The (Unholy) Trinity of DnD Gameplay Pillars

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
The pillars are just a structural guideline to interaction for those at a loss where to begin. It is like story structure or art media best practices or essay formats. You've always been able to break the rules if you are talented and skilled enough. But the point of teaching a skill's structure is to provide railings to get new generations of the talented, and not so much, both there without re-inventing the wheel and all its frustrating failures.

The problem occurs when any idea becomes read fixidly, seeking optimization of its form over its function. Very old topic of the calcification of teachings failing as students' fear broadening their horizons, see: substance v style, real v nominal, actual v abstract, accuracy v precision, literal v metaphorical v symbolic v allegorical, etc. The point of the railings is to get you there and keep you steady as you need it, with less stumbling along the way -- but it is just apiece, a way, not the entirety of big-T "The Truth."

That said 5e characters are extremely easy to "bring into the loop" in manifold 3-Pillar ways, from Basic 5e onwards. The challenge is getting tables open to that idea...

Oops I misplaced my next January chargen contribution. :hehe:

5e SRD

Kilchis Ghragn Apuchaghra, Guardian to the Exorcist of the Arid Wastes
Acolyte Champion Fighter Standard Human
Lv 4. HP 32. AC 13, (shld 15). Spd 30. PB: 2

STR 14, DEX 14, CON 13, INT 14, WIS 14, CHA 14

Saves: STR +3, CON +3
Weapon Prof: All. Armor Prof: All. Tool Prof: --
Skill Prof: Insight +4, Intimidation +4, Perception +4, Religion +4
Lang: Common, Celestial, Abyssal, Infernal.
ASI: +1 each STR CON.

Weapon: Handaxe x2, Lance, Longbow & Arrows x20
Armor: Leather, Shield
Gear:
Acolyte -- Clothes, Pouch, Vestments, Incense, Reliquary (saint's gallstones), Prayer Wheel, 15 gp.
Explorer's Pack -- Waterskin, Bedroll, Tinderbox, Mess Kit, Rope 50' hemp, Rations x10, Torches x10, Backpack.

Bio: Guardian for traveling Buddhist exorcist in the Taklamakan & Gobi Desert regions. Routinely carries a shield when exorcist is around. Keeps spiritual languages hidden to espy possesion activity. Looking to finally spend time to learn riding various mounts (Tool: Vehicle Land), but work keeps them busy.
 
If the majority of people play with a few quirks, but mostly are themselves with fantasy skills and powers who make choices in the game, then that is what baseline playing roleplaying games is. Asserting that most people who play roleplaying games aren't really playing roleplaying games because they don't do some method acting deep immersion imaginary holodeck is pretentious and off base.
That's one thing I like about the Lumpley Principle - "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." - as a definition for RPGs. It says nothing about acting in character or speaking in funny voices or any of that stuff. It just addresses the group cooperating in imagining events by some means. Sure, funny voices and such HELP the imagination and make it easier to agree to the imagined events when done well, but there are plenty of ways to express the imagination. Just because someone is playing an avatar of themselves doesn't mean there are no imagined events. Ron Conley has also talked about "playing the world" (my paraphrase) and I think that fits just fine and also doesn't require funny voices and such.
 
Agree. My Carcosa game is akin to a wargame. My 5e D&D game is like an elaborate board game. I am okay with all of this. Few of my players roleplay much in character when in groups of 3+ but we have fun. I mean, they definitely act and make decisions in character and that's what counts right?
Ffilz said:
"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." - as a definition for RPGs. It says nothing about acting in character or speaking in funny voices or any of that stuff.
Those are superb definitions. Thanks.
 
Boy, I sure wonder who keeps advocating for funny voices...oh yeah...

NO ONE EVER
Well, I HAVE seen a person or two who advocated funny voices. But people have definitely advocated that to be an RPG there must be immersion, whatever that means to the person so advocating, which really boils down to "if you don't role play the way I do, then you aren't role playing." I personally take a more expansive view of role playing, and I think actually most people do, though the number of people on the "story games aren't RPGs" bandwagon (where story game means to them anything they don't think is an RPG...) suggests a significant number of people want to gate keep RPGs...
 
Speaking of funny voices, I have a GM that's so good at it (Butcher knows him) that we demand he does it in every game we play. I swear, it's true. And the funny thing is that he doing the funny voices sometimes encourages us to do it too.
 
When it comes to exploration as a goal I've come to the conclusion that some level of detachment from your character is probably a good thing. That's why, although I resisted it for a long time, I've come to the conclusion that the high lethality of early D&D is a necessary part of its game style.

