Why D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
You're essentially filling the target with weaknesses that you can exploit. Personally I find Cortex Plus to be somewhat overdesigned, , but I like the way it encourages you to specify how you break your opponent down.
Did Cortex Prime changed/improved on that?
 
You're essentially filling the target with weaknesses that you can exploit. Personally I find Cortex Plus to be somewhat overdesigned, , but I like the way it encourages you to specify how you break your opponent down.

I get what it's doing, I just have no idea what it's modelling...certainly not human interactions...

If I could get a GF to pass out from stress from arguing, I'm pretty sure several of my relationships would have lasted a lot longer...
 
Did Cortex Prime changed/improved on that?
Don't know. I've got a friend who backed it though, so when we're allowed out again I'll try to pester him into running his sci-fi game again with it.
 
If I could get a GF to pass out from stress from arguing, I'm pretty sure several of my relationships would have lasted a lot longer...
It's pass out or exit the scene. Like someone who lost his temper and got out of a situation, or something (the exiting player may give any reasonable reason for doing so).
 
I get what it's doing, I just have no idea what it's modelling...certainly not human interactions...

If I could get a GF to pass out from stress from arguing, I'm pretty sure several of my relationships would have lasted a lot longer...
It's one of those systems where "storming off in a huff" or "making such a fool of yourself that you're laughed out of court" are legit ways of losing a scene
 
Very simple example. The Chronicles of Darkness system essentially has a social combat system for convincing NPCs. The PVP version is just the players agreeing to abide by such a combat outcome.
Well sure, if two players agreed to settle a dispute between them through dice-rolling using opposed Cha-adjusted reaction rolls as if they were NPCs I'd let them, but if they've agreed to do that then it's very likely that the disagreement isn't really that serious and neither one is too invested in the outcome. But I can't imagine many players (other than the ones with 18 Cha characters) agreeing to do that on something they actually considered to be important, cared what the outcome was, and genuinely disagreed with the other player about.

The more of these anecdotes and examples I hear, the more I'm convinced willingness to accept these kinds of mechanics is a third-person vs first-person perspective thing - the difference between being your character vs observing them.

And FWIW I feel exactly the same way about NPCs trying to influence PCs - absent some sort of mind control (magic, psi, etc.). To summarize:

NPC trying to influence NPC: roll decides
PC trying to influence NPC: roll decides
NPC trying to influence PC: player decides (unless player decides to let roll decide)
PC trying to influence PC: player decides (unless player decides to let roll decide)

Along the same lines, I also never require PCs to make morale checks, but NPCs always do (unless they're specifically called out as having unbreakable morale, etc.).
 
Yeah, Gabriel’s example is why some people would want social mechanics to affect PCs, but it fails at the Diplomacy test of necessary mechanics. The only social mechanic in that game is the definition of winning; beyond that, all the persuasion and deceit is free form, influenced by and feeding back into the action on the board, but not in any mechanical way.
 
You know, as far as "narrative" games go, one that I actually like how it handled things and that I don't think gets enough love these days is the Story Engine.

The premise in that game was that you roll at the beginning of a scene/encounter/turn, and then you roleplay out events working towards the resolution you are already aware of.

The reason I don't like ths is obviously the way it undercuts tension and the flow of cause and effect, but it was a great solution for removing the artificiality of system interference from game events and giving the players freedom to engage in descriptive roleplaying without granting them GM fiat powers.
 
You know, as far as "narrative" games go, one that I actually like how it handled things and that I don't think gets enough love these days is the Story Engine.

The premise in that game was that you roll at the beginning of a scene/encounter/turn, and then you roleplay out events working towards the resolution you are already aware of.

The reason I don't like ths is obviously the way it undercuts tension and the flow of cause and effect, but it was a great solution for removing the artificiality of system interference from game events and giving the players freedom to engage in descriptive roleplaying without granting them GM fiat powers.
"Fortune in the beginning" is what Forge used to call this idea, I guess (roll first and then roleplaying accordingly).I think it works, and can be fun, but it requires a different mindset from Fortune in the middle/end games, which are the majority. Nevee heard of Story Engine though. Ill take a look.
 
