat.



evilbob said:


> A thread about opinions!



Unless you do what I did, and let D&D set the bar for what D&D should be.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 1, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Who says that you need more rules to model encounters that deal with something else than combat? What I'm proposing is to use the same system to resolve encounters, i.e. using a skill system. Why should using a weapon skill be inherently different from using a debate skill? Both can be determined by a die roll with a target number derived from the opponent's abilities. This actually results in fewer rules, not more.



My question is this: how do any of these more-die-rolls-for-social-situations proposals do anything other than mechanically discourage players from actually role-playing their characters in character in favour of just rolling dice?

That's right, they don't.  Which by default makes them bad ideas.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I would really start with framing and consequences first, because that's how combat works: GMs (typically) frame combat so that all the PCs get drawn in; and there are consequences for all players in combat (ie their PCs take hp loss). If you are playing the weakling mage, and choose not to roll any attacks, that doesn't stop the GM declaring attacks against you that sap your hit points.
> 
> So what is going on that players who never have their PCs say anything, and leave it all to the "face", never suffer consequences? Never have anyone try and speak to them? Ask them their opinion on the matter? Never develop reputatios as buffoons? Etc.



Agreed.  A DM can easily draw other PCs in by simply speaking directly to them through NPCs...unless, of course, the "face" has been sent in alone - the social equivalent of sending the Thief ahead alone to scout and explore.  A less subtle variant on this is that the NPC being approached will, on noticing the party contains one or more of [Dwarf, mage, knight, female, or whatever], only speak with those characters and completely ignore the rest:

Local Noble NPC: "By your armour, heraldry and bearing, ma'am, *you* are clearly a knight and thus worthy of my time.  The rest of you may leave, or if you must stay, at the very least remain silent.  Lady Knight, what is your business with me?"

And now the Fighter's on the spot. 

But I don't agree that any of this needs a hard-coded resolution system.  3e's inclusion of codified social skills was IMO a mistake, sadly perpetuated since.

Lan-"given some other recent threads, my agreeing with pemerton here is almost an 'alert the media!' moment"-efan


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 2, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Who says that you need more rules to model encounters that deal with something else than combat? What I'm proposing is to use the same system to resolve encounters, i.e. using a skill system. Why should using a weapon skill be inherently different from using a debate skill? Both can be determined by a die roll with a target number derived from the opponent's abilities. This actually results in fewer rules, not more.



History shows us that a system which requires combat skills and non-combat skills to compete for character resources will almost invariably end with players investing in combat skills and ignoring the non-combat skills. Words don't work against zombies or otyughs, but swords are effective against everything. Games that use a unified system for everything tend to have worse balance issues than games which keep those activities segregated.

As long as you maintain the distinct resource groups, like 5E does with combat skills coming from your class while non-combat skills come from your background (mostly, at least - even 5E could stand to be better about this), it wouldn't _necessarily_ be impossible for combat to be resolved through a small handful of die rolls. Honestly, combat does pretty much start out that way, at low levels while using Theater-of-the-Mind style; it just explodes into wild complexity as HP numbers inflate.

Of course, that gets into the matter of that _other_ thread. Since D&D goes into more mechanical detail with combat than with the other pillars, it's mostly played by people who enjoy the combat part of the game, so simplifying that out to just a couple of die rolls would be counter-productive in terms of enjoyment for that group.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 2, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> History shows us that a system which requires combat skills and non-combat skills to compete for character resources will almost invariably end with players investing in combat skills and ignoring the non-combat skills. Words don't work against zombies or otyughs, but swords are effective against everything. Games that use a unified system for everything tend to have worse balance issues than games which keep those activities segregated.




I think that [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION]'s idea there was to simply _reduce_ combat encounters to be similar to some kind of skill challenge, not (necessarily) change the way skills are allocated. You could still pre-package the skills into Race/Background/Class, rather than let the player pick from each bag arbitrarily.

IME with more than a few games that do something akin to that. It produces super-fast gameplay and (can) facilitate much better(IMO) storylines, just because speed. However, it doesn't usually produce the visceral tension that turn-based tactical combat like D&D can produce. (Capes, a quirky little superheroes rpg, is the one stellar exception that I am familiar with.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I don't agree that any of this needs a hard-coded resolution system.



The issues of framing and of mecahnics are orthogonal. As I said in my post, I think there is no real point in looking at the mechanics if you haven't first sorted out the issue of framing.

But the rest of this post is mostly about mechanics.



Lanefan said:


> My question is this: how do any of these more-die-rolls-for-social-situations proposals do anything other than mechanically discourage players from actually role-playing their characters in character in favour of just rolling dice?
> 
> That's right, they don't.



And you know this because . . . ?

Read these two actual play reports and then get back to me.

Social resolution systems in games that have them (3E doesn't count - its Diplomacy skill is not an effective social resolution system) depend upon the players declaring actions - ie saying what it is that their PC  says/does - and then making checks to see how the situation unfolds.

Here's another example, from my Marvel Heroic RP game (sblocked for length - I posted this in mid-2016 but it got wiped in the great server crash, and so the below is cut-and-pasted from the file on my hard drive):

[sblock]The players of Ice Man and War Machine took up those PCs again, and a third player - new to the system - picked up Nightcrawler. The action started a day or two after the events of the previous session: War Machine had been able to fly back to Washington after being driven to ground over Florida in the earlier battle with Titanium Man; and Nightcrawler had arrived in town to meet up with Bobby Drake.

I asked the Nightcrawler player how he wanted to introduce Kurt into the scenario, and he decided that he and Bobby would go to a bar to try and pick up. (I hadn't looked at Nightcrawler's milestones, but as it turns out he has a "Romantic" milestone and the player was seeking to capitalise on that.) James Rhodes came along as wing man. Kurt's player spent his starting plot point for an image inducer as a d6 Tech resource.

Flipping through my Civil War book with its roster of B-list characters, I found three suitable women for a bar scene: Black Mamba, Asp and Diamondback (collectively the B.A.D. mercenaries). The scene distinctions were Dark Bar and Seedy Back Rooms, but these didn't come into play.

Anyway, this produced one of the more inane sequences of my GMing career: I described the three women and tagged Nightcrawler's player to go first. Kurt fastened on Tanya (Black Mamba), and succeeded in inflicting a Smitten complication on her. Bobby tried to chat up Rachel (Diamondback) but as a Skilled Mercenary with Covert Expertise, she recognised James Rhodes and was more interested in talking to him about Stark tech and a new and sophisticated vehicle being delivered to the Smithsonian - and managed to get him pretty tipsy with a d8 Drunk complication. So Bobby had to settle for Cleo (Asp), and inflicted a Mutual Sympathy/Pity complication on her (they were the last two left, and so apparently had to hook up by default).

I had decided that the B.A.D. women had been paid to extract the vehicle from the Smithsonian (so why were they hanging out in a bar? Put it town to comic-quality continuity). So Tanya, smitten by Kurt but enjoying Playing Both Sides (one of her Distinctions), decided to try to bring him along on the heist. So at her instigation they left the bar in a cab, with Rhodes and Diamondback tagging along. But Kurt stopped the cab at the Washington Monument instead, where he continued to successfully seduce Tanya. She was in Telepathic communication with Cleo back at the bar (still trying to coordinate the team for their job, and also getting her Buddy die which is better than her Solo). But Kurt first spent a Plot Point to cause her to "lose consciousness" (triggering her Conscious Activation Limit and thereby shutting down her Telepathy), and then Teleported her to a romantic place where he proposed to her (bringing his Devout Catholicism to bear) and succeeded in stepping up her Smitten complication to d12+, effectively taking her out of the scene.

(The rules aren't clear on whether or not Complications can be stepped up like Stress can, but it makes sense and so we were allowing it.)

I also told Kurt that (with his Enhanced Senses) he could see some shadowy types sneaking into the Smithsonian - these were the Silver Samurai and a mob of Clan Yashida ninjas, and they were able to take their turns unopposed to add some needed dice to my Doom Pool.

Meanwhile, James (who had started with a Plot Point for having no armour) made a successful roll against the Doom Pool to bring his armour to him, and then took Diamondback for a flight - "Would you like me to show you my Stark tech?" But then a message came through on his helmet radio that an alarm had been triggered on the vehicle in the Smithsonian - at this point it needed a name, and so I christened it the M-PORV (Multi-Passenger Orbital and Reentry Vehicle). So he interrupted his romantic flight with Diamondback - who was still more interested in her mission, even though she hadn't succeeded in persuading Rhodes to join with her in carrying it out - by hooking her to the top of the Washington Monument (a d10 Stuck on top of the Washington Monument complication) before flying to the Smithsonian himself.

Bobby, meanwhile, had left the bar with Asp (Cleo) and taken her to the Washington Monument so that he could freeze the lake for their ice-skating pleasure. Cleo was worried about Tanya (having lost telepathic communication) but was also still willing to hang out with Bobby (she was still under the complication). He imposed more complications on her (In His Arms) and also rescued Rachel from the top of the monument by creating ice steps (mechanically, a d10 effect to remove the complication). Given that Black Mamba is described as "a former call girl turned super villain turned mercenary hero" who Plays Both Sides and is a Covert and Psych Expert, it seemed rather ironic that she should fall for a play that she must have used on others many many times. (But that is the fate the dice had in store for her.)

Although he was feeling rather Don Juan-ish, and somewhere about here managed to inflict a d8 He's Not Too Bad After All complication on Diamondback, nothing had happened to dissuade the women from trying to steal the M-PORV from the Smithsonian. But before they could, the action shifted back to Nightcrawler. He used his image inducer to take on the appearance of a Smithsonian guard, teleported in, and (with a mighty roll, including a fair bit of Plot Point expenditure to keep extra dice and so boost his total to allow stepping up his effects) took out 4 ninjas and put d10 physical stress on the samurai.

War Machine then came flying in and unleashed on the Samurai, taking his stress up to d12. And Bobby took advantage of the fact that Asp was In His Arms to freeze her feet to the lake (mechanically, stepping up the complication to 12+). Diamondback, though, was able to escape his attempt to freeze her by blasting away with one of her exploding diamonds (as a reaction). She then ran to the Smithsonian, where she took advantage of the mayhem to try and steal the M-PORV (I had determined that a d8 effect die would be sufficient for this). But despite several attempts (three, I think, all well-boosted from the Doom Pool) War Machine was able to stop her every time.

The Silver Samurai, on the other hand, was able to get the better of Nightcrawler in their fight, stressing him out; though War Machine was then able to finish him off. War Machine also tried to take out Diamondback with an all-out assault (which then triggers his Shutdown Limit) but she was able to survive this and have what was her last attempt at taking the M-PORV. Bobby then arrived on the scene, used his Psych Expertise and the complication, and was able to step it up to d12+ and sweep her romantically away on an ice slide. So she didn't get the M-PORV, but in the end Bobby did get the girl.

We then cut to a Transition Scene, the next day. Kurt's player spent another Plot Point for a resource, this time a d6 X-Man class first aid kit from his Medical Expertise, and made a roll to reduce his d6 Trauma from being stressed out. Despite a fairly large Doom Pool this was a success, and so his Trauma stepped down to d4. James Rhodes called in a d6 Covert Resource to get a lead on what was going on with the whole "bad guys all focused on the Smithsonian"-thing, and learned that there seemed to be two different forces: a European contingent, for whom Titanium Man is working, and who probably hired B.A.D; and another group who had hired Clan Yashida. The intelligence suggested that Clan Yashida itself had not interest in aerospace technology, but having been hit hard by the financial crisis was in the market as ninjas for hire.

Around this point Nightcrawler's player also pointed out that he had earned 10 XP by completing his Romantic milestone (though I think more cynically than would the "true" Nightcrawler), and so we decided (per the rule about adding a new SFX) that he could keep the Silver Samurai's energy sword and get its ability to inflict an effect on a successful reaction without having to spend a Plot Point - this seeming to fit with a slightly more gritty version of Nightcrawler's swashbuckling traits.

After some discussion the PCs decided to follow the lead to Japan rather than to Kazakhstan

<snip the accoiunt of the raid on the Yashida Enterprises skyscraper in Tokyo>

Overall this was a fun session. The bar pick-up action was pretty close to the limits of my own preferences for romantic/sexual content in RPGing, but with resolute GMing and use of the Doom Pool dice to help out my NPCs I was able to maintain another dimension to the action (the M-PORV/Smithsonian scenario), and the system showed itself able to handle non-combat action without trouble, which was the same as what we found in our earlier session.[/sblock]As well as examples of mechanical systems, these also show how framing and consequence-narration can be used to get all the players involved in the situation.



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> what I get now is just "I'll make a persuasion check".  I hate that and its the farthest thing from immersion to me.  Plus it puts uncertainty in a situation where there may not need to be any.  I may ask for a skill check after that or CHA check if its iffy and the situation needs a check to resolve a questionable outcome but why rush to that point?
> 
> Having a social combat and defense value and rolling that out like physical combat no thank you.  To me RP needs to be more than leveraging the numbers on your sheet against other numbers.



What you describe here is not how games with social conflict resolutoin mechanics handle it. If you look at the examples I've linked to/posted above, you'll see that there social interactions have quite a bit of richness, and involve unexpected twists and turns.



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Nobody in my group has sword fought to the death, but they are all experience in BS'ing, persuading, cajoling, and flattering people that they can use at the table in a roleplay situation. So we need mechanics in that area far less than combat. To me its more fun and immersive as a player to think of how I'm going to talk to a town official than thinking well I"ve got a +8 and I need to pass a check.





Flexor the Mighty! said:


> When I'm running a game and a player says they want to convince the burgermeister of Diertburg of something, I want them to think what they are going to say and roleplay it out, give me a synopsis of what they are trying to say to him, or even jump into the skin of the PC and play it out like they are the PC talking.  As a DM I know what will convince the NPC or what will influence them.  If  I was a good DM  I dropped a lot of hints in that regard as well.



I agree, it's fun to think of how I'm going to persuade an official. The point of social resolution mechanics isn't to eliinate that fun. It's to give a way of working out _whether or not the town official accepts what I've said_.

The main alternative is the one you describe: the GM has decided what will or won't convince the town official, and has given hints about that, and so the players are trying to solve a puzzle - interpret the GM's hints and then say the right thing to the official.