Because ultimately exploration is best motivated by the players intrinsic idea to find out what's there and to put the pieces of the world together.

Mystery games are somewhat similar - they don't work unless the players are interested in solving the mystery. It's just that there seems to be less confusion about this then in D&D. In a mystery game people tend to be more restrained in creating characters who are inherently motivated to solve mysteries (such as detectives and the like) and don't tend to want to insert elaborate backstories that get in the way.
 
Speaking of funny voices, I have a GM that's so good at it (Butcher knows him) that we demand he does it in every game we play. I swear, it's true. And the funny thing is that he doing the funny voices sometimes encourages us to do it too.
I do funny voices but I don't tend to think they're all that important.

There seems to be an issue that can arise when the GM overperforms all their NPCs and the players are flat and restrained. It feels like the GM overpowers the players. Basically the GM needs to match the players somewhat. If the players struggle to speak in character, then the GM needs to dial it back to something more minimalist.

The other thing too is when the funny voices and NPC seem to become the point of the game. A lot of the best role-playing moments arise out of a zoomed out perspective. From my desultory attempts to watch various streams (that never last long) a lot of the GMs seem unable to know when they should zoom out.
Basically is there a meaningful decision for PCs to make in, or as a result of this interaction? No. Then speed through it. The players aren't there to be the audience.
 
There seems to be an issue that can arise when the GM overperforms all their NPCs and the players are flat and restrained. It feels like the GM overpowers the players. Basically the GM needs to match the players somewhat. If the players struggle to speak in character, then the GM needs to dial it back to something more minimalist.
Dude, exactly. I have played in games where the GM is chewing the scenery and gets upset because players are more restrained. I have been gaming with my current group for 3 years now and only one of them likes to roleplay "in person" all the time instead of just saying "My character says this" or "my character does that". I don't mind in the least.

I only have two funny voices, my "brutal" voice and my "jabroni" voice. I use the 2nd one a lot in RL just being funny but it's too modern USA for most games.
 
Well, I HAVE seen a person or two who advocated funny voices. But people have definitely advocated that to be an RPG there must be immersion, whatever that means to the person so advocating, which really boils down to "if you don't role play the way I do, then you aren't role playing." I personally take a more expansive view of role playing, and I think actually most people do, though the number of people on the "story games aren't RPGs" bandwagon (where story game means to them anything they don't think is an RPG...) suggests a significant number of people want to gate keep RPGs...
So you’re just passively aggressively attacking the people in your head. Gotcha.

Storygames aren’t RPGs, but I don’t think we’ve ever really had a discussion about any to be honest. A bunch of people here like Narrative RPGs, which decide to add Storytelling/Authorship to the Roleplaying, usually with mechanics that end up preventing you from Roleplaying without it. For some reason people who like Storytelling/Authorship in their Roleplaying also like to tell those who don’t like it that there’s no difference, even though all the game designers they like are coming from a design ethos which had as a slogan literally “System Matters” and specifically designed to mechanically support the Storytelling/Authorship.

But keep pretending people like Rob, me Etc, are Pundit Circa 2009. Whatever gets you by.
 
Storygames aren’t RPGs...

Oh, good...this again...

By the way, this sort of response, above, only confirms what ffilz said about, “if you aren’t role playing my way, you’re not roleplaying.” Its a shame, because it’s just ridiculous hair splitting. Whatever your game, Someone’s “authoring” a story anyway, regardless of mechanics, because stories are about people doing stuff and things happening. How people get to their emerging story shouldn’t be such a big deal, should it?
 
CRK's clearly making a distinction between storygames and narrative RPGs in his post. Before battening down the hatches, we could start with giving the definitions we are using, and proceed from there.

F'rex, I don't think anyone here is going to argue that Baron Munchausen is an RPG. Or that PbtA games are not.
 
But keep pretending people like Rob, me Etc, are Pundit Circa 2009. Whatever gets you by.

Is Silva kind of an ass sometimes? Yeah, he is. But in all honesty, I find this statement massively hypocritical. He may treat you like you are Pundit, but you treat half the forum like they are Ron Edwards.

Idk man. I've really tried to chill my shit on the forums because I started to realize that I was part of the problem. You ever step back and think maybe with so many arguments happening around you that you should reevaluate your shit?

(Also to be honest, this goes for Silva too. I think he needs to reevaluate how he communicates and if he isn't part of the problem as well).

I just feel like if we knocked off the extreme tribalism, it would be a whole lot cooler to talk about games.
 
Last edited:
Let's try to veer the conversation back to arguing ideas rather than about posters...

Jennifer Aniston and Brain Damage Boy get too much attention as it is.
 