Well sure, if two players agreed to settle a dispute between them through dice-rolling using opposed Cha-adjusted reaction rolls as if they were NPCs I'd let them
It's basically just an advanced version of that. There's an analogue of health, armour, rounds and combat feats. So mechanically it is closer to combat than a single roll. It can end with conditions reflecting the doubt etc others above have described for other systems.
 
Last edited:
So I had a thought on player verses player social activity today which is basically allowing them to say no and take a consequence instead. If you look at my systems, Galaxies In Shadow and The Arcane Confabulation they both have social activity rules. So I guess that says where I stand. Personally not being able to turn to the mechanics in such matter is basically playing a mother may I lick your balls railroad to the DM's fan fic. And clearly a narrativist swine style of play.

As far as the best system for Game of Thrones goes, I'd suggest Chivalry and Sorcery first edition for its detail on realm management and mass combat. I'd have gone with third but it never did get mass combat and naval combat done. If I ever finish The Arcane Confabulation's campaign companion I'd move it into the first spot because I'm a self serving narcissist.
 
You know, as far as "narrative" games go, one that I actually like how it handled things and that I don't think gets enough love these days is the Story Engine.

The premise in that game was that you roll at the beginning of a scene/encounter/turn, and then you roleplay out events working towards the resolution you are already aware of.

The reason I don't like ths is obviously the way it undercuts tension and the flow of cause and effect, but it was a great solution for removing the artificiality of system interference from game events and giving the players freedom to engage in descriptive roleplaying without granting them GM fiat powers.
It would make total party kills interesting.
 
That is my preference too. Players retain the ability to choose whatever course of action they wish, but the rules determine consequences for certain courses. So a socially able PC is able to cause stress, doubt, or even provoke escalation, but not take out or control another PC.
 
Wow... this thread jumped quickly.

For those arguing about D&D being able to replicate GoT... I couldn't care less about the social mechanics (or lack thereof) and political intrigue. There are better systems, but I agree that D&D is sufficient in that space. And it's as much about the setting and the interactions the GM creates. But how do you deal with characters and class? GoT is generally low-magic whereas D&D has magic baked into just about everything. Most of the classes have some kind of magical powers. You can strip out those classes, but you aren't left with much -- barbarian, fighter, rogue (and monk, if you consider that appropriate to the setting).

Yes, there are some characters with supernatural powers, but they tend to be very limited an very specific -- I don't see how they could be modeled using D&D classes as is. How do you model a character like Melisandre who is a Red Priest, but posses powers that are a mixture of sorcery and necromancy, but are ritualistic in nature? Or Jaqen H'ghar who is presumably some kind of rogue, but appears to have some kind of supernatural powers of disguise, although they are apparently inspired via the Many-Faced God? Or Qyburn who can resurrect / animate Gregor -- in D&D terms, you'd typically need to be a cleric or some kind of necromancer to do that, but he's more like an alchemist.

You also have characters that are important and powerful in GoT, but mostly for their intellect and influence. They don't fit a conventional D&D class at all -- like Tyrion, Baelish, Varys, Danny, etc.

Obviously, you can model these characters with some tweaking of the rules... but IMHO, it'd have to be quite a lot of tweaking. I'm just not seeing how you create characters like those in GoT without a lot of effort. But I'm more than willing to hear from those who claim they've successfully run GoT style games.
 
Wow... this thread jumped quickly.

For those arguing about D&D being able to replicate GoT... I couldn't care less about the social mechanics (or lack thereof) and political intrigue. There are better systems, but I agree that D&D is sufficient in that space. And it's as much about the setting and the interactions the GM creates. But how do you deal with characters and class? GoT is generally low-magic whereas D&D has magic baked into just about everything. Most of the classes have some kind of magical powers. You can strip out those classes, but you aren't left with much -- barbarian, fighter, rogue (and monk, if you consider that appropriate to the setting).

Yes, there are some characters with supernatural powers, but they tend to be very limited an very specific -- I don't see how they could be modeled using D&D classes as is. How do you model a character like Melisandre who is a Red Priest, but posses powers that are a mixture of sorcery and necromancy, but are ritualistic in nature? Or Jaqen H'ghar who is presumably some kind of rogue, but appears to have some kind of supernatural powers of disguise, although they are apparently inspired via the Many-Faced God? Or Qyburn who can resurrect / animate Gregor -- in D&D terms, you'd typically need to be a cleric or some kind of necromancer to do that, but he's more like an alchemist.