I think a benefit of having social resolution mechanics is that they give a different way for working out whether or not the player had his/her PC say the right thing. Instead of asking "Is this the thing the GM had in mind as something that will convince the NPC?", we ask "Is the roll made to determine the consequences of what the PC says a success?"

It's not a way of eliminating the RP, because if the player doesn't actually declare an action then we don't get to the point of making a roll.

And good mecanics will enforce the need for an action declaration. In a 4e skill challenge, the player has to say what his/her PC is doing/saying, because otherwise the GM (i) can't apply situational modifiers (generally +/- 2) based on how apt or outrageous it is, and (ii) can't work out how the fiction changes in response to success or failure. In MHRP, the player has to say what his/her PC is doing/saying, because that establishes the effect generated by a success (if you wan't to impose a Smitten complication, you've got to say what you're doing that will make the other character smitten with your character).

One weakness of the Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel is that it makes it possible to resolve actions without this sort of action declaration being required. (A bit like D&D combat, which doen't actually require you to say what you're doing to try and defeat the other person, besides a very generic "I attack with my sword".) Although DoW has some other strengths, I think I actually prefer the 4e skill challenge system.


----------



## lewpuls (Feb 2, 2018)

Interesting analysis, and the obvious answer is “It Depends”.


Virtually all of us early D&Ders were wargamers. So of course it focused more on combat than anything else. I have always used a grid for maneuver and spatial relationships, which are the heart of warfare.


But wargames are a Baby Boomer hobby, and more recent generations have other interests. For the original players the game certainly wasn’t too focused on combat, for later generations it is. RPGs have moved from a test of survival and cooperation via military/mercenary-like missions, to “all about me” showing off, with little real danger. 


To the wargamers, the extreme story-telling games aren’t even games, let alone D&D. And most wargamers want to feel in control of what happens to their characters, as much as possible, so they don’t want to be told a story, they want to write their own story. Non-wargamers are less likely to feel this way.


To me, the big flaw of 4e was that it was only about combat. The spells that helped in strategic (exploration or otherwise) activity disappeared, as did the spells that helped in “the wider world” (politics, war, becoming a ruler, etc.). Imagine a novel that was all combat (some certainly approach it). It would become tedious.


A contemporary trend in games (and life) is a dislike of constraints. Why do computer games allow such huge inventories? To avoid constraints. Most younger people play computer games and learn habits from them. Logistics are constraints. Boards/grids that require precise maneuver are constraints. So players and newer games tend to ignore such things.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 2, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> My question is this: how do any of these more-die-rolls-for-social-situations proposals do anything other than mechanically discourage players from actually role-playing their characters in character in favour of just rolling dice?
> 
> That's right, they don't.  Which by default makes them bad ideas.



Imho, there's several reasons why using die rolls for social encounters can be beneficial:
1) The die rolls never replace roleplaying, they supplement it. I've already mentioned that in my game players don't get to roll a die without first describing their actions.
2) It's also a question of what's at stake: I'm not proposing to use die rolls for all kinds of social situations. I propose to use them when the outcome is critically important. Just like you probably wouldn't want to allow your players to defeat a dragon in combat just by roleplaying, I wouldn't want them to be able to solve a diplomatic mission to avoid a war with a foreign sovereign purely by roleplaying.
3) Did you ever have a player in one of your groups who wanted to be the party's 'face' despite lacking good roleplaying skills? I definitely have. If I'm using an RPG system that supports social skills, then they should be good for something, right? I try to minimize situations in my games that test the skills of the players. I'm trying to test the skills of my players' characters.


Saelorn said:


> History shows us that a system which requires combat skills and non-combat skills to compete for character resources will almost invariably end with players investing in combat skills and ignoring the non-combat skills. Words don't work against zombies or otyughs, but swords are effective against everything.



History has told me something else:
Players invest in the skills that they believe will give them the best benefits in my game. If my campaigns tend to focus on high politics and social encounters, they will only make minimal investments in combat skills. Swords are only effective in conflicts that can be solved by relying on violence. And swords literally aren't effective against everything (in D&D), either: I notice you picked zombies as an example. Well, what about skeletons or golems? ;-)


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 2, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> My reply to this would be "Have your players write a one page background prior to sitting down at the table".  Alternatively, create a game around it at session zero.
> 
> It's a good thing to have backgrounds that kick off the imagination, but I don't necessarily think that's the level of detail folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.



And my reply to this would be to remind you of the point that I am actually discussing: that game systems can support the social and exploration pillars through other mechanics other than skill checks, which is taking up the bulk of the discussion. And Fate does feature actual mechanics apart from skill-based resolution systems that support, supplement, and progress the social pillar of the game. Writing character backgrounds hardly adds anything to 5e that could not be added to other games. It's not a game mechanic, so it can't be said to be a feature of the system. And if you look at the OP, it includes a link from Angry GM who does point out that the 5E background system is mechanically weak and insufficiently supported to the point of being meaningless for most players. And although Angry GM does not like Fate, he does adopt Fate-like mechanics to further strengthen the 5e background system. So it would seem that is the level of detail that folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Feb 2, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> And my reply to this would be to remind you of the point that I am actually discussing: that game systems can support the social and exploration pillars through other mechanics other than skill checks, which is taking up the bulk of the discussion. And Fate does feature actual mechanics apart from skill-based resolution systems that support, supplement, and progress the social pillar of the game. Writing character backgrounds hardly adds anything to 5e that could not be added to other games. It's not a game mechanic, so it can't be said to be a feature of the system. And if you look at the OP, it includes a link from Angry GM who does point out that the 5E background system is mechanically weak and insufficiently supported to the point of being meaningless for most players. And although Angry GM does not like Fate, he does adopt Fate-like mechanics to further strengthen the 5e background system. So it would seem that is the level of detail that folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.




Entirely fair Aldarc.

I just don't really see the point of saying "D&D doesn't have something"  THEN saying
"Fate has something" WITH
"D&D must be broken cause it doesn't have what FATE has"  SO
"D&D must fix that".  THEN
starting a thread about what D&D doesn't have.

It's better to fix the problem in your game (As Angry GM has) then posting whatever system you use and having a discussion about that. Just an opinion.  

Because talking about what 5E "doesn't have" isn't terribly productive, but it does produce debate that we all enjoy. 

Be well
KB


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The issues of framing and of mecahnics are orthogonal. As I said in my post, I think there is no real point in looking at the mechanics if you haven't first sorted out the issue of framing.



From your perspective, perhaps; but I'll wager framing is a far bigger thing to you than to most people here.



> And you know this because . . . ?



Because if the system allows players to cop out of the roleplaying, or just skip over it, and simply say "I roll a [diplomacy/persuasion/whatever] check" then sure as shootin' some of them are going to do so.



> Social resolution systems in games that have them (3E doesn't count - its Diplomacy skill is not an effective social resolution system) depend upon the players declaring actions - ie saying what it is that their PC  says/does - and then making checks to see how the situation unfolds.



First off, like it or not 3e's Diplomacy (and Bluff, and Intimidate, etc.) does count - it's the thin end of the wedge.

As for your examples, while there's some fine role-play in there there's also a fair amount of "here's what I want to do, let's see if the dice let it happen".



> Here's another example, from my Marvel Heroic RP game



And in this one the game system itself allows for so many mechanics to interfere (a He's-Not-Too-Bad-After-All complication?  A d8 Drunk complication?  Never mind the insertion of Plot Points to shift the goalposts within the RP) that it becomes impossible to ignore them...which doesn't suit free-form roleplaying at all as in these instances one ideally wants the mechanics to completely get out of the way and stay there.



> What you describe here is not how games with social conflict resolutoin mechanics handle it. If you look at the examples I've linked to/posted above, you'll see that there social interactions have quite a bit of richness, and involve unexpected twists and turns.



They do, though in the Marvel example most of those unexpected twists and turns seem forced by mechanics rather than arising out of the actual roleplay.

That sais, you also seem to have players who are willing to let the mechanics drive the direction of what they roleplay as their characters and roll with it.  We don't all have this. 



> I agree, it's fun to think of how I'm going to persuade an official. The point of social resolution mechanics isn't to eliinate that fun. It's to give a way of working out _whether or not the town official accepts what I've said_.
> 
> The main alternative is the one you describe: the GM has decided what will or won't convince the town official, and has given hints about that, and so the players are trying to solve a puzzle - interpret the GM's hints and then say the right thing to the official.



There's a third option that falls between these two: that the DM gets in character as the town official - gives it a personality, etc. - and responds naturally as the town official would to what's being said by the PC(s).  If needed, the DM can bang off a few quick rolls to give herself an idea of what makes this person tick (ethics? level of adherence to law or policy? right-now mood? overall mood? etc.) and then just play the character.

But, in the end it comes down to if PCs want to be persuasive in character it requires the players to be persuasive at the table - this is kind of the point.  Also, it's always possible the DM didn't have anything in mind, particularly if she's had little or no warning that this encounter was coming.



> I think a benefit of having social resolution mechanics is that they give a different way for working out whether or not the player had his/her PC say the right thing. Instead of asking "Is this the thing the GM had in mind as something that will convince the NPC?", we ask "Is the roll made to determine the consequences of what the PC says a success?"
> 
> It's not a way of eliminating the RP, because if the player doesn't actually declare an action then we don't get to the point of making a roll.




DM: [has just narrated that the PCs have been allowed an audience with the town official]
Player: "I use my Diplomacy skill* to convince the town official to give us access to the records we need."
DM: "What are you saying to her?"
Player: "Whatever seems best.  Can I roll now?"

* - or replace with the system-appropriate mechanic for the game/edition being played

Without social mechanics the above player-DM interaction simply can't occur.  With them, it's a common thing.



> And good mecanics will enforce the need for an action declaration. In a 4e skill challenge, the player has to say what his/her PC is doing/saying, because otherwise the GM (i) can't apply situational modifiers (generally +/- 2) based on how apt or outrageous it is, and (ii) can't work out how the fiction changes in response to success or failure. In MHRP, the player has to say what his/her PC is doing/saying, because that establishes the effect generated by a success (if you wan't to impose a Smitten complication, you've got to say what you're doing that will make the other character smitten with your character).



This is better, though it would still be relatively easy to stay completely out of character and - for the Smitten example - just say something like "Freddy makes eyes at her and goes heavy on the sweet talk.  Does this give  me a Smitten advantage?".  Not the desired result, I don't think. 

Lan-"what happened to the days of 'if you say it at the table, your character says it in the game'?"-efan


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 2, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Players invest in the skills that they believe will give them the best benefits in my game. If my campaigns tend to focus on high politics and social encounters, they will only make minimal investments in combat skills.



Fair enough, if the campaign features so little combat that being bad at fighting doesn't hold you back significantly, and if failure at combat never means death (which is rarely true of D&D, but may hold for certain campaigns in GURPS). However...


Jhaelen said:


> Swords are only effective in conflicts that can be solved by relying on violence. And swords literally aren't effective against everything (in D&D), either: I notice you picked zombies as an example. Well, what about skeletons or golems? ;-)



Virtually every situation ever can be solved through violence. Skeletons and golems are both susceptible to sufficient violence. Tyrannical dictators, fear-mongering political groups, and annoying neighbors are all susceptible to violence. With enough violence, you can accomplish anything.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Feb 2, 2018)

.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> As for your examples, while there's some fine role-play in there there's also a fair amount of "here's what I want to do, let's see if the dice let it happen".




Uh, how is this contentious.  In one cogent sentence, you've neatly captured the beating heart of roleplaying games!  Or if you want to expand it further:

"Here's what I want to do, let's see if the dice (cards, jenga tower, or whatever fortune mechanic the game possesses) let it happen or if something less desirable happens!"


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2018)

lewpuls said:


> To me, the big flaw of 4e was that it was only about combat.



Skill challenges are the tightest form of non-combat resolution - especially for social encounters - that D&D has ever had.



lewpuls said:


> The spells that helped in strategic (exploration or otherwise) activity disappeared



And yet in my 4e game the use of spells like Object Reading, Phantom Steeds, Hallowed Temple, varios wards and magic circles, etc is very common. Perhaps you didn't read the rules for rituals?



lewpuls said:


> To the wargamers, the extreme story-telling games aren’t even games, let alone D&D. And most wargamers want to feel in control of what happens to their characters, as much as possible, so they don’t want to be told a story, they want to write their own story. Non-wargamers are less likely to feel this way.



This reads a bit like you've missed the last 20+ years of RPG design.

The whole rationale of games like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Dogs in the Vineyard, Cortex+ Heroic, etc, is that the story is generated in play, rather than being told to the players.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 3, 2018)

Rules can totally influence how people role play.  For example, Gygax made the exp for gold rule to encourage players to act more like swords and sorcery protagonists that were in for the money.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Feb 3, 2018)

It also encourages building a fief and commanding armies at higher level, Generally the higher level you are the richer you are. I'll give you a counter-example, one of the most famous Forgotten Realms characters is Drizzt Do'Urden, Drizzt has been adventuring for quite some time, by now he ought to be quite high level, by the old rules, he would have accumulated a lot of treasure, he would have built or acquired his own keep, he would have retainers and men at arms guarding his castle, and he would be a general of his army while often going toe to toe with the various beasts and monsters encountered on the battlefield.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 3, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> Uh, how is this contentious.  In one cogent sentence, you've neatly captured the beating heart of roleplaying games!  Or if you want to expand it further:
> 
> "Here's what I want to do, let's see if the dice (cards, jenga tower, or whatever fortune mechanic the game possesses) let it happen or if something less desirable happens!"



Ideally this is true for nearly all combat situations, for some exploration and other situations, and for no interaction situations (to use 5e's three pillars).  Anything that inserts dice into what players can instead roleplay their way through is a discouragement to roleplaying, as the dice almost invariably act - or are seen by the players - as more or less of a shortcut.  This is where it gets contentious.

Dice come in when something the players can't do (swing weapons or sneak down hallways or whatever) needs to be resolved.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> This reads a bit like you've missed the last 20+ years of RPG design.



This'll sound harsh, but from what I've seen - with a few exceptions - the years between about 1996 (nadir of TSR) and 2016 (5e) didn't provide much of any worth at all; with the exception of 3e/PF which at least gave us a few good things and ideas to chew on if we were patient enough to dig 'em out.