Let's try to veer the conversation back to arguing ideas rather than about posters...

Jennifer Aniston and Brain Damage Boy get too much attention as it is.
In case anyone's not counting, that's hint #2. :hehe:
 
I just feel like if we knocked off the extreme tribalism, it would be a whole lot cooler to talk about games.


Yep. I think that's true of life in general, if the internet could learn that lesson.

I get really exhausted when the Pub is used as a venue to reinact the forum vendettas of the rest of the online world.
 
By the way, this sort of response, above, only confirms what ffilz said about, “if you aren’t role playing my way, you’re not roleplaying.” Its a shame, because it’s just ridiculous hair splitting. Whatever your game, Someone’s “authoring” a story anyway, regardless of mechanics, because stories are about people doing stuff and things happening. How people get to their emerging story shouldn’t be such a big deal, should it?
Then we are all playing wargames. I just got done reading a section of the Elusive Shift that talk about except it about wargames versus roleplaying games. How more than a few wargamers didn’t understand why RPGs were emerging as their own thing.

For my part I see collaborative storytelling to be as different to pretending to be characters having adventures as that is to trying to achieve victory conditions which wargames focus on. All there share and reuse each other mechanics especially if it something to do with individual characters. But it doesn’t make them the same type of games.

I think storygames trying to portray themselves as Roleplaying 2.0 does is a disservice to storygames. That it causes designers to ignore certain avenues that would make collaborative storytelling using game mechanics more fun and easier to do in the time one has for a hobby.

As a final point academically all of the above remains vigorously debated. However economically the distinctions are no longer important. With the internet everybody lives and dies by their personal efforts regardless of larger trends in terms of gaming. If a publisher is not a dick and does their particular take well they will find an audience. With little to no impact on others doing their things.

It only when you get into areas where scarcity still reigns like products on a game store shelf does larger trends matter.
 
Last edited:
Then we are all playing wargames. I just got done reading a section of the Elusive Shift that talk about except it about wargames versus roleplaying games. How more than a few wargamers didn’t understand why RPGs were emerging as their own thing.

For my part I see collaborative storytelling to be as different to pretending to be characters having adventures as that is to trying to achieve victory conditions which wargames focus on. All there share and reuse each other mechanics especially if it something to do with individual characters. But it doesn’t make them the same type of games.

I think storygames trying to portray themselves as Roleplaying 2.0 does is a disservice to storygames. That it causes designers to ignore certain avenues that would make collaborative storytelling using game mechanics more fun and easier to do in the time one has for a hobby.

I think you need to define what you mean by "story game" here. Because my experience with your comments on what is and isn't an RPG, you tend include games that I would put in the category of "pretend to be characters in a setting" into the "not roleplaying" category. Which is the problem that a lot of people are having with how often certain subsections of the hobby go into "well, if you don't do it like I do it, then it isn't 'real roleplaying' ".
 
Well, I HAVE seen a person or two who advocated funny voices. But people have definitely advocated that to be an RPG there must be immersion, whatever that means to the person so advocating, which really boils down to "if you don't role play the way I do, then you aren't role playing." I personally take a more expansive view of role playing, and I think actually most people do, though the number of people on the "story games aren't RPGs" bandwagon (where story game means to them anything they don't think is an RPG...) suggests a significant number of people want to gate keep RPGs...

I see more criticism online of funny voices rather than advocating for them. Personally I have no issue with them, I remember a friend of mine did them at the table and it made the game fun and loosened everyone up.

I recall using a southern sheriff stereotype for a CoC game and remember it cracking everyone up (about the only voice I can pull off because I was practiced at it from imitating the sheriff from Cool Hand Luke as a kid).
 
My mistake of jumping from "some method acting deep immersion imaginary holodeck" to "funny voices".

So I'm going to talk about my personal journey in gaming.

I started off as a board wargamer with Tactics II as my first wargame. Within a few years, I added miniatures gaming with Little Wars. Subsequently I added more board war games. Sometime around 1976 or early 1977 I started miniatures gaming in earnest, eventually looking at two boxed games from TSR in the hobby store, Tractics and Dungeons and Dragons. Despite Dungeons and Dragons offering itself as a game to be played with miniatures, it seemed to me from a quick read that it was some pencil and paper and theater of the mind game, not a miniatures wargame. So I settled on Tractics. Come fall of 1977 at my best friend's birthday party, he received the Holmes Basic D&D boxed set. I sat out at first because it still looked like a wishy washy not wargame thing. I watched. And I read the rules. And I stayed up all night reading and re-reading the rules. In the morning I declared I was prepared to run a game. And I was hooked.