You also have characters that are important and powerful in GoT, but mostly for their intellect and influence. They don't fit a conventional D&D class at all -- like Tyrion, Baelish, Varys, Danny, etc.

Obviously, you can model these characters with some tweaking of the rules... but IMHO, it'd have to be quite a lot of tweaking. I'm just not seeing how you create characters like those in GoT without a lot of effort. But I'm more than willing to hear from those who claim they've successfully run GoT style games.
You build the classes from the character representations instead of adapting the classes to fit the representations.

I think whats being missed here is converting d&D to GoT does not mean using all of D&D.
Take Star Wars D20 for example... uses D&D but strips away and replaces a lot.
An adaption will take as much effert as you out in to succeed. If you want a quick and dirty... well you prob wont like the end result.
These are choices to be made for any undertaking... scope, effort, worth.
 
It's basically just an advanced version of that. There's an analogue of health, armour, rounds and combat feats. So mechanically it is closer to combat than a single roll. It can end with conditions reflecting the doubt etc others above have described for other systems.
I should also add that it's main use is often to see who influences a crowd more, rather than strict PVP.
 
Jesus looks like my GURPS: Ball lickers is entering into a hostile market. I only hope my scrotal area tables will appeal to the hardcore simulationist crowd.
The problem isn't the tables themselves so much as your insistence that they be tattooed on your scrotal areas and unavailable in any other format. I mean, including the tables in the book itself doesn't seem too much to ask.
 
So I had a thought on player verses player social activity today which is basically allowing them to say no and take a consequence instead.
Yep, you just describe how the newish games do social stuff - give a consequence for the loser part of the interaction, while preserving their agency. From Hillfolk to PbtA to Cortex to Fate to Fria Ligan etc. (and I bet to some OSR or obscure D&D module out there too... hmm I will do some research)

Skywalker said:
That is my preference too. Players retain the ability to choose whatever course of action they wish, but the rules determine consequences for certain courses. So a socially able PC is able to cause stress, doubt, or even provoke escalation, but not take out or control another PC.
:thumbsup:
 
The problem isn't the tables themselves so much as your insistence that they be tattooed on your scrotal areas and unavailable in any other format. I mean, including the tables in the book itself doesn't seem too much to ask.
To be honest I'm pretty sick of you leaving this "complaint" on Drivethru and Kickstarter.

I clearly state in the rules that there is a certain ineffable quality to ball licking that cannot be capture by my explicit tongue texture modifier vs scrotal table targets. The tattooing is simply to incentivise players toward such Referee determined licking quality.
 
Wow... this thread jumped quickly.

For those arguing about D&D being able to replicate GoT... I couldn't care less about the social mechanics (or lack thereof) and political intrigue. There are better systems, but I agree that D&D is sufficient in that space. And it's as much about the setting and the interactions the GM creates. But how do you deal with characters and class? GoT is generally low-magic whereas D&D has magic baked into just about everything. Most of the classes have some kind of magical powers. You can strip out those classes, but you aren't left with much -- barbarian, fighter, rogue (and monk, if you consider that appropriate to the setting).

Personally, I'd strip out classes and just have one set of level progressions that all characters follow. What individual skills they develop are then left up to them. Either that, or I'd swipe the approach to classes from D20 Modern.


Yes, there are some characters with supernatural powers, but they tend to be very limited an very specific -- I don't see how they could be modeled using D&D classes as is. How do you model a character like Melisandre who is a Red Priest, but posses powers that are a mixture of sorcery and necromancy, but are ritualistic in nature? Or Jaqen H'ghar who is presumably some kind of rogue, but appears to have some kind of supernatural powers of disguise, although they are apparently inspired via the Many-Faced God? Or Qyburn who can resurrect / animate Gregor -- in D&D terms, you'd typically need to be a cleric or some kind of necromancer to do that, but he's more like an alchemist.

I don't think you need to model them, just keep them as NPCs. See Pendragon.