Sure lots of experimental games came out in that time, and lots of little niches were created and-or filled...but that's all.  And 4e came, made a pretty big splash, and then went; and by 'went' I mean within a few more years on its current trajectory it'll likely just be another niche game unless it somehow enjoys a rather big resurgence.  Meanwhile the OSR, welcome though it was and is, has merely more or less replowed fields already harvested long ago; and generated yet a few more niches.

Lan-"shields up"-efan


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 3, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> It also encourages building a fief and commanding armies at higher level, Generally the higher level you are the richer you are. I'll give you a counter-example, one of the most famous Forgotten Realms characters is Drizzt Do'Urden, Drizzt has been adventuring for quite some time, by now he ought to be quite high level, by the old rules, he would have accumulated a lot of treasure, he would have built or acquired his own keep, he would have retainers and men at arms guarding his castle, and he would be a general of his army while often going toe to toe with the various beasts and monsters encountered on the battlefield.




Actually you are right, that does sound exactly like almost every Drizzt book ever.  He has treasure, keep, retainers, armies and still manages to find time to go toe to toe with Demogorgon!


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Dice come in when something the players can't do (swing weapons or sneak down hallways or whatever) needs to be resolved.
> 
> Lan-"shields up"-efan



Presumably they can swing weapons or otherwise they wouldn't be trying. Admittedly, mileage may vary, but I don't see things that way. Dice for me, or even most of players, is not a shortcut for anything. For me at least, dice come in when there are interesting consequences for success or failure. If my players want to sneak down the hall, but the failure to do so adds nothing of value or consequence, then I would not see the point in having the players roll for it. That, to me, seems like an extraneous roll. But there may be interesting consequences at stake in social situations that should require a roll or a series of skill-challenge rolls. I don't think that discourages bad roleplaying unless your own bad GMing provides incentives for that sort of behavior. It can even heighten roleplaying as failure creates new complications or challenges, and this pushes the players to roleplay for what they need. The dice roll also means that the players are not having to mind read the GM's desires for what constitutes "good roleplay" in a social situation. Often the GMs "The NPC is not convinced" is like roleplaying without dice resolution mechanics "Your weapon does not hit." Again, I'm not arguing that dice resolution mechanics should be used for every social, combat, or exploration situation, but, rather, - and I quote again from Fate - "Roll the dice when succeeding or failing at the action could each contribute something interesting to the game."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Ideally this is true for nearly all combat situations, for some exploration and other situations, and for no interaction situations (to use 5e's three pillars).  Anything that inserts dice into what players can instead roleplay their way through is a discouragement to roleplaying, as the dice almost invariably act - or are seen by the players - as more or less of a shortcut.  This is where it gets contentious.
> 
> Dice come in when something the players can't do (swing weapons or sneak down hallways or whatever) needs to be resolved.
> 
> ...




Mechanics are role-playing, too, though.  I don't stop playing the role of Bob the Fighter every tine I roll to hit.  In fact, rolling to hit is a pretty good example of me role-playing Bob.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Ideally this is true for nearly all combat situations, for some exploration and other situations, and for no interaction situations (to use 5e's three pillars).  Anything that inserts dice into what players can instead roleplay their way through is a discouragement to roleplaying, as the dice almost invariably act - or are seen by the players - as more or less of a shortcut.  This is where it gets contentious.
> 
> Dice come in when something the players can't do (swing weapons or sneak down hallways or whatever) needs to be resolved.



I agree and disagree with this.

The rules say the players _can_ do a lot of things.  The players can hide any time they want.  But that doesn't necessarily mean they will become the game status of Hidden.  They need to roll for that.  But they can role-play up hiding all they want.

More specifically, lets look at the Monk's "Tongue of Sun and Moon", which lets you be understood and understand any creature which can speak a language.  You can role-play this up all you like, but there is some built-in vagueness to "understand".  Does understanding imply perfect comprehension?  Does "understanding" mean you get innuendo or implication?  Or is it simply literal translation, which could lead to a _lack_ of understanding.  Does it mean you understand slang?  Does it provide context as well as comprehension?  These things you may have to *roll* for.  

Also, swinging a sword is completely within the purview of the player.  _Hitting_ with a sword requires a roll.  You can role-play your swing all you like, THAT is under your control.  You cannot role-play through the attempt to _hit_ with your sword, that requires a roll.  You can certainly role-play the outcome of that roll though.

So, I agree that if it is within the player's power to do, I will not stop them.  The rules say they can, so unless there are extenuating circumstances imposed upon them, they can.  But being able to do something doesn't guarantee them an outcome.  There are very few things which are completely under the player's control to determine an outcome.  That is largely the purview of the dice.



> This'll sound harsh, but from what I've seen - with a few exceptions - the years between about 1996 (nadir of TSR) and 2016 (5e) didn't provide much of any worth at all; with the exception of 3e/PF which at least gave us a few good things and ideas to chew on if we were patient enough to dig 'em out.
> 
> Sure lots of experimental games came out in that time, and lots of little niches were created and-or filled...but that's all.  And 4e came, made a pretty big splash, and then went; and by 'went' I mean within a few more years on its current trajectory it'll likely just be another niche game unless it somehow enjoys a rather big resurgence.  Meanwhile the OSR, welcome though it was and is, has merely more or less replowed fields already harvested long ago; and generated yet a few more niches.
> 
> Lan-"shields up"-efan



And I think you're exaggerating, but w/e.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 3, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Presumably they can swing weapons or otherwise they wouldn't be trying.



Gah!

By players I mean the people sitting at the table.

If I'd meant characters I'd have said characters.



> Admittedly, mileage may vary, but I don't see things that way. Dice for me, or even most of players, is not a shortcut for anything. For me at least, dice come in when there are interesting consequences for success or failure. If my players...



You mean characters 







> ...want to sneak down the hall, but the failure to do so adds nothing of value or consequence, then I would not see the point in having the players roll for it. That, to me, seems like an extraneous roll.



Except in most such cases neither the characters nor the players know whether anything's at stake, meaning you'd still go through the motions of rolling anyway (otherwise you're giving away info they shouldn't have yet).



> But there may be interesting consequences at stake in social situations that should require a roll or a series of skill-challenge rolls. I don't think that discourages bad roleplaying unless your own bad GMing provides incentives for that sort of behavior. It can even heighten roleplaying as failure creates new complications or challenges, and this pushes the players to roleplay for what they need. The dice roll also means that the players are not having to mind read the GM's desires for what constitutes "good roleplay" in a social situation. Often the GMs "The NPC is not convinced" is like roleplaying without dice resolution mechanics "Your weapon does not hit."



If the players are actively roleplaying their way through the situation and the dice are only occasionally being used as a backup, I can live with that.

It's the attempted use of die rolls by players - and sometimes DMs! - who want to skip or circumvent the whole scene that annoys me to no end; and the only surefire way to prevent this is to remove those mechanics.


> Again, I'm not arguing that dice resolution mechanics should be used for every social, combat, or exploration situation, but, rather, - and I quote again from Fate - "Roll the dice when succeeding or failing at the action could each contribute something interesting to the game."



I disagree with Fate, then; in that if dice are only rolled when something's at stake it far too soon becomes obvious in the metagame when something's at stake vs. when it isn't even though the in-game situation is the same; and players will pick up on this and metagame it.

"Hey, why are we rolling to sneak down this hallway when we didn't have to roll for the last three?  There must be something here.  On guard, everyone!"

Bleah.

Lan-"then again, IMO the DM should be making such rolls behind the screen to avoid giving away extra information"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 3, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Mechanics are role-playing, too, though.  I don't stop playing the role of Bob the Fighter every tine I roll to hit.  In fact, rolling to hit is a pretty good example of me role-playing Bob.



Which backs up my point.

You-as-Ovinomancer, the player at the table, aren't (I hope!) whaling away with a sword - but Bob the Fighter is; and this player-character disconnect is taken care of by dice.  All is good.

But you-as-Ovinomancer, the player at the table, can (I hope!) talk and think - which means you can more or less speak as Bob would and think as Bob would.  There's much less* player-character disconnect and thus much less* requirement for dice to bridge it.

* - the ideal state here is zero.



			
				shidaku said:
			
		

> I agree and disagree with this.
> 
> The rules say the players can do a lot of things. The players can hide any time they want. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will become the game status of Hidden. They need to roll for that. But they can role-play up hiding all they want.
> 
> ...



For the hiding and sword-swinging examples you're quite right: these are both things the characters can (try to) do but the real players at the table probably won't, and dice are the bridge.

As for the Monk ability - were I a DM faced with that I'd try to adjust my speaking as the target NPC to match what the Monk would actually hear/comprehend and let the Monk's player roleplay from there.  Failing that, all the rolling for the variables you note would only be done once - the very first time the ability came into play - after which the capabilities of Tongue of Sun and Moon would be pretty much locked in, to be noted for future reference in whatever rulings or houserules setup we're using.

Lanefan


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 3, 2018)

Maybe we should all seek to emulate the DM in this post?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> if the system allows players to cop out of the roleplaying, or just skip over it, and simply say "I roll a [diplomacy/persuasion/whatever] check" then sure as shootin' some of them are going to do so.



None of the systems that are being promoted in this thread permits this, except _perhaps_ DUel of Wits from BW (and even that is much more complex than what you are descriibing here).

No one in this thread has promoted 3E's Diplomacy mechanic.



Lanefan said:


> DM: [has just narrated that the PCs have been allowed an audience with the town official]
> Player: "I use my Diplomacy skill* to convince the town official to give us access to the records we need."
> DM: "What are you saying to her?"
> Player: "Whatever seems best.  Can I roll now?"
> ...



Only if they're bad. What you describe can't happen in any of the systems that I GM.



Lanefan said:


> As for your examples, while there's some fine role-play in there there's also a fair amount of "here's what I want to do, let's see if the dice let it happen".
> 
> And in this one the game system itself allows for so many mechanics to interfere (a He's-Not-Too-Bad-After-All complication?  A d8 Drunk complication?  Never mind the insertion of Plot Points to shift the goalposts within the RP) that it becomes impossible to ignore them...which doesn't suit free-form roleplaying at all as in these instances one ideally wants the mechanics to completely get out of the way and stay there.
> 
> ...



Mechanics are how we represent the state of the fiction.

D&D combat produces outcomes like _ the orc has lost 3 of its 5 hit points_. Marvel Herioc RP produces outcomes like _Diamondback is subject to a d8 He's Not To Bad After All complication_. In D&D, if a NPC is plying a PC with drink, how do we determine if the PC gets drunk? Presumably by way of a Poison saving throw or similar. In MHRP we do it via the mechanics for inflicting complications.

The rating of the complication is a mechanical state of affairs (analogous to a damage roll in D&D). The _descriptor_ of the complication is determined by the player (if it is a PC inflicting the complication) or the GM (if it is a NPC) - of course the fictional positioning must support the description (James Rhodes can become subject to a Drunk complication becuse he's drinking in a bar), and the complication affects the suffering character's resolution when the fictional positioning makes it relevant (so James Rhodes's Drunk complication will affect his attempts to pull of tight aerial manoeuvres, but not his attempts to avoid being enraged or scared).

And yes, we roll the dice to see what happens (does James Rhodes get drunk? does Bobby successfully woo any of the women? etc). That's generally how a roleplaying game works. The alternative is for the GM to just let the player get what s/he wants - that's find for peripheral things but boring for the main action; or for the GM to just block what the player wants - but that sounds a bit railroad-y to me.



Lanefan said:


> There's a third option that falls between these two: that the DM gets in character as the town official - gives it a personality, etc. - and responds naturally as the town official would to what's being said by the PC(s).  If needed, the DM can bang off a few quick rolls to give herself an idea of what makes this person tick (ethics? level of adherence to law or policy? right-now mood? overall mood? etc.) and then just play the character.



Suppose the GM decides that the official is Greedy. How much bribe money do the PCs have to offer?

Suppose the GM decides that the official is scrupulous? How extremely do the PCs have to threaten his/her loved ones before s/he gives in?

Etc. This is one purpose of dice rolls in a social resolution system.



Lanefan said:


> in the end it comes down to if PCs want to be persuasive in character it requires the players to be persuasive at the table - this is kind of the point.



What is persuasive to one person is probably not persuasive to another. To go back to the bar scene - a person at a bar might try to befriend, or to pick, up another patron and 9 times in 10 be rebuffed - but that tenth patron enjoys the joke, or likes the twinkle in the person's eye, or whatever.

The same is true for reaching consensus on a committee - the compromises and approaches required, and what counts as persuasive, differ from person to person and context to context.

The idea that there is such a thing as _being persuasive_, which the referee will know when s/he sees it, strikes me as leading to unverisimilitudinous outcomes.



Lanefan said:


> from what I've seen - with a few exceptions - the years between about 1996 (nadir of TSR) and 2016 (5e) didn't provide much of any worth at all; with the exception of 3e/PF which at least gave us a few good things and ideas to chew on if we were patient enough to dig 'em out.
> 
> Sure lots of experimental games came out in that time, and lots of little niches were created and-or filled...but that's all.



That pretty much says it all, I guess.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 4, 2018)

lewpuls said:


> To the wargamers, the extreme story-telling games aren’t even games, let alone D&D.




Okay, wargamers are close-minded, narrow thinkers...got it.



lewpuls said:


> And most wargamers want to feel in control of what happens to their characters, as much as possible,




Okay, so...um...seems not too objectionable.



lewpuls said:


> so they don’t want to be told a story, they want to write their own story.




...and now we're off the rails. 

There is very little in (especially Old-school) traditional RPG-structure that allows a player to ensure he can "write his own story" outside the narrow confines of the combat mechanics, and a few tables here and there (many of which are routinely ignored by lots of DMs). Without social skills, interaction rules, or non-combat conflict resolution...its all just _literally_ playing "let's pretend" with the GM, except that the GM has the trump-card at every single turn via Rule 0. Yup, you may want to Capt. Picard-level diplomat or Capt. Kirk-level womanizer, but nope, if the DM ain't havin' it, it doesn't happen... _even if you have that kind of talent, IRL._

The failure of old-school games to consistently enable players to meaningfully participate in the creation of the story at table (i.e. the big lie in all those "What is a Role Playing Game?" introductory pages) was the very motivation for the creation and exploration of all the Forge discussion and story games that the OSR seems to despise so much. To pretend otherwise beggars belief and denies a forest of dead-trees and oceans of electrons devoted to the problems of a "Bad DM" and/or "railroading".