I quickly came to understand that there was something different between D&D and board war games and miniatures war games despite D&D clearly having connection to both. I did see a connection between D&D and the imaginative play with army men (with my best friend) or these little characters made from two pompoms and some felt that I played with my little sister. In fact, I even tried bringing rules into the play with the pompom people (it didn't work). I also somewhere in there heard reference to cops and robbers with rules. But clearly D&D wasn't that either. I knew there was a difference. I knew what an RPG was when I ran one or played one. But I could never put my finger on the difference until I saw the Lumpley Principle. Suddenly that put into sharp focus what the essence of an RPG was. Now all along I would have agreed with Rob's characterization, but I never saw that as the whole.

I was active on the Forge and then Story Games.com, both of which talked about a variety of games (including old school D&D). This is the context that the Lumpley Principle came into play (with Vincent Baker being a significant contributor at both places). Now based on that, and the web site storygames.com, I came to think of Story Game as a bigger set that included RPGs and things that maybe weren't RPGs and maybe things that sat on the fence.

But I think if the Lumpley Principle applies to what's going on, and you're doing the "playing the world" as I paraphrase Rob, and I would add the "system" of the Lumpley Principle should be recognizable as a "game," so we're not just talking about people talking around the campfire or something, then I think you clearly have an RPG.

But there are no requirements of what "playing the world" has to look like. Some may use funny voices which may be independent of talking in first person or third person (or the weird to me third person past tense I've been seeing at Unseen Servant). I think a GM is involved to provide a consistent world (otherwise how do you "play the world"). Some may deeply identify with their characters and the setting, while others not so much, but again there has to be SOME identification with the character and the setting to "play the world".

I also try to avoid labeling something as "not RPG" unless it is way out there. A card game that lets you assemble a story is not an RPG. Monopoly is not an RPG without some serious house rules. Braunstein may have been an RPG, I dunno. I think it sits on the fence. I think Dave Arneson added something to Braunstein to set off the RPG movement (and then Garry Gygax took the idea and put enough of an approximation of it onto paper and published it that made it available to the masses). I'm not sure if I've ever experienced any of the games various folks label as "Story Game NOT RPG" to form my own opinion (unless Dogs in the Vinyard falls in that category, I definitely think Dogs in the Vinyard is an RPG).

Oh, and somewhere in there I got caught up in "Role Playing not Roll Playing" but I discard that idea. The gaming style I started playing in 1977 (and still usually play in) may be labeled Roll Playing, but it's definitely also Role Playing. And it's definitely something more than War Gaming.
 
I think you need to define what you mean by "story game" here. Because my experience with your comments on what is and isn't an RPG, you tend include games that I would put in the category of "pretend to be characters in a setting" into the "not roleplaying" category. Which is the problem that a lot of people are having with how often certain subsections of the hobby go into "well, if you don't do it like I do it, then it isn't 'real roleplaying' ".
I thought I just explained it, games that focus on collaborative storytelling using the mechanics of game. As for previous debates I thought I was consistent in explaining two points

1) Collaborative storytelling using the mechanic of game tend to be heavy with meta game mechanics. Mechanics that the players use to manipulate narrative. As opposed to a mechanic that used to resolve something the player does as their character. The division is simply how does it look from the character PoV.

2) There is no hard and fast lines. Games are easily hybridized. So everything exist along a spectrum. However there is a center where you can say this definitely that type of game. For example I consider Blades in the Dark to be more of a storygame than a roleplaying game. However there is no reason one can’t use Blades in the Dark to handle a heist in a traditional rpg campaign. Just as there is no reason why I can’t use a war game like Battletech to resolve mech combat in a Mechwarrior campaign.

But if I am only using BitD then likely the campaign is more focused on telling a series of collaborative heist stories set within its setting. Just as if I am only using Battletech I am likely focused on war gaming.

As an author focus is important because what I do to make Battletech a great war game is not quite the same as what I do to make Mechwarrior a great RPG.

Hope that answers the question.
 
Yeah, nope, you are getting well into the "my roleplaying is what is really roleplaying" thing again.

Blades in the Dark is a roleplaying game. It just is. Full stop. Just because it doesn't fit with your personal style of roleplaying doesn't make it "more story game than roleplaying game".

The thing I get tired of, and I think a lot of other people on the forums do, too, is this whole purity test stuff. "If you aren't doing what I'm doing, are you really roleplaying?"

There are as many ways to roleplay as there are players playing games. Stop trying to gatekeep the hobby to only include your preferences.

No one is trying to recategorize your preference as a different hobby and telling you that you don't belong. So stop doing it to other people.
 
Yeah, nope, you are getting well into the "my roleplaying is what is really roleplaying" thing again.