Obviously, you can model these characters with some tweaking of the rules... but IMHO, it'd have to be quite a lot of tweaking. I'm just not seeing how you create characters like those in GoT without a lot of effort. But I'm more than willing to hear from those who claim they've successfully run GoT style games.

I mean, I don't see that as a bad thing myself - part of the fun of D&D as a GM, for me and many others, is the work put into world-building and setting development. For GURPs players that stuff is just "another day at the office". But there's a big distinction I think between recreating GoT and running a GoT-inspired game. The former may require more than a bit of system tweaking, the latter, not so much at all. Sooner or later, in any of my fantasy games, political intrigue is going to be an element. I do find it odd though that so many people associate that with "convincing/persuading" others....as honestly, I didnt see very much of that going on in GoT at all. Lying, backstabbing, plotting, intimidation, threats, and eexerting power over others, sure. The situations that stand out in my mind that it does occur when a character actually sits there and tries to persuade someone using their charm or charisma tend to 1) go badly and 2) pretty clearly are PLC-NPC interactions.

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread D&D's relationship to "what appeas to people about GoT", without defining it, and the first things that occured to me were "Dragons, Boobs, and Violence". Sure it's a story of several groups competing for political power, but more often than not characters gain power through violence. When I think of the politrical aspect of the show I think about scenes like this:



That's not a situation where either character "wins". They don't convince the other of anything, they don't score points or level up, (certainly neither of them passes out at the end). It's just an interaction that displays character. That''s most of the personal interactions in GoT.

Most of the resolution in GoT comes from people dying.
 
You build the classes from the character representations instead of adapting the classes to fit the representations.

I think whats being missed here is converting d&D to GoT does not mean using all of D&D.

I don't think it's being missed, but I think folks are arguing at cross-purposes.

Some (including myself) say you can conceivably do GoT using D&D but it's a bad fit and requires a lot of effort to make it work. Others are claiming to have happily run GoT style games using D&D. As far as I'm concerned, if you are house-ruling class abilities or making your own classes -- that constitutes more effort that I'm willing to get into. If I'm GMing a game, I have enough to worry about building a world and creating adventures, I don't want to be writing the rules as well.

If someone else wants to create their own setting, play-test it thoroughly and publish it... then I'm more than happy to use their effort (or pay for it). But as far as I'm concerned, that's an entirely different contention.

Take Star Wars D20 for example... uses D&D but strips away and replaces a lot.
An adaption will take as much effert as you out in to succeed. If you want a quick and dirty... well you prob wont like the end result.
These are choices to be made for any undertaking... scope, effort, worth.

Star Wars d20 is a bad example -- it's not D&D, it's an entirely separate game in it's own right. Just because it is based on similar core mechanics, doesn't make it D&D.
 
Honestly, I think anyone who thinks that mechanics having any effect on the decisions that a player makes on a social level (through applying things like penalties for certain actions, etc), because it takes control out of the players hands... heavily overestimate how in control of their own emotions they probably are.

I feel like several people in this thread have responded in ways they probably wouldn't have if they weren't heated for instance. And they didn't "choose" to get heated.
 
You don't necessarily need player vs player social combat to make A Game of Thrones work. The structure of play I outlined earlier doesn't require it. Now if you want it, then that's a different story.

But there's no real point debating what is required to emulate a fictional property faithfully. The reality is you can't. It' a matter of deciding what inspiration you want to take from it and building a game about it.

After all, you could emulate A Game of Thrones, by every one making a character, and then splitting the party early in the campaign and going around the table spending a while with each PC for about a year of game sessions, cutting to the next PC just before something dangerous is going to happen, and rolling on lots of tables each time to see if your character dies horribly and apparently randomly (there should also be a very high weighting on tables towards signficant facial mutliation and disfigurement).

The question is not how do you do GOT as a rpg. It's what exactly does doing GOT mean to you?

For a lot of gamers, the way they play doesn't really change much with the setting, and they'd be perfectly content with a game in which they played a bunch of adventurer types being sent out on missions by the King's Hand or some noble lord. It seems like a waste of a premise to me, but when I was trying to look at opinions about the GOT rpg, it seemed like that was in fact the sort of thing a lot of people wanted to do with the setting.
 