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And in this one the game system itself allows for so many mechanics to interfere (a He's-Not-Too-Bad-After-All complication?  A d8 Drunk complication?  Never mind the insertion of Plot Points to shift the goalposts within the RP) that it becomes impossible to ignore them...which doesn't suit free-form roleplaying at all as in these instances one ideally wants the mechanics to completely get out of the way and stay there.




I'm not sure that "free-form roleplaying" is the actual goal of those interested in a story game (or the storytelling aspects of an rpg.) I doubt that those who seek engaging combat/tactical rules would feel satisfied with a "free-form combat" game.



Lanefan said:


> They do, though in the Marvel example most of those unexpected twists and turns seem forced by mechanics rather than arising out of the actual roleplay.




Could you please expand upon the difference between "arising out of the actual roleplay" and "declared at the arbitrary whimsy of the DM"? The rest of your post seemed to me to be just really fluffing up the latter. It's not that I haven't experienced what you've described, but whether it even occurs or not is ...well, up to the arbitrary whimsy of the DM. I've bumped into far too many adversarial DMs back in the day to accept that this was the universal norm for social interaction in old-school D&D.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 4, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> I'm not sure that "free-form roleplaying" is the actual goal of those interested in a story game (or the storytelling aspects of an rpg.) I doubt that those who seek engaging combat/tactical rules would feel satisfied with a "free-form combat" game.



Very likely they wouldn't...but there really isn't such a thing as "tactical socializing" (activities in pick-up bars notwithstanding) and thus trying to shoehorn social interaction into a hard-coded ruleset is a fool's errand.

Social interaction, exploration, and combat: three different things, best off handled three completely different ways by the rules.



> Could you please expand upon the difference between "arising out of the actual roleplay" and "declared at the arbitrary whimsy of the DM"? The rest of your post seemed to me to be just really fluffing up the latter. It's not that I haven't experienced what you've described, but whether it even occurs or not is ...well, up to the arbitrary whimsy of the DM. I've bumped into far too many adversarial DMs back in the day to accept that this was the universal norm for social interaction in old-school D&D.



There's a difference between an adversarial DM who wants to win all the time (and thus inevitably does, which is bad) and an adversarial DM who knows that sometimes she'll win, sometimes it'll be a sawoff, but sometimes - maybe even most of the time - she's going to lose.  As long as she's good about conceding the win (e.g. the guard allows the PCs in to see the Duke) when it's deserved, all is good.

Put another way, if the DM plays her NPCs halfway well and usually has them react as someone normally would to what the PCs say and-or do, she's doing fine.  And if there's a hidden reason - e.g. charm, strict orders, hidden agenda, etc. - for an NPC to not react in an expected or logical way now and then, so be it; except the charm example this again mirrors how real life works sometimes.

Lanefan


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Very likely they wouldn't...but there really isn't such a thing as "tactical socializing" (activities in pick-up bars notwithstanding) and thus trying to shoehorn social interaction into a hard-coded ruleset is a fool's errand.




Except that there are several(many?) games that successfully _do_ manage to hard-code a method (if not the exact specifics) for resolving such things. In Fate, you can even pick between or combine two methods, depending on your goal; and they are the same methods that you can use for physical combat! Similarly with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example with MHRP. Conditions, Complications, and Stress can be applied to NPCs in ways that are reliable from the player's perspective, and thus useful _in a tactical way_. Just like positioning, HP, and AC for combat. We just saw an example upthread of a PC using "tactical socializing" to remove a threat before the fighting starts.



Lanefan said:


> Social interaction, exploration, and combat: three different things, best off handled three completely different ways by the rules.




erm...citation needed? especially since "The DM will make up and/or respond however he feels like without clear direction from the rules." doesn't exactly impress me as "handled by the rules."



Lanefan said:


> There's a difference between an adversarial DM who wants to win all the time (and thus inevitably does, which is bad) and an adversarial DM who knows that sometimes she'll win, sometimes it'll be a sawoff, but sometimes - maybe even most of the time - she's going to lose.  As long as she's good about conceding the win (e.g. the guard allows the PCs in to see the Duke) when it's deserved, all is good.
> 
> Put another way, if the DM plays her NPCs halfway well and usually has them react as someone normally would to what the PCs say and-or do, she's doing fine.  And if there's a hidden reason - e.g. charm, strict orders, hidden agenda, etc. - for an NPC to not react in an expected or logical way now and then, so be it; except the charm example this again mirrors how real life works sometimes.




So our DMs should sit in judgement of our acting/improv abilities like a Drama Teacher at auditions for the High School Play? Will a DM be able to distinguish between my character's social skills and mine? Or is it somehow okay for physically unfit and martially-unskilled player to use the rules to establish his character's heroism of muscle and prowess, but not okay for a socially-unskilled player to do the same with charm and cleverness? Or how about the reverse? Why does the silver-tongued player's character have access to resources in social interactions that the black-belt player's character doesn't have in combat resolution?

I'm also curious as to this concept of reacting "as someone normally would", especially if we're talking a 13 year-old male DM trying to evaluate a world-weary middle-aged barmaid!

This only makes sense to me under the "skilled play" paradigm, where we start from the premise that we are, as players, using as much of our wits and cleverness to overcome this deadly and often absurd or nonsensical dungeon with our hopelessly limited characters. But that kind of play should just about start and end at the Dungeon Entrance. If that's your play goal, there's no reason for the townsfolk to have names, let alone backstory, etc. The town is basically the equipment list and training cost table. Trying to seduce the barmaid doesn't enter into "skilled play". The Interaction pillar is reduced to rolling on the "rumors" table. This is the realm of characters with names like "Fighter IV" and "Draziw". 

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this kind of play. I've run and enjoyed it many times. (I'm odd, apparently I can even enjoy wargames and storygames.) But it doesn't work well for a group that concerns itself more with an epic heroic storyline, or with cooperative narrative depth. (Which seems to be the kind of play that this thread has drifted to address.)

...and I'm up too late to rant further.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> You mean characters Except in most such cases neither the characters nor the players know whether anything's at stake, *meaning you'd still go through the motions of rolling anyway* (otherwise you're giving away info they shouldn't have yet).



Would I? (Also, that is what passive perception is for, at least in the context of 5E.) 



> I disagree with Fate, then; in that if dice are only rolled when something's at stake it far too soon becomes obvious in the metagame when something's at stake vs. when it isn't even though the in-game situation is the same; and players will pick up on this and metagame it.
> 
> "Hey, why are we rolling to sneak down this hallway when we didn't have to roll for the last three?  There must be something here.  On guard, everyone!"



I don't think assuming the worst of players or treating them inherently as cheaters is the healthy approach to take. The GM is still present to curtail metagaming. I don't think that every sneak attempt needs a roll, because sometimes it really isn't interesting other than deceiving the players into thinking that there is something. I prefer players knowing that things are at stake then having them roll needlessly for the sake of juking the players. And as the focus is on what characters should know versus what players should know, then if they are actually roleplaying then there is little harm in giving the players a sense of dramatic irony in recognizing things their characters would not. Sometimes I have achieved the best roleplaying results with a bit of transparency. For example, again with Fate, I created a character who hired them, and I showed them his aspects: 


> Name: Taishun
> Portrayal: Ambitious Aristocrat
> Need: The Power to Rule
> Secret: Imposter!



I was very forthright with that. It got the players wheels turning about who this might be, but never did the characters actually act on this or begin openly metagaming this. Player knowledge of this also forced them into a position of honesty about potentially metagaming on the part of their characters.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 4, 2018)

[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]

Picking up on the "tacitcal socialising" aspect - Duel of Wits encourages _very_ tactical socialising. At the table, this is a player who knows how to work the different action declaration options to maximise successes while minimising risks (I have a player who is very good at this). In the fiction, this corresponds to a character who knows when to speak, when to listen, when to push hard, when to pull back a bit, in order to get what s/he wants.

And a bit more generally - I posted an example of play where _the main focus of the action_ was a bar and the downstream consequences of a pick-up attempt. It wasn't a "side quest" or "downtime" - the PC heroes encountered three mercenaries trying to steal a piece of equipment from the Smithsonian, and were able to stop them from doing so because one was trapped in ice in the Washington Monument after Bobby Drake took her there for some romantic late-night skating; another was seduced and then abandoned on the top of the Capitol by a (somewhat cruel) Nightcrawler; and the third was, in the end, literally swept off her feet by (again, and who would have thought it) Bobby Drake.

I find it hard to envisage that happening in a system with no social resolution mechanics.

And it doesn't have to be Cortex+ Heroic. Stuff similar to that has happened in my Rolemaster games (sometimes also involving Seduction attempts), but the social skills in RM are a bit wonkier, and rely more heavily on the GM to adjudicate finality. (In many ways, so does combat in RM - because it is a crit-type system rather than an "ablate to zero" system, often the GM has to decide when injured NPCs surrender.) Robust finality of resolution is definitely a plus in my book, and I think it's something that more contemporary social resolution mechanics offer.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> in most such cases neither the characters nor the players know whether anything's at stake
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if dice are only rolled when something's at stake it far too soon becomes obvious in the metagame when something's at stake vs. when it isn't even though the in-game situation is the same; and players will pick up on this and metagame it.



I just noticed this because of [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s post.

I want the players to know that something is at stake. If nothing's at stake, why are we spending time on it at the table?

I get that sometimes narrative connections need to be established - how did we get from A to B? - but that's what some quick narration, or "OK, everyone mark of your training regimen for 6 weeks and work out what that gets you" is for. I'm not going to _pretend_ that some bit of fiction matters if it doesn't.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 4, 2018)

As Ratskinner mentioned FATE uses the same mechanics for social situations as for combat. The consequences for success or failure are just different. Losing a debate before the court, for example, could make you the laughing stock of the nobles and the target of a bard's cutting wit. Having rude songs about a player character circulating throughout the city is probably not something that should happen without some dice rolls involved...

And of course, there is role playing involved. And yes, some players might just want to scoop up dice, but the GM is there to say,"Sorry..."

Having said all this, I'm not sure if adding these kinds of mechanics is worth it in DnD. The skill challenges in 4e always felt like just dicing your way through role playing, so I think if the social pillar were to be built up in DnD, it would have to be better explained. 

Maybe an urban intrigue supplement with all new classes like, courtier, playwright, duelist, investigator, cat burglar, spy, etc. "New robust social rules! Use it as stand alone game or combine it with your core 5e books!" Maybe?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 4, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> I'm not sure if adding these kinds of mechanics is worth it in DnD. The skill challenges in 4e always felt like just dicing your way through role playing, so I think if the social pillar were to be built up in DnD, it would have to be better explained.



I think the explanation, while perhaps not perfect, was not too bad:

* GM frames situation;

* player declares action;

* GM and player together make sure it's clear what exactly player wants his/her PC to achieve, in relation to the circumstances, by way of the declared action;

* player makes check;

* GM narrates outcome of check (as success or failure), thereby reframing the situation for the next check.​
To the extent that 4e player experienced the skill challenge as a "dice rolling exercise", I think it's because they were not being clear on the intention behind the action, and the GM was not reframing the situation in response to the outcome of the check.

For some reason, there seems to be a real issue, in mainstream D&D play, with the GM framing vibrant and challenging social situations. (Hence we get nonsense like PC persuading the king by showing off with cartwheels, rather than strongly framed situations where the PC actually responds in some interesting and engaged way to the situation as it has been presented.)


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 4, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> In an effort to simplify things, they over did it. There's no reason why the detailed skill descriptions found in 3.x could not have found their way into 5E. Replacing "ranks" with advantage is sufficient simplification. But losing all of the specifics found in a full skill description is not  sufficient.




Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure I needed a ton of outcome labels and examples, but some would really have been nice. 




> I would even like to have seen the skill descriptions say "normal ability score" and "alternative ability score" to decouple skills from abilities a bit more, especially for Intimidation.



Yes, this is implied but it sounds like WotC assumes people do this. Again, more examples would have been VERY helpful. You could even really integrate it to the player's description. Big hulking barbarian starts growling and smacking his fist into his hand? Sounds like a Strength-modified Intimidation check. Need to deal with a long, stressful march? Constitution-modified Survival check might be reasonable depending on the description of the task or how the character handles it.

Again, this is totally within the realm of the DM and a clever DM will adapt, but it would be extraordinarily useful to have some worked-through examples.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 4, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that every sneak attempt needs a roll, because sometimes it really isn't interesting other than deceiving the players into thinking that there is something.



As the PCs in character don't know whether something's at stake until hindsight says it wasn't, the obvious default would be that something might be at stake - and as "might be" is enough to trigger a roll, then roll.  Even if it's fake.


> I prefer players knowing that things are at stake then having them roll needlessly for the sake of juking the players. And as the focus is on what characters should know versus what players should know, then if they are actually roleplaying then there is little harm in giving the players a sense of dramatic irony in recognizing things their characters would not. Sometimes I have achieved the best roleplaying results with a bit of transparency. For example, again with Fate, I created a character who hired them, and I showed them his aspects:
> I was very forthright with that. It got the players wheels turning about who this might be, but never did the characters actually act on this or begin openly metagaming this. Player knowledge of this also forced them into a position of honesty about potentially metagaming on the part of their characters.



Good on your players!

Not all would take this approach. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I want the players to know that something is at stake. If nothing's at stake, why are we spending time on it at the table?



 Because whether or not something is at stake is often an unknown variable until sometime after the fact.

Take the example of someone sneaking down a passage in a hostile castle.  You-as-DM might know there's no danger, no traps, no monsters, and nothing at stake because the foes are all at dinner in the great hall on the other side of the castle - but the character doesn't know that and thus the player doesn't know that.  From the player-and-character perspective there's doubt - so you can either DM-narrate an auto-success or you can go through the motions of rolling.  Either way, I think the player (and the game) is being shortchanged if this is just handwaved or skipped over.

Even in your system, if they roll and fail that'll bring about some complication e.g. an unexpected guard walks around the corner ahead of the PC.