Honestly, I think anyone who thinks that mechanics having any effect on the decisions that a player makes on a social level (through applying things like penalties for certain actions, etc), because it takes control out of the players hands... heavily overestimate how in control of their own emotions they probably are.

I feel like several people in this thread have responded in ways they probably wouldn't have if they weren't heated for instance. And they didn't "choose" to get heated.
Only if realism is the concern.

I don't think it usually is.
 
Just saw this.

Lessa silva
I think its fair to say that D&D is not a catchall system and will never be able to capture all the nuances of every setting out there. But it is a good platform to build on. The core system is straight forward and the main game does make an attempt at capturing all the typical scenarios and pitfalls that a Fantasy setting will encounter.
Does it dungeon delving well? Absolutely!
Does it ONLY do dungeon delving? Absolutely not!

Many different settings have easily been adapted to the various D&D systems. Some add in whole new subsystems, calsses, races, etc. In fact, many of them strip D&D down to the bones and build up from it, as was common in OGL.
It shows that the system does have a versatility to be used for damn near anything.
Will there be systems that capture GoT better? You bet!
But is D&D an ill choice for it? Subjective. You seem to think so, and that is cool. I and others disagree, in part because we've done it.
Home brew adaptions have been as much a part of D&D as the basics of D&D have been.
Anyone that ran a game has made or been tempted to make alterations to the core system or setting to accommodate the cool new cultural rave. Some have done total conversions, some have added Highlander Immortals (I was young don't judge me!), some just have house rules to allow cool things that they see on TV (Like overpowered Katanas). Its a thing as indelible with D&D as any core setting.

If you want a social combat system, or a land management system, you can include it. It may take some work, but that is also part of the hobby for many of us.
If you don't wish to, then you are starting to look for something more specific and that is not a failing of D&D in and of itself. Its a failure to meet your expectations... which isn't actually a failing at all.

So I beleive you when you say GoT cant be run in D&D, but I add that it can't be run for you.
As many of us pointed out here... we can and sometimes have done it.
Oh sure, I never said it can't be adapted. I just reacted to Vargold saying "D&D already does GoT" or something, implying it does it by default or out of the gate. to which I disagreed.
 
Only if realism is the concern.

I don't think it usually is.

I mean that is fair. If you don't want to have mechanics that have social influence on players, that is fine if the reason is "I don't like them in the game", but the idea that any rules like that are RIDICULOUS, is a different sentiment.
 
As far as I'm concerned, if you are house-ruling class abilities or making your own classes -- that constitutes more effort that I'm willing to get into. If I'm GMing a game, I have enough to worry about building a world and creating adventures, I don't want to be writing the rules as well.
Some people like myself derive great pleasure from tweaking rules to emulate genre or reinforce setting conceits. I definitely fit into the "Lazy DM" category and am telling you it might be less work than you think . Most of it is imaginative re-skinning, tweaks, and swaps while eliminating anything that doesn't fit. I've never had to do anything crazy like build a new class from scratch and honestly that is way too much work for me.
 
I mean that is fair. If you don't want to have mechanics that have social influence on players, that is fine if the reason is "I don't like them in the game", but the idea that any rules like that are RIDICULOUS, is a different sentiment.

Not any rules, but those Cortex ones certainy are ridiculous.
 
For a lot of gamers, the way they play doesn't really change much with the setting, and they'd be perfectly content with a game in which they played a bunch of adventurer types being sent out on missions by the King's Hand or some noble lord. It seems like a waste of a premise to me, but when I was trying to look at opinions about the GOT rpg, it seemed like that was in fact the sort of thing a lot of people wanted to do with the setting.
This is the superficial level I cited before, that a majority of RPG players seem to want out of fictional works. They don't want the personal struggles of Frodo or Case, they want to kick the door screaming and unloading an SMG, or wear a pointy hat and throw fireballs.