I guess that points to a rather nasty tradeoff in a system where dice can introduce complications - you can either roll for everything that really should be rolled for (i.e. anytime there's reasonable doubt as to whether something's at stake or not, along of course with when something really is at stake) and risk a series of failures bogging the game down; or you can skip these rolls at cost of realism and dramatic tension.

So, the sneak in the passage could be handwaved straight through to where she's searching the Duke's chambers while he's at dinner; or she can be made to roll for her sneaking (likely more than once, depending how far she has to go), her navigation (how quickly she finds the Duke's chambers), her care in hiding signs of her passage, and so forth...each of which could fail and introduce complications that'll slow her down or even prevent her from achieving her goal.  To me this second option would be far more interesting and engaging.

Hell, if things go badly it might take half a session to sort out what becomes of her (so probably best done in a separate one-off session if there's any warning this is coming) and-or how many hornet's nests she stirs up that the rest of the party might have to deal with later.

Lanefan


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 5, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Would I? (Also, that is what passive perception is for, at least in the context of 5E.)




Passives are very useful as a way to help the DM adjudicate roleplaying without dice hitting the table. I like relying on them for other skills besides Perception. I generally prefer to use the passive score as a DC than having opposed rolls, which are inherently more uncertain than one roll due to the fact that two dice are rolled, not just one. If you know the PCs' passive values on relevant skills, just tailor answers accordingly and only require rolls when absolutely necessary.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 5, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> As Ratskinner mentioned FATE uses the same mechanics for social situations as for combat. The consequences for success or failure are just different. Losing a debate before the court, for example, could make you the laughing stock of the nobles and the target of a bard's cutting wit. Having rude songs about a player character circulating throughout the city is probably not something that should happen without some dice rolls involved...




100%. 



> Having said all this, I'm not sure if adding these kinds of mechanics is worth it in DnD. The skill challenges in 4e always felt like just dicing your way through role playing, so I think if the social pillar were to be built up in DnD, it would have to be better explained.



4E skill challenges were often poorly implemented IME, but that didn't make the basic idea a bad one. Long before 4E I used something vaguely similar and still use the X successes before Y failures. One thing I found that made them effective was _not to tell the players they were in one_. That helped keep it away from being "roll-playing". Someone I used to play with tended towards the mechanical side because he felt it ensured that no character could hide behind poor skills, but I was dubious of that viewpoint. I mean, why would this always apply? I mean, why would the dwarf fighter with a crappy Charisma do much talking anyway? 




> Maybe an urban intrigue supplement with all new classes like, courtier, playwright, duelist, investigator, cat burglar, spy, etc. "New robust social rules! Use it as stand alone game or combine it with your core 5e books!" Maybe?



These kinds of archetypes already exist in the books and there are several relevant feats. You could easily run a campaign with this kind of orientation, although the DM would have to do a lot of work at present given the lack of official support. Still, it could be done. I play in one where my character (a bard/warlock) is usually the "face". We end up in social situations fairly often due to being based in a large city so these skills prove to be useful. 

4E had some useful spells that I wish WotC had kept in 5E. For instance, most charm type spells have the massive drawback of the person pretty rapidly figuring out they got gulled. This makes them pretty useless. I really wish they'd made Friends an actual spell that burned a resource and not a cantrip that ends up being only corner-case useful due to the fact that a mere one minute later the target knows magic was used. That would help the caster PC who suddenly needs to be socially strong be able to do it, but only at cost.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 5, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> Having said all this, I'm not sure if adding these kinds of mechanics is worth it in DnD. The skill challenges in 4e always felt like just dicing your way through role playing, so I think if the social pillar were to be built up in DnD, it would have to be better explained.
> 
> Maybe an urban intrigue supplement with all new classes like, courtier, playwright, duelist, investigator, cat burglar, spy, etc. "New robust social rules! Use it as stand alone game or combine it with your core 5e books!" Maybe?




I've sadly come to a similar conclusion and felt the same way about 4e. I twitch a little bit whenever somebody calls D&D a story game or quotes that "its about telling a story together with your friends". I just don't think the rest of the D&D chassis supports the idea very well. The "Hitpoints are meat" crowd would absolutely tear their hair out if you could do 3d8 psychic damage to a fighter by consuming him with self-doubt just by talking. The game would have to re-address the entire nature of conflict resolution (in the Forge sense), since it can currently only handle one type. By the time you're done working up all those special separate rules you'll basically be playing two games side-by-side...you might as well just play Fate or MHRP or some other game that set out to do story justice in the first place.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 5, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> I've sadly come to a similar conclusion and felt the same way about 4e. I twitch a little bit whenever somebody calls D&D a story game or quotes that "its about telling a story together with your friends". I just don't think the rest of the D&D chassis supports the idea very well.




D&D certainly shows its wargame roots fairly clearly. But... 




> The "Hitpoints are meat" crowd would absolutely tear their hair out if you could do 3d8 psychic damage to a fighter by consuming him with self-doubt just by talking.




_Vicious Mockery_ is a cantrip, though it never quite achieves that much damage and inflicts a somewhat meh status....  There are numerous other spells that do similar things, presumably by playing on the target's self-doubt: _Dissonant Whispers_ and _Phantasmal Killer_ both come to mind.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think the explanation, while perhaps not perfect, was not too bad:




I think the relative numbers of people who understood and used the 4e skill challenge stuff as well as you do/did, and those that gave up in confusion and frustration would argue otherwise. I mean, I consider myself fairly proficient at this sort of thing and I gave up on it.  ....just saying.



pemerton said:


> To the extent that 4e player experienced the skill challenge as a "dice rolling exercise", I think it's because they were not being clear on the intention behind the action, and the GM was not reframing the situation in response to the outcome of the check.




In all honesty, compared to games like Fate or Cortex+, where the player can actually create mechanical artifacts in play.... I don't see a whole lot of mechanical difference between a 4e skill challenge and a sequence of 3e rolls towards a goal. There's a little bit of fluff in the rules, but to my eye its just telling the DM to be a little more upfront about how many rolls he expects to see before he lets the PCs succeed. AFAICT, and I know we disagree on this, its a minor fence around rule 0. After all, all this "interaction" stuff was just delay in the designers eyes, who wanted you to skip past the guards and get "straight to the action" or whatever that slogan was. ::shrug:: Water under the bridge.



pemerton said:


> For some reason, there seems to be a real issue, in mainstream D&D play, with the GM framing vibrant and challenging social situations. (Hence we get nonsense like PC persuading the king by showing off with cartwheels, rather than strongly framed situations where the PC actually responds in some interesting and engaged way to the situation as it has been presented.)




I think it has to do with D&D's basic deficiency in defining any "tactical" out-of-combat conflict resolution mechanics (as mentioned above.) To bring it back around to the OP, its really not that D&D is _too _focused on combat...its that its _only_ focused on combat. Its the only sphere of play with strong, clear conflict resolution mechanics to cover almost every possible in-game situation. Until people start talking, then we drop into DM fiat, always have, and I see no signs that it will change. 

In the end, mainstream D&D is rather like porn. Whatever "plot" there is really just dressing around the "real action" and carries about as much weight and depth. I've given up pretending otherwise, but hold out hope that maybe, just maybe, someday that might change.

...also, didn't that "Use acrobatics to impress the king" thing come originally from a WOTC employee talking about how to justify a skill use in a challenge?"


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 5, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> _Vicious Mockery_ is a cantrip, though it never quite achieves that much damage and inflicts a somewhat meh status....  There are numerous other spells that do similar things, presumably by playing on the target's self-doubt: _Dissonant Whispers_ and _Phantasmal Killer_ both come to mind.




Sure, but those are _MAGIC_!...at least so goes the usual argument. You just can't do it by reminding the fighter about that awkward encounter from summer camp when he was 13, or hitting on his girlfriend.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 5, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> Sure, but those are _MAGIC_!...at least so goes the usual argument. You just can't do it by reminding the fighter about that awkward encounter from summer camp when he was 13, or hitting on his girlfriend.



Not generally, no, but I presume that's what _Vicious Mockery_ and its ilk are doing. Somehow the bard knows about the person's weaknesses and mocks them, doing damage and a debuff. If damage for something non-magical is offensive, you can presumably apply conditions such as Frightened via use of the Intimidation skill and I could see using other skills such as Deception or Persuasion being used in combat in various ways. I'd seriously consider requiring that someone Helping make use of a skill of some sort so it's not just a generic "I helped, have Advantage."  

Yeah there are some cro magnon players who will get offended but... whatever.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 5, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> I think it has to do with D&D's basic deficiency in defining any "tactical" out-of-combat conflict resolution mechanics (as mentioned above.) To bring it back around to the OP, its really not that D&D is _too _focused on combat...its that its _only_ focused on combat. Its the only sphere of play with strong, clear conflict resolution mechanics to cover almost every possible in-game situation. Until people start talking, then we drop into DM fiat, always have, and I see no signs that it will change.




Even back in 2E I would run things that had a skill challenge feel to them. I would have proficiency checks resolve things like contests, like a horse race, betting, or even a bardic face-off. I'd just have the racers make a sequence of checks, allowing some potential cheating if it seemed to fit and I got a good rationale for it, and then tally up successful rolls in N tries or first to N successful rolls. 

This introduced some opportunities for there to be structured interactions that involved checks that weren't combat, although depending on how things went they might well lead to combat. 



> In the end, mainstream D&D is rather like porn. Whatever "plot" there is really just dressing around the "real action" and carries about as much weight and depth.






I guess it depends on what you mean by "mainstream D&D". I've played some really deep games in D&D and still do. IMO the shallowest, most gamist/dice-a-rolling games I played, at least past childhood, was with 4E. All the defined powers and "player/DM proofing" (analogy to "user proofing" in IT) pushed it towards being a minis game. I did have a good time with 4E sometimes, mind you, so a lot of it depended on the players and DM, but even so, it really felt like a miniatures game a lot more than any other version I've played.  




> ...also, didn't that "Use acrobatics to impress the king" thing come originally from a WOTC employee talking about how to justify a skill use in a challenge?"




Not sure. In small doses this is fine and clever. However, all too often it ended up with the barbarian doing pushups while everyone else tried to figure out what skills checked the boxes on the skill challenge rubric.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> I think the relative numbers of people who understood and used the 4e skill challenge stuff as well as you do/did, and those that gave up in confusion and frustration would argue otherwise. I mean, I consider myself fairly proficient at this sort of thing and I gave up on it.  ....just saying.




As described in the 4e DMG, it *should* have been given up on. The mathematics behind the rule ultimately made any task being resolved via the skill challenge harder than a single trial. The coverage in Star Wars Saga Edition's *Galaxy of Intrigue* was generally much better.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2018)

Ratskinner said:


> didn't that "Use acrobatics to impress the king" thing come originally from a WOTC employee talking about how to justify a skill use in a challenge?"



Possibly. I think that WotC lost the courage of its convictions when it came to "everyone has something to contribute". And so they were happy to advocate pseudo-contributions ahead of actual engagement with some meaningful fiction.



Ratskinner said:


> In all honesty, compared to games like Fate or Cortex+, where the player can actually create mechanical artifacts in play.... I don't see a whole lot of mechanical difference between a 4e skill challenge and a sequence of 3e rolls towards a goal.



The difference from 3E is that skill challenges clearly contemplate narration of consequences and fictions that aren't just read off the causal consequences of whatever it is that the PC did in the fiction. I think that is one issue that caused problems with uptake - many D&D players won't come at that in relation to checks, other than perhaps saving throws.

The other issue, I think, is finality in the fiction. There is a very strong idea in some parts of the D&D play culture that, except perhaps where combat is concerned, the GM is the sole arbiter of finality. There is a great deal of hesitation in allowing finality to be settled mechanically, let alone as a result of a player-side mechnanic like a skill check.

The two points I've made relate, in this way: for a skill challenge to work, the GM has to accept player successes - ie the fiction really does change as the player wanted it to - but also keep the challenge alive (until the last die is rolled) by introducing new complications or developing the existing ones. I think that's just as clear as the diret mechanical consequences that are inflicted in Cortex+ - the players know what they've done, and can see what still needs to be done - but it requires treating the fiction as constrained by something other than the will of the GM.

I think that Cortex+ Heroic social conflict is more _colourful_ than skill challenge resolution. But I've never seen it generate situations as deep as I've seen in skill challenges, precisely because the player can hide behind an "I do this to step up that complicatoin" action declaration, rather than requiring the player to directly engage the fiction as a skill challenge does.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Take the example of someone sneaking down a passage in a hostile castle.  You-as-DM might know there's no danger, no traps, no monsters, and nothing at stake because the foes are all at dinner in the great hall on the other side of the castle - but the character doesn't know that and thus the player doesn't know that.  From the player-and-character perspective there's doubt - so you can either DM-narrate an auto-success or you can go through the motions of rolling.  Either way, I think the player (and the game) is being shortchanged if this is just handwaved or skipped over.



What do you see as the difference between "narrating an auto-success" and "handwaving"?

If nothing is going on, I'm not going to spend much time on it at the table.



Lanefan said:


> I guess that points to a rather nasty tradeoff in a system where dice can introduce complications - you can either roll for everything that really should be rolled for (i.e. anytime there's reasonable doubt as to whether something's at stake or not, along of course with when something really is at stake) and risk a series of failures bogging the game down; or you can skip these rolls at cost of realism and dramatic tension.



Rolling dice is neither realistic nor unreaslistic - it's a way of playing the game.

As I said, if there is no one there for the PC to meet, then I don't need to spend time on it at the table.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 5, 2018)

I know that some of this is addressed towards [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but as there is a similar discussion transpiring, I hope you don't mind me including some of your reply to them in my response to you. 


Lanefan said:


> As the PCs in character don't know whether something's at stake until hindsight says it wasn't, the obvious default would be that something might be at stake - and as "might be" is enough to trigger a roll, then roll.  Even if it's fake.
> 
> Because whether or not something is at stake is often an unknown variable until sometime after the fact.
> 
> Take the example of someone sneaking down a passage in a hostile castle.  You-as-DM might know there's no danger, no traps, no monsters, and nothing at stake because the foes are all at dinner in the great hall on the other side of the castle - but the character doesn't know that and thus the player doesn't know that.  From the player-and-character perspective there's doubt - so you can either DM-narrate an auto-success or you can go through the motions of rolling.  Either way, I think the player (and the game) is being shortchanged if this is just handwaved or skipped over.