And that's fine really, throwing fireball is good and valid. The pity is the opposite being so unpopular and even shunned by part of the demographic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
I saw an ad for Game of Thrones once...pretty sure there were dragons. Possibly hobbits, too, but it wasn't clear. Anybody actually watch it? I hear it was either based on D&D or else you can play it with D&D. Anybody got an opinion on that?
15960682667058504789784286447049~2.png
 
"Fortune in the beginning" is what Forge used to call this idea, I guess (roll first and then roleplaying accordingly).I think it works, and can be fun, but it requires a different mindset from Fortune in the middle/end games, which are the majority. Nevee heard of Story Engine though. Ill take a look.
It’s one sort of fortune at the beginning. The other sort would be were there’s some randomization of e.g. resources but the outcome is still in doubt because it’s affected by how the players deploy the resources.
 
Not any rules, but those Cortex ones certainy are ridiculous.

Only when you take stressing out as just "passing out". Stressing out only means you leave the scene (and also you can gain trauma from it, which is a lower die that doesn't go away as quickly). This could be for any reason. It could be because you stomp out of the room. It could be because you just sulk and stop talking. It could be because they made you paralyzed with fear. Or you are stumped as to how to even respond. It just depends on what makes sense based on the scene.

Being able to apply emotions to people is pretty much basics for anyone who would be considered a manipulator in fiction. And the idea that others can use those emotions you have to accomplish other things if it makes sense is also pretty obvious.
 
I saw an ad for Game of Thrones once...pretty sure there were dragons. Possibly hobbits, too, but it wasn't clear. Anybody actually watch it? I hear it was either based on D&D or else you can play it with D&D. Anybody got an opinion on that?

Yeah, it was all about this Wizard named Lando Calrissian, and he has to fly this ship called the Babylon 5 to Narnia to destroy a ring before the evil hobbits of Hogwarts take over all the lands of Pern with their space dragons.
 
Also, I will say that my first experience with Cortex was Marvel. And I think that the system works really good for things like calming Hulk down. Trying to "take out" Hulk by beating him senseless is nearly impossible.

Trying to stress him out emotionally (making him less angry) is much better as a mechanical goal. (and is often how people actually deal with him in the fiction).
 
I mean, I don't see that as a bad thing myself - part of the fun of D&D as a GM, for me and many others, is the work put into world-building and setting development. For GURPs players that stuff is just "another day at the office".

IMHO, the difference with GURPS is that it's a pretty complete toolkit for building your setting -- and pretty much any setting is possible. You just pick and choose what you need for your game. Whereas D&D is a complete toolkit for playing D&D, but a very incomplete toolkit for a lot of other things. Yes, you can use the basic mechanisms to re-create what you need, but IMHO there is a fair bit more effort than GURPS. I find classes particularly problematic, because they are such an embedded part of D&D, but a badly designed class can really unbalance the game. And it's really difficult to playtest a class properly, unless you have a lot of time and are willing to run sessions with your new class at various levels.

I know that some people just figure "Meh, if my custom-class is overpowered, I'll just nerf it later." Fair enough, but I'd rather just use a different ruleset than potentially create discord with players down the track.


Some people like myself derive great pleasure from tweaking rules to emulate genre or reinforce setting conceits. I definitely fit into the "Lazy DM" category and am telling you it might be less work than you think . Most of it is imaginative re-skinning, tweaks, and swaps while eliminating anything that doesn't fit. I've never had to do anything crazy like build a new class from scratch and honestly that is way too much work for me.

18 year old me loved tweaking rules. But 44 year old me has a job and a family sucking up his time. I need my RPGs to spoon feed me. Creating a setting is one thing... but creating new rules and mechanics to make my setting work, that's one step too far.
 
Maybe this makes me a "D&D Zealot"....but I'd say, yeah, Star Wars D20 is D&D. Everything D20 is D20. Pathfinder is D&D. 99.9% of the OSR is all D&D.

I'll disagree, but I think a discussion about what is, and what isn't D&D is a road to nowhere. But I'll say this.... if your definition of D&D is going to be that broad, then sure... you can absolutely do GoT with D&D. If you basically consider Star Wars d20 to be D&D than you can do pretty much ANYTHING with D&D.
 
I need my RPGs to spoon feed me. Creating a setting is one thing... but creating new rules and mechanics to make my setting work, that's one step too far.
I have limited time as well. Funny thing is I am willing to pay for a good setting because I don't have time to deep dive into world building but I will make time to get the rules just right.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top