Let us take the given example here regarding PCs sneaking down the hall. 

In your example, the PCs "in character" have no knowledge of what dangers are in store down the passage in a hostile castle. (A scenario that seems to presume that they are not looking out for danger while traversing the passage.) If I am understanding your position correctly, either the player says they want to roll for Stealth (when there is nothing) and you let them do so or you call for them to make a Stealth roll despite knowing there is nothing. If there are no actual dangers or stakes, then the player is essentially, as you say, going through the motions of rolling. This strikes me as handwaving success and adjudicating wind. This sort of action also comes across, to me at least, as the equivalent of tensionless subpar cinematic filler that just provides padding for stories. It makes the tone of the roll preemptive rather than active. And I also think that it is precisely these sort of "fake rolls" that train PCs to "roll if you like Jesus." That is to say, they are being subconsciously trained to constantly roll for every thing, which is definitely a problem that I have experienced when it comes to some checks in D&D, such as Perception and Stealth. It's almost Pavlovian. There may be nothing, but the players salivate to roll for the vain hope of something. IME, that sort of conditioning does foster rollplaying more than resolution mechanics in social situations. 

In contrast, I would prefer that players know (or at least have foreshadowed) what's at stake when they roll. It's about rolling when necessary, and it places dramatic tension on the die roll. They are not making a Stealth check just to go down a passage in a hostile castle. As they are competent adventurers, I assume that they aren't being blasé about it and reserve die rolls for interesting Stealth actions with actual consequences for failure. They are making a Stealth check once there is something particular at stake. They are making a Stealth check to sneak past the guards on the ramparts. They are making a Stealth check to slip past the sleeping ogres. It's about tying the roll to a particular action rather than a general one. It's the dramatic difference between, (1) "I roll to Stealth down the hall" and (2) "I roll Stealth to sneak past the two guards who are between me and my exit." There is a greater narrative sense of the challenge and stakes with the latter than the former. From the perspective of player-outcome satisfaction, the player gains a greater sense of accomplishment from something when the stakes are known. These particular moments of success or failure are also more memorable for the player than "I sneak down the hall." 

I don't think that it shortchanges anything when GMing to refrain from asking players for a Stealth check or refrain from acquiesing to a Stealth check from the player when there is nothing at stake. Spending time rolling dice on a fake sense of doing something for nothing is time wasted at the table. There is no tension created in an artificial roll that provides no actual player payoff for "success."


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Let us take the given example here regarding PCs sneaking down the hall.
> 
> In your example, the PCs "in character" have no knowledge of what dangers are in store down the passage in a hostile castle. (A scenario that seems to presume that they are not looking out for danger while traversing the passage.)




Why would it presume that? On the contrary, if they're trying to be stealthy, I'd absolutely presume they *are* looking out for danger. If they have no in-character knowledge of what dangers are in store down the passage, it simply means they haven't yet found out what might be (or might not be) the penalty of failing to be stealthy and wary.




Aldarc said:


> If I am understanding your position correctly, either the player says they want to roll for Stealth (when there is nothing) and you let them do so or you call for them to make a Stealth roll despite knowing there is nothing. If there are no actual dangers or stakes, then the player is essentially, as you say, going through the motions of rolling. This strikes me as handwaving success and adjudicating wind.




It's rather the opposite of handwaving. By letting them (or having them) roll for being stealthy, even if there's nothing there to hear them, you're not indicating it's not necessary. It keeps them on their toes and tension high since they don't know if there's an immediate threat or not. 



Aldarc said:


> This sort of action also comes across, to me at least, as the equivalent of tensionless subpar cinematic filler that just provides padding for stories. It makes the tone of the roll preemptive rather than active. And I also think that it is precisely these sort of "fake rolls" that train PCs to "roll if you like Jesus." That is to say, they are being subconsciously trained to constantly roll for every thing, which is definitely a problem that I have experienced when it comes to some checks in D&D, such as Perception and Stealth. It's almost Pavlovian. There may be nothing, but the players salivate to roll for the vain hope of something. IME, that sort of conditioning does foster rollplaying more than resolution mechanics in social situations.
> 
> In contrast, I would prefer that players know (or at least have foreshadowed) what's at stake when they roll. It's about rolling when necessary, and it places dramatic tension on the die roll. They are not making a Stealth check just to go down a passage in a hostile castle. As they are competent adventurers, I assume that they aren't being blasé about it and reserve die rolls for interesting Stealth actions with actual consequences for failure.




Definitely metagaming, if you ask me. If you're handwaving any need for them to make a stealth check when there's nothing there and approaching this as if the players are reserving their rolls (as if they're a finite resource) for situations where they need them, you're teaching them to metagame.




Aldarc said:


> They are making a Stealth check once there is something particular at stake. They are making a Stealth check to sneak past the guards on the ramparts. They are making a Stealth check to slip past the sleeping ogres. It's about tying the roll to a particular action rather than a general one. It's the dramatic difference between, (1) "I roll to Stealth down the hall" and (2) "I roll Stealth to sneak past the two guards who are between me and my exit." There is a greater narrative sense of the challenge and stakes with the latter than the former. From the perspective of player-outcome satisfaction, the player gains a greater sense of accomplishment from something when the stakes are known. These particular moments of success or failure are also more memorable for the player than "I sneak down the hall."




The only dramatic difference I see is you're rolling to avoid something you know about vs rolling to avoid the nameless unknown that could be lurking out there around the corner. I don't know about you, but I find the latter as suspenseful as the former.



Aldarc said:


> I don't think that it shortchanges anything when GMing to refrain from asking players for a Stealth check or refrain from acquiesing to a Stealth check from the player when there is nothing at stake. Spending time rolling dice on a fake sense of doing something for nothing is time wasted at the table. There is no tension created in an artificial roll that provides no actual player payoff for "success."




On that, we will have to disagree.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 5, 2018)

@_*Ratskinner*_ and  @_*pemerton*_

I don’t want to rehash the history of the 4e Skill Challenge or our own history in discussing it! However...

Can we at least agree that the fundamental components of noncombat conflict resolution machinery are:

- mechanical substrate/framework 

- procedures to move from framing to locked-in resolution

- techniques that being about dynamic, coherent fiction and interesting decision-points

A nice bonus would be to have a resolution procedure  where tactical depth meets a tight feedback loop with resources/PC machinery that augments PC habitation in the unfolding situation (eg creates urgency or a sense of risk or a sense of emotional investment) for a player. But that isn’t fundamentally mandatory (but contemporary game design should include it as understanding has matured significantly). Now, whether one feels 4e’s instruction (establish a goal, go to the action, change the situation, success with complications, fail forward, failure is not an endpoint) is sufficient to the task is immaterial to whether or not you agree with the three required components above (myself and pemerton obviously do, Ratskinner does not).

So, in the spirit of this thread, do we agree that the above is the litmus test for even the barest attempt at functional conflict resolution mechanics?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 5, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Why would it presume that? On the contrary, if they're trying to be stealthy, I'd absolutely presume they *are* looking out for danger. If they have no in-character knowledge of what dangers are in store down the passage, it simply means they haven't yet found out what might be (or might not be) the penalty of failing to be stealthy and wary.



I would assume that the PCs are doing other actions, but the scenario in question seems to presume Stealth as an isolated action/roll, and so I subsequently treat it as such. I also thought that talking about the everything else would then shift the conversation further away from the case in question of stealthing down the hallway to the everything else. We can talk about that, and I did write about that in my original draft, before deciding that it might be extraneous. 



> It's rather the opposite of handwaving. By letting them (or having them) roll for being stealthy, even if there's nothing there to hear them, you're not indicating it's not necessary. *It keeps them on their toes and tension high* since they don't know if there's an immediate threat or not.



To me this _is_ handwaving a roll that is meaningless. You are making a roll about nothing while pretending that it is something. It's handwaving, if not sugarcoating, an action with a fixed result. If there is nothing there, as per Lanefan's scenario, then there is no consequence for failing that roll. If there is no real consequence, then what is gained by a "failed" roll where there is no actual failure or consequences? It's like the dice rolling equivalent of a participation trophy. You "won" it, but so what? 

Also, IME, the high tension you describe is rarely, if ever, the case, either from the player-side of things or as a GM. It always feels artificial and forgettable, as it does not actually emulate tension or successfully overcoming a challenge. We can, for example, expand this case beyond Stealth and look at most skill checks. A PC is talking to an NPC. They request to make a Perusasion check even though you know that is unnecessary. They do so. But nothing is actually achieved apart from wasting everyone's time with a meaningless roll. You think that the character should know something based upon their background and skills. They choose to roll, even though you could just tell them that they know. They roll. And now you get players trained to roll for stuff their characters should know. 



> Definitely metagaming, if you ask me. If you're handwaving any need for them to make a stealth check when there's nothing there and approaching this as if the players are reserving their rolls (as if they're a finite resource) for situations where they need them, you're teaching them to metagame.



I am not sure how that case that I described constitutes metagaming, but I am sure that you know my table, my games, and my players better than I do. They know a particular case, such as knowing that they have two guards they can see that they must sneak past. What about that is metagaming? Is a character seeing and assessing a threat metagaming in your games? If they are not rolling then it means that nothing of particular noteworthiness or challenge has transpired yet that requires a roll. That's not metagaming either nor does it teach metagaming in my experience. It teaches my sense for what a die roll is about: an action with dramatic outcomes. Metagaming, again IME, tends to follow what Angry DM describes in his blog post. It more often than not represents a breach of the social contract at the table or players attempting to fix a player/GM "problem" within gameplay. 

Indeed, I have found that this sort of forthrightness about when to roll engenders better roleplaying and less metagaming from my players. If you think that they are being taught metagaming, then they sure as hell aren't showing it. There is less deception and more transparency. It allows for more roleplaying of what the characters are doing rather than what the players are rolling. As I said before, the PCs are competent and players generally want, on the whole, for their PCs represent competent heroes. I will ask them to describe what their players are doing. They will describe what their characters are doing, and in the case of the unknown hallway, they would likely 10 out of 10 times describe their characters as sneaking down the hallway. (And that is partially part of the meta-gaming culture of how one plays RPGs: players know that your characters should sneak down halls so their characters will often do that.) So there is not much gained there from a Stealth, even if there is a character in heavy armor, if there are no real consequences from failure or success. The tension and suspense happens, IME, when the sneaking needs to matter. 



> The only dramatic difference I see is you're rolling to avoid something you know about vs rolling to avoid the nameless unknown that could be lurking out there around the corner. I don't know about you, but I find the latter as suspenseful as the former.



There are better ways, IMHO, to handle the former and create suspense without requiring/approving a player roll over virtually nothing. You're a GM. You have the power of narration at your fingertips. You control what you can describe, and what you leave out of that description. I don't think that rolling to avoid the nameless unknown in a hallway does much to create actual suspense for players, especially if there is no real sense of what they are avoiding or the consequences of failure. Rolling to avoid the nameless unknown is simply rollplaying against a "Smarter-Than-Thou-Art" DM. Suspense, thriller, and horror is less about the in-universe characters and more about the audience. Your players are the audience, and your players care about their characters. You can exploit that by actually informing your players of a potential threat that their characters don't know. "Your character failed their Perception check." Clocks start ticking. The player thinks to herself "What did my character fail to notice?"  Or even the GM flat out saying, "Your character failed their Stealth roll, but they don't know that yet, so what does your character do." There is now a more imminent threat of the unknown introduced to the character through the player. You are welcome to call that metagaming, though I disagree, but a lot of suspense and tension comes from manipulating the dramatic and emotional boundaries between the player and their character rather than falsely pretending that these boundaries are virtually indistinguishable. This was actually some of the best advice I received about running a Call of Cthulhu or other horror game. The best way to a character's heart is through their player. 



> On that, we will have to disagree.



That's fine so long as you don't falsely accuse me of teaching my players how to metagame.


----------



## Ravensworth (Feb 5, 2018)

This discussion has gone from is D&D too combat focused to how to run an adventure. 
When do you need to roll dice?

One of the things I love about 5th edition is that it returns to the roots of roleplaying. It allows the DM to decide when a roll is necessary. The DM makes the call. This allows for a combat heavy situation/Roll playing or a Role playing type of game. I prefer as a DM to choose which type of session I am going to run without having a mountain of rules tomes thrown at me by players or the company making the game.

Let's take the above example of "moving down a passage where there is no danger". Now I know this. But I want my players to never make an assumption unless they have in character knowledge. So I let them make a stealth check. If they fail I let them "Fail Forward" as John Wick would say. Perhaps breaking a vase that will have complications later but does not have them be discovered now.

I think our creativity depending on the group we are playing with can make the game worthwhile as long as we are not bogged down with too many rules. Many have their favorite edition. Favorite parts from those edition. Nothing prevents you from adding those to your own home game if you have a group of players who agree. Print them out and hand them out.

My two cents for what they are worth.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2018)

Ravensworth said:


> Let's take the above example of "moving down a passage where there is no danger". Now I know this. But I want my players to never make an assumption unless they have in character knowledge. So I let them make a stealth check. If they fail I let them "Fail Forward" as John Wick would say. Perhaps breaking a vase that will have complications later but does not have them be discovered now.




I suppose if the PCs are clever enough with a jury-rig, the castle denizens might not realize they have intruders. They might think it was just Peter playing ball in the house again...


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 5, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I guess it depends on what you mean by "mainstream D&D". I've played some really deep games in D&D and still do.




Sure. Me too. However IME, it takes a group and DM committed to it. In the end, the D&D rules are mostly irrelevant to the deep story parts.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Possibly. I think that WotC lost the courage of its convictions when it came to "everyone has something to contribute". And so they were happy to advocate pseudo-contributions ahead of actual engagement with some meaningful fiction.




Possibly. I just think they couldn't get away from the background baggage of D&D's history.



pemerton said:


> The other issue, I think, is finality in the fiction. There is a very strong idea in some parts of the D&D play culture that, except perhaps where combat is concerned, the GM is the sole arbiter of finality. There is a great deal of hesitation in allowing finality to be settled mechanically, let alone as a result of a player-side mechnanic like a skill check.




I don't disagree about the culture, but I also don't see how the skill challenge is magically all in the players hands. (Then again, I only ever worried about the initial system from the 4e first edition prints.) Does not the DM still set complexities and difficulties (or whatever they were called)? Is there some invisible-to-me mechanism by which these decisions are less arbitrary than any other DM decisions? IIRC (which I may not, especially being unfamiliar with the updates.) 

TBH, other than an intellectual exercise, I don't really care about the 4e skill challenge mechanics at all, anymore. Its water under the bridge and beyond hope of resurrection at this point. The Cortex+ and Fate style methods suit me well. I'm onboard with  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], its not really worth re-hashing.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 5, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> @_*Ratskinner*_ and  @_*pemerton*_
> 
> I don’t want to rehash the history of the 4e Skill Challenge or our own history in discussing it! However...
> 
> ...




I think that seems reasonable. I might argue for some particulars about what "mechanical substrate/framework" mean. In particular, I would like persistent mechanical artifacts, not just abstract declarations about fictional positioning, etc. I feel its a necessary analog to position, HPs, conditions, etc. in the combat realm.



Manbearcat said:


> A nice bonus would be to have a resolution procedure  where tactical depth meets a tight feedback loop with resources/PC machinery that augments PC habitation in the unfolding situation (eg creates urgency or a sense of risk or a sense of emotional investment) for a player. But that isn’t fundamentally mandatory (but contemporary game design should include it as understanding has matured significantly). Now, whether one feels 4e’s instruction (establish a goal, go to the action, change the situation, success with complications, fail forward, failure is not an endpoint) is sufficient to the task is immaterial to whether or not you agree with the three required components above (myself and pemerton obviously do, Ratskinner does not).
> 
> So, in the spirit of this thread, do we agree that the above is the litmus test for even the barest attempt at functional conflict resolution mechanics?




Yup.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What do you see as the difference between "narrating an auto-success" and "handwaving"?



Narrating an auto-success, in somehting like the sneaking example, comes after I've rolled some dice.  The players know I'm narrating a success; but they don't know it was automatic.



> If nothing is going on, I'm not going to spend much time on it at the table.



Except, again in the sneaking example, the players and PCs don't know nothing is going on until after the fact.



> As I said, if there is no one there for the PC to meet, then I don't need to spend time on it at the table.



Hmmm...doesn't this fly in the face of your preferred approach, in which you wouldn't know if there was anyone there to meet until the players succeeding on some Stealth rolls had determined such?



			
				Aldarc said:
			
		

> If I am understanding your position correctly, either the player says they want to roll for Stealth (when there is nothing) and you let them do so or you call for them to make a Stealth roll despite knowing there is nothing. If there are no actual dangers or stakes, then the player is essentially, as you say, going through the motions of rolling. This strikes me as handwaving success and adjudicating wind. This sort of action also comes across, to me at least, as the equivalent of tensionless subpar cinematic filler that just provides padding for stories. It makes the tone of the roll preemptive rather than active. And I also think that it is precisely these sort of "fake rolls" that train PCs to "roll if you like Jesus." That is to say, they are being subconsciously trained to constantly roll for every thing, which is definitely a problem that I have experienced when it comes to some checks in D&D, such as Perception and Stealth. It's almost Pavlovian. There may be nothing, but the players salivate to roll for the vain hope of something. IME, that sort of conditioning does foster rollplaying more than resolution mechanics in social situations.



Well, for one thing I as DM make all such rolls in secret.

Why?

As I've explained to others, it prevents the release of unwarranted meta-information to the players that their PCs in character wouldn't have.  In this case the meta-information is _why did you succeed?_: did you succeed because you're good (i.e. you rolled well), or did you succeed because there was nothing there that could make you fail?

So I'm not training my players to do anything other than what they'd already be doing anyway, which is to tell me what their PCs are doing.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I am not sure how that case that I described constitutes metagaming, but I am sure that you know my table, my games, and my players better than I do. They know a particular case, such as knowing that they have two guards they can see that they must sneak past. What about that is metagaming? Is a character seeing and assessing a threat metagaming in your games? If they are not rolling then it means that nothing of particular noteworthiness or challenge has transpired yet that requires a roll.



Assessing and reacting to known threats are not the issue here.  It's the unknown, or potential for unknown, threats that lie behind what's being discussed.

Say in your example they don't see any guards because the guards are concealed behind some curtains.  There's no visible threat - no known threat.  For all the PCs know the place might be unguarded.

If you make them roll here that's a fairly obvious (and highly unnecessary) metagame tip-off to the existence of a threat, unless you've previously established a precedent of using "dummy" rolls.  Instead, better to just react to how the players/PCs decide to approach things, and do the rolling yourself whether needed or not.



> That's not metagaming either nor does it teach metagaming in my experience.



"She's making us roll, there must be something here!" is pure metagame, particularly when before the roll is made the PCs immediately take actions (e.g. draw wapons, prepare spells, etc.) they wouldn't have otherwise done.



> Indeed, I have found that this sort of forthrightness about when to roll engenders better roleplaying and less metagaming from my players. If you think that they are being taught metagaming, then they sure as hell aren't showing it. There is less deception and more transparency. It allows for more roleplaying of what the characters are doing rather than what the players are rolling. As I said before, the PCs are competent and players generally want, on the whole, for their PCs represent competent heroes. I will ask them to describe what their players are doing. They will describe what their characters are doing, and in the case of the unknown hallway, they would likely 10 out of 10 times describe their characters as sneaking down the hallway. (And that is partially part of the meta-gaming culture of how one plays RPGs: players know that your characters should sneak down halls so their characters will often do that.) So there is not much gained there from a Stealth, even if there is a character in heavy armor, if there are no real consequences from failure or success. The tension and suspense happens, IME, when the sneaking needs to matter.



Which comes right back to the same sticking point: how do the PCs in character (and players at the table) know that this particular hallway is the one that matters, as opposed to the previous three which didn't or the next two they haven't got to yet?

That's right: they can't and shouldn't know; and thus both the mechanical and narrative approach to all six passages really should be exactly the same.



> There are better ways, IMHO, to handle the former and create suspense without requiring/approving a player roll over virtually nothing. You're a GM. You have the power of narration at your fingertips. You control what you can describe, and what you leave out of that description. I don't think that rolling to avoid the nameless unknown in a hallway does much to create actual suspense for players, especially if there is no real sense of what they are avoiding or the consequences of failure.



Again - and I seem to keep coming back to this - you can't apply hindsight to the here-and-now, which is what's happening here.  Neither players nor PCs know there is no nameless horror until _after_ they've done enough exploration to determine there's nothing there; and thus _while_ they're engaged in that exploration process you have to go through the motions as if there is somethng there. 



> You can exploit that by actually informing your players of a potential threat that their characters don't know. "Your character failed their Perception check." Clocks start ticking. The player thinks to herself "What did my character fail to notice?"



I do this all the time. 

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's no _except_.

To stick with the sneaking example: I could spend time at the table making/adjudicating pointless dice rolls to leave my players in suspense as to whether or not something intresting is going on; or we could all move on to a situation in which something is actually going on, and resolve that.

To me, the latter is more fun.



Lanefan said:


> doesn't this fly in the face of your preferred approach, in which you wouldn't know if there was anyone there to meet until the players succeeding on some Stealth rolls had determined such?



My preferred approach is "say 'yes' or roll the dice". If a PC is sneaking along an empty corridor, that seems the right time to say "yes".


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My preferred approach is "say 'yes' or roll the dice". If a PC is sneaking along an empty corridor, that seems the right time to say "yes".



But...er...how do you know the corridor is empty, when a failed roll could very easily introduce a complication such as someone unexpectedly coming around the corner?

Or did you determine in advance that this corridor is empty but the next one holds danger?  Again, doesn't seem like your style...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> But...er...how do you know the corridor is empty, when a failed roll could very easily introduce a complication such as someone unexpectedly coming around the corner?
> 
> Or did you determine in advance that this corridor is empty but the next one holds danger?  Again, doesn't seem like your style...



Well, the example was described as an empty corridor, so that's what I'm talking about.

There's any number of ways that might have been established: a player succeeded at a check to obtain reliable intelligence; a PC sent his/her familiar to scout the corridor; it's clear from the play that no one is interested in the corridor and so I narrate it as empty; etc.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 6, 2018)

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s approach (and I'm sure he is not alone in this and I know I have used this technique as well) of rolling is a method utilised to keep the *players* on edge and unsure on the danger which may or may not exist. I imagine this can also be done via DM narration which is probably what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] leans to.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> As I've explained to others, it prevents the release of unwarranted meta-information to the players that their PCs in character wouldn't have.  In this case the meta-information is _why did you succeed?_: did you succeed because you're good (i.e. you rolled well), or did you succeed because there was nothing there that could make you fail?
> 
> So I'm not training my players to do anything other than what they'd already be doing anyway, which is to tell me what their PCs are doing.



Why did you succeed? How about why did you need to roll to begin with? Just narrate that you are sneaking down the hall. When appropriate for when you encounter a particular known or particular unknown, then have the player roll. If the player is tense about having to roll a Stealth check for the unknown (again, assuming they failed to notice the threat), then that communicates a fear of being caught for the player that the character should have had to begin with. In these cases, you ask the player what their character would do or is doing. Perhaps they succeed, but the unknown remains unknown, then that, again, helps instill a sense of dread in the character via the player. It's really only as metagaming as the phrase "roll for initiative." 



Lanefan said:


> If you make them roll here that's a fairly obvious (and highly unnecessary) metagame tip-off to the existence of a threat, unless you've previously established a precedent of using "dummy" rolls.  Instead, better to just react to how the players/PCs decide to approach things, and do the rolling yourself whether needed or not.
> 
> "She's making us roll, there must be something here!" is pure metagame, particularly when before the roll is made the PCs immediately take actions (e.g. draw wapons, prepare spells, etc.) they wouldn't have otherwise done.



Again, you appear to begging the question of metagaming so to speak by presuming prescribed player reactions to the dice roll when that has not been the case in my experience. But maybe this scenario speaks about how you and your players would react and metagame. 



> Which comes right back to the same sticking point: how do the PCs in character (and players at the table) know that this particular hallway is the one that matters, as opposed to the previous three which didn't or the next two they haven't got to yet?
> 
> That's right: they can't and shouldn't know; and thus both the mechanical and narrative approach to all six passages really should be exactly the same.



My approach to all six passages would be exactly the same. The difference lies in where along each passage they encounter points of interest, action, and consequence. The PCs describe what their characters are doing. When they encounter something of note, as they go along the passage, then I would require the roll. The players may be tipped-off, but the characters are not. These are cinematic/dramatic cues of dramatic irony. And despite how the expected reaction would be that it creates a recognized distinction between player and character, I have found that these are the moments where my players become immersed in their character. If my players aren't rolling, then the players/characters are often left wondering, "Why have I not encountered anything yet?" It's a player question, but this is also a natural in-character question, and this would certainly be the case if there was an unknown horror lurking nearby. This may spur further questions or exploration: "Where are the monsters/foes, if they are not here?" They may proceed with whatever their objective may be or this lack of rolls may spur them to investigate their location: i.e., the dining hall where they are all gathered to eat and celebrate. 

If you assume the worst of your players, treat them like idiots, or maintain a hostile/adversarial relationship with the players, then I assume they would metagame, but if you have this sort of antagonistic relation to your players they would likely metagame no matter what. And this, again, brings us back to the Angry DM article on metagaming as a symptom that I linked earlier. But at my gaming tables, my approach has resulted in considerably less metagamed play among my players and not more, and it might be interesting to speculate the reasons why that has been the case. 



> Again - and I seem to keep coming back to this - you can't apply hindsight to the here-and-now, which is what's happening here.  Neither players nor PCs know there is no nameless horror until _after_ they've done enough exploration to determine there's nothing there; and thus _while_ they're engaged in that exploration process *you have to* go through the motions as if there is somethng there.



What you are not getting is that is not inherently true. Nor do you have to use dice to do that. That is rollplaying. That is metagaming the mechanics. By no means are you required to roll the dice as part of the exploration any more than you are required to roll dice for the social situations you described much earlier. 



> I do this all the time.



But isn't that revealing knowledge to the players that the characters don't have? But isn't that metagaming?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Well, the example was described as an empty corridor, so that's what I'm talking about.
> 
> There's any number of ways that might have been established: a player succeeded at a check to obtain reliable intelligence; a PC sent his/her familiar to scout the corridor; it's clear from the play that no one is interested in the corridor and so I narrate it as empty; etc.




Question - if they sent the familiar down the corridor to scout it, wouldn't that define them as interested in it? Or at least indicate they were as interested as they would have been if they had not had a familiar available and had to scout it themselves? Would the familiar get a stealth check?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Why did you succeed? How about why did you need to roll to begin with? Just narrate that you are sneaking down the hall. When appropriate for when you encounter a particular known or particular unknown, then have the player roll. If the player is tense about having to roll a Stealth check for the unknown (again, assuming they failed to notice the threat), then that communicates a fear of being caught for the player that the character should have had to begin with. In these cases, you ask the player what their character would do or is doing. Perhaps they succeed, but the unknown remains unknown, then that, again, helps instill a sense of dread in the character via the player.



Fair enough, though I think I'd want to do this earlier in the process (e.g. in the first passage, to set the tone) rather than later.



> It's really only as metagaming as the phrase "roll for initiative."



Sigh*...I suppose so, given the rather poor surprise rules in use now.  I see "roll for initiative" as something said only after the PCs become aware of a threat or attack.

* - sigh aimed at the rules, not at you. 



> Again, you appear to begging the question of metagaming so to speak by presuming prescribed player reactions to the dice roll when that has not been the case in my experience. But maybe this scenario speaks about how you and your players would react and metagame.



It's how I'd react, for sure.

If my character doesn't know something then I as its player shouldn't know it either.



> My approach to all six passages would be exactly the same. The difference lies in where along each passage they encounter points of interest, action, and consequence. The PCs describe what their characters are doing. When they encounter something of note, as they go along the passage, then I would require the roll. The players may be tipped-off, but the characters are not.



If the character's not tipped off then I-as-player shouldn't be either.  Remember, the goal is to see the action through the eyes of my character...



> These are cinematic/dramatic cues of dramatic irony. And despite how the expected reaction would be that it creates a recognized distinction between player and character, I have found that these are the moments where my players become immersed in their character. If my players aren't rolling, then the players/characters are often left wondering, "Why have I not encountered anything yet?" It's a player question, but this is also a natural in-character question, and this would certainly be the case if there was an unknown horror lurking nearby. This may spur further questions or exploration: "Where are the monsters/foes, if they are not here?" They may proceed with whatever their objective may be or this lack of rolls may spur them to investigate their location: i.e., the dining hall where they are all gathered to eat and celebrate.



This is where the DM rolling in secret can help - the PCs (and thus players) don't know whether they've been lucky in not meeting anything or whether there's just nothing there to meet.



> If you assume the worst of your players, treat them like idiots, or maintain a hostile/adversarial relationship with the players, then I assume they would metagame, but if you have this sort of antagonistic relation to your players they would likely metagame no matter what.



Not if you don't give them the opportunity.



> And this, again, brings us back to the Angry DM article on metagaming as a symptom that I linked earlier.



Yeah, I'm afraid the few Angry DM articles I've read here and there haven't exactly thrilled me - he seems to spend too many words being Angry and not enough being DM.



> What you are not getting is that is not inherently true. Nor do you have to use dice to do that. That is rollplaying. That is metagaming the mechanics. By no means are you required to roll the dice as part of the exploration any more than you are required to roll dice for the social situations you described much earlier.



Quite right.  I'm trying here to speak to those whose systems do require dice to be rolled.



> But isn't that revealing knowledge to the players that the characters don't have? But isn't that metagaming?



Not necessarily.

I can't count the number of times over the years that I've called for perception checks where a success means they realize there's in fact nothing there but a failure means they aren't sure - in other words, a false check.  So, while there's times when it's obvious why I want the check (e.g. last session my crew were - from quite some distance away, using telescopes - trying to make out details about a couple of creatures guarding a bridge) there's other times it isn't - and some of those non-obvious checks are fake.

So back to the sneak through the castle example: if there's six different areas (1-point of entry, 2-passage, 3-possibly noisy door, 4-passage*, 5-drawing room, 6-passage*) I'd narrate each one as the PC approached it and want a Stealth or Move Silently (system-dependent) check to get to the next, even though I know only the ones marked with '*' hold any serious risk of discovery (passage 4 goes past an occupied room and passage 6 has a guard in it at all times).  I certainly don't want to concatenate this all down to one roll as being caught in passage 4 could lead to quite different consequences than being caught in passage 6; and I want to maintain the dramatic tension given by the other likely-meaningless rolls.

It's all just a matter of slowing down and taking the necessary time.

Lanefan


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> It's how I'd react, for sure.
> 
> If my character doesn't know something then I as its player shouldn't know it either.



It's a common enough reaction. Meta-gaming can be a hard impulse to ignore and not every player is skilled at role-playing, so while the player _should_ avoid using out-of-game information to make their decisions, it also behooves the DM to not put the player into that position in the first place. By giving the player information that the character doesn't have, it also introduces uncertainty as to what the player _would have_ done if they didn't have to consciously ignore that fact.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 6, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Question - if they sent the familiar down the corridor to scout it, wouldn't that define them as interested in it?



Probably, yes. Perhaps not, depending on context.

As I said, "There's any number of ways that might have been established: a player succeeded at a check to obtain reliable intelligence; a PC sent his/her familiar to scout the corridor; it's clear from the play that no one is interested in the corridor and so I narrate it as empty; etc."



billd91 said:


> Would the familiar get a stealth check?



In the abstract, who knows?

Suppose the plauyers are trying to sneak in: Player A: "How can we avoid the guards?" Player B "I'll get my familiar to check where they are?" GM "OK, your familiar flies in, and you see through its eyes that the corridor is empty." Players A+B "OK, great, we move quietly down that corridor".

That would be an example of saying "yes", which establishes an empty corridor as part of the fiction with no dice rolled.

There are other ways it might play out too, if the inclinations of the GM and/or the enthusiasms of the players are different.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 7, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Fair enough, though I think I'd want to do this earlier in the process (e.g. in the first passage, to set the tone) rather than later.



I think that I would rather roleplay setting the tone in this case than rollplay setting the tone, with the dice roll being about a more particular action of tension, drama, or consequence. 



> It's how I'd react, for sure.



So you are saying that you would actively choose to metagame? Wow. Kinda flabbergasted by that. So you have no inhibitions when roleplaying? 



> If my character doesn't know something then I as its player shouldn't know it either.
> 
> If the character's not tipped off then I-as-player shouldn't be either.  Remember, the goal is to see the action through the eyes of my character...



Then based upon my players, I would say that I have met those goals. But it seems silly to pretend that there is no distinction between player and character when playing the game. Yes, it is a roleplaying game, but roleplaying is an adjective that modifies the noun "game." There is an inherent knowledge imbalance between player and character, as the character should know things the player does not and vice versa. But as I have said before, I have found that recognizing this distinction and playing with it at the table has helped my players maintain their immersion. They want to find out what happens to their characters, and they want to live in that. And sometimes knowing things or being tipped-off, as you say, instills within them a greater sense of investment in their character. And weirdly enough, they play their characters less like the "player" going through a survival game and more as the "character." 



> This is where the DM rolling in secret can help - the PCs (and thus players) don't know whether they've been lucky in not meeting anything or whether there's just nothing there to meet.



This, I would say, is a matter of rolling when it is appropriate. I'm just resistant to have my players roll for nothing. I want success to actually be a success and not just using rollplay to play psychological games with the players. 



> Quite right.  I'm trying here to speak to those whose systems do require dice to be rolled.



Just as dice are not required to be rolled for social situations in D&D, why should dice be required to be rolled in this scenario? 



> I can't count the number of times over the years that I've called for perception checks where a success means they realize there's in fact nothing there but a failure means they aren't sure - in other words, a false check.  So, while there's times when it's obvious why I want the check (e.g. last session my crew were - from quite some distance away, using telescopes - trying to make out details about a couple of creatures guarding a bridge) there's other times it isn't - and some of those non-obvious checks are fake.



Again, I don't think that using dice to play psychological mind games is necessary, and as a GM, I would prefer to leave that to describing the situation and playing off the actions of the player(s). 



> So back to the sneak through the castle example: if there's six different areas (1-point of entry, 2-passage, 3-possibly noisy door, 4-passage*, 5-drawing room, 6-passage*) I'd narrate each one as the PC approached it and want a Stealth or Move Silently (system-dependent) check to get to the next, even though I know only the ones marked with '*' hold any serious risk of discovery (passage 4 goes past an occupied room and passage 6 has a guard in it at all times).  I certainly don't want to concatenate this all down to one roll as being caught in passage 4 could lead to quite different consequences than being caught in passage 6; and I want to maintain the dramatic tension given by the other likely-meaningless rolls.



If you think that my entire position is to " concatenate this all down to one roll" then you got it all wrong.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 7, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> So you are saying that you would actively choose to metagame? Wow. Kinda flabbergasted by that.



I'm saying I don't want to have to worry about separating player knowledge form character knowledge and that the easiest way to achieve this is just to not give me knowledge or information my character wouldn't reasonably have access to; and that yes, I (and IME many other players I've seen) will pick up on cues like being told to roll now as opposed to all the other similar situations and that this will - either intentionally or not - affect the in-character reaction.



> So you have no inhibitions when roleplaying?



Inhibitions as in?



> Then based upon my players, I would say that I have met those goals. But it seems silly to pretend that there is no distinction between player and character when playing the game. Yes, it is a roleplaying game, but roleplaying is an adjective that modifies the noun "game." There is an inherent knowledge imbalance between player and character,



Unfortunately this is often the case, but the goal is that this not be the case whenever possible.


> as the character should know things the player does not and vice versa.



I disagree with the "should" in there, but admit that it happens.  Again, though: where this can be minimized it should be minimized.


> But as I have said before, I have found that recognizing this distinction and playing with it at the table has helped my players maintain their immersion. They want to find out what happens to their characters, and they want to live in that. And sometimes knowing things or being tipped-off, as you say, instills within them a greater sense of investment in their character. And weirdly enough, they play their characters less like the "player" going through a survival game and more as the "character."



Different than most players I've ever met. 



> This, I would say, is a matter of rolling when it is appropriate. I'm just resistant to have my players roll for nothing. I want success to actually be a success and not just using rollplay to play psychological games with the players.
> 
> Again, I don't think that using dice to play psychological mind games is necessary, and as a GM, I would prefer to leave that to describing the situation and playing off the actions of the player(s).



Where I don't mind a) keeping them a bit paranoid, and b) being able to disguise the real rolls among the fake ones (see sneaking-in-castle example).



> If you think that my entire position is to " concatenate this all down to one roll" then you got it all wrong.



Please explain where I got it wrong.  In the example I gave, with the six areas to be passed through silently where two of those areas are potentially risky and the other four are pretty much safe, how many rolls and how many narrations would you use?  And how long in real time would you expect it to take between the time the PC enters the castle to the time she either makes it to her goal (a particular door in passage 6) or does not?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Suppose the plauyers are trying to sneak in: Player A: "How can we avoid the guards?" Player B "I'll get my familiar to check where they are?" GM "OK, your familiar flies in, and you see through its eyes that the corridor is empty." Players A+B "OK, great, we move quietly down that corridor".
> 
> That would be an example of saying "yes", which establishes an empty corridor as part of the fiction with no dice rolled.



This assumes, of course, that the information gathered by the familiar is still valid when the PCs get there; the odds of which in turn may greatly depend on how much time the PCs take to get from where they are to the corridor.  If the PCs were waiting right around a corner at the corridor's end, for example, then the info is almost certain to remain accurate; but if the PCs are waiting outside in the garden and have to climb the wall and go in through an open window that gives more than enough time for the gathered information to (maybe) become inaccurate due to something changing (most likely, that there is now someone in the corridor).

In other words, just because the corridor's empty in the fiction at the moment the familiar sees it doesn't mean it's always going to stay empty.

Were it me DMing I'd just very quickly assign odds of something significantly changing between the time of observation by the familiar and the time of arrival by the PCs - assuming there's enough delay to make it relevant - and roll some dice*, then narrate what happens.  Most likely this narration will be something like "You've made it to the end of the corridor.  There's a simple wooden door in front of you across another corridor which yours is intersecting as if the stem of a 'T'.  What do you do now?".

* -  I'd also go through the motions of quietly rolling a stealth or move silently check regardless of whether there's any chance of their passage being heard elsewhere; if it came up really bad I'd change the narration to include "Despite your best attempts you don't think you were moving all that silently but all clear so far, no alarms or anything." after the first sentence.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> This assumes, of course, that the information gathered by the familiar is still valid when the PCs get there; the odds of which in turn may greatly depend on how much time the PCs take to get from where they are to the corridor.  If the PCs were waiting right around a corner at the corridor's end, for example, then the info is almost certain to remain accurate; but if the PCs are waiting outside in the garden and have to climb the wall and go in through an open window that gives more than enough time for the gathered information to (maybe) become inaccurate due to something changing (most likely, that there is now someone in the corridor).
> 
> In other words, just because the corridor's empty in the fiction at the moment the familiar sees it doesn't mean it's always going to stay empty.



In real life, the presence of people in corridors depends upon the decisions made by people about where to lug their bodies.

In a RPG, the presence of people in the corridors _that exist only in the fiction_ depends upon decisions made by authors of the fiction.

My own view is that if the players go to the effort of decarling an action to establish the emptiness of the corridor, I am not going to bother second guessing that because it takes the PCs a few minutes (in the fiction) to get from A to B.

Hence, as I posted, this is one way in which the emptiness of the corridor might be established.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 7, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I'm saying I don't want to have to worry about separating player knowledge form character knowledge and that the easiest way to achieve this is just to not give me knowledge or information my character wouldn't reasonably have access to; and that yes, I (and IME many other players I've seen) will pick up on cues like being told to roll now as opposed to all the other similar situations and that this will - either intentionally or not - affect the in-character reaction.



To me this tells me less about my style of GMing and more that metagaming is endemic in the gaming culture. But when you are consistent about when to roll, no matter your approach, then I have found that players will learn what a given dice roll actually means. In my case, a roll means that there are potentially interestesting consequences for success or failure. 



> Inhibitions as in?



When it comes to metagaming.



> Unfortunately this is often the case, but the goal is that this not be the case whenever possible.
> 
> I disagree with the "should" in there, but admit that it happens.  Again, though: where this can be minimized it should be minimized.



I disagree with your "should" in there as well, because as I think that it speaks only to your preferred GMing and player style. IME, recognizing that a difference between player and character knowledge exists is beneficial for players and gameplay. I think that it's okay for the player to know something that the character does not. If roleplaying is indeed about assuming a role, then good roleplayers should manage to put aside player knowledge for the sake of roleplaying a character and generating a story via the actions of those characters. 



> Different than most players I've ever met.



Perhaps. But from what I recall, you have a fairly self-selected table with a well-defined set of preferences. 



> Where I don't mind a) keeping them a bit paranoid, and b) being able to disguise the real rolls among the fake ones (see sneaking-in-castle example).



It's clear that your mileage does vary, but I have not found much use with rolling blanks. More focused rolls, IME, have led to more focused roleplaying. 



> Please explain where I got it wrong.  In the example I gave, with the six areas to be passed through silently where two of those areas are potentially risky and the other four are pretty much safe, how many rolls and how many narrations would you use?  And how long in real time would you expect it to take between the time the PC enters the castle to the time she either makes it to her goal (a particular door in passage 6) or does not?



It depends on which corridor(s) they pick. As you say, the result in one may affect others. The roll would be at points of interest, consequence, or drama. I would narrate an empty corridor or have my players describe how they are going down the corridor. I would narrate a mostly empty corridor with a "risk point." The difference is that the location with the "risk point" would also require a roll. There are potential rolls in play for Perception/Notice/Spot/Listen/etc., for Stealth/Sneak/etc., for whatever skill a player may actually think applicable that could produce interesting consequences for play. As I have no real sense for the scope of the castle or its relative importance in the grand scheme of things, it's difficult to say how long it would take to run. For a one-shot, it may be shorter, and I would possibly streamline it. If it was part of a bigger overarching campaign, then I may take my time. Even an empty corridor can provide a lot of information for PCs that can hint at worse things to come.


----------