Blades in the Dark is a roleplaying game. It just is. Full stop. Just because it doesn't fit with your personal style of roleplaying doesn't make it "more story game than roleplaying game".

The thing I get tired of, and I think a lot of other people on the forums do, too, is this whole purity test stuff. "If you aren't doing what I'm doing, are you really roleplaying?"

There are as many ways to roleplay as there are players playing games. Stop trying to gatekeep the hobby to only include your preferences.

No one is trying to recategorize your preference as a different hobby and telling you that you don't belong. So stop doing it to other people.
Bollocks. Clearly identifying examples that are true-to-type and those that are hybrids actually creates USEFUL distinctions, especially to those new to the hobby trying to find their way.
I guarantee you that if I had picked up a copy of Blades in the Dark because it was labelled "RPG", I'd return it, get my money back. It's a hybrid.
Mr. Connolly is absolutely right in the two poles established, and about there being a spectrum.
I don't personally care where a game is on that spectrum, I am not interested in any "RPG" that includes meta-elements of any kind. I don't want a hybrid.
BUT there IS a spectrum between Story and R-P, AND referring to that, and using it as a means of evaluation of elements they contain, is NOT and never will be "gatekeeping" ( a term that gets bandied about with far too little cause by far too many people in order to control the conversation by shaming). These labels can be VERY USEFUL in achieving meaningful discussion.

Also
"No one is trying to recategorize your preference as a different hobby".
They don't HAVE to ALL be identified as "RPGs". Doing so is beyond confusing within the hobby, because it prevents meaningful discussion, and a nearly impenetrable barrier to those wanting to get into the adventure gaming hobby (which, incidentally includes computer adventure games).
They are ALL adventure games. That is what they all have in common.
Except nearly everyone would rather argue and spit vitriol at one another over them all being RPGs.
I am Dr. Pangloss, and that is my $0.02.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if we restricted debates about things "People" claim to things actually said at The Pub we could have more meaningful or productive discussions
I would support the motion.
Or at least, restricting it to what was said at the Pub, unless it's in a thread about someone's blog post*, and such things.

*Which is really what The Forge amounted to, even though it was more like a collection of blogs...much like the OSR:shade:.
 
Bollocks. Clearly identifying examples that are true-to-type and those that are hybrids actually creates USEFUL distinctions, especially to those new to the hobby trying to find their way.
I guarantee you that if I had picked up a copy of Blades in the Dark because it was labelled "RPG", I'd return it, get my money back. It's a hybrid.
Mr. Connolly is absolutely right in the two poles established, and about there being a spectrum.
I don't personally care where a game is on that spectrum, I am not interested in any "RPG" that includes meta-elements of any kind. I don't want a hybrid.
BUT there IS a spectrum between Story and R-P, AND referring to that, and using it as a means of evaluation of elements they contain, is NOT and never will be "gatekeeping" ( a term that gets bandied about with far too little cause by far too many people in order to control the conversation by shaming). These labels can be VERY USEFUL in achieving meaningful discussion.

Also
"No one is trying to recategorize your preference as a different hobby".
They don't HAVE to ALL be identified as "RPGs". Doing so is beyond confusing within the hobby, because it prevents meaningful discussion, and a nearly impenetrable barrier to those wanting to get into the adventure gaming hobby (which, incidentally includes computer adventure games).
They are ALL adventure games. That is what they all have in common.
Except nearly everyone would rather argue and spit vitriol at one another over them all being RPGs.
I am Dr. Pangloss, and that is my $0.02.
Is it a game where people can take on a role in an imaginary world?

If so, it is by definition a game of playing a role. Or a role playing game, if you will.
 
Yep. Noone ever said you had to Roleplay during a Roleplaying Game. The odd thing is, the more you try to force it through mechanics the further away you get.
I remember a convo I had with someone on the BRP boards. Whenever their character wanted to persuade someone, he just rolled dice against Persuasion skill. I then said that was rollplaying, not roleplaying. When I rpg I get in the head of my character, think and act like them during a session.
 
Last edited:
I remember a convo I had with someone on the BRP boards. Whenever their character wanted to persuade someone, he just rolled dice against Persuasion skill. I then said that was rollplaying, not roleplaying. When I rpg I get in the head of my character, think and act like them during a session.
I think some players desire rules for social interactions because it puts more restraints on the GM... removes some of the dreaded 'GM fiat'.

As for funny voices. I like doing them because they help me focus on playing the character... and make it clear when I'm not speaking in-character.
Our local group has a mix... including a guy who always speaks third-person, 'my character does X'. His doing that doesn't mess with my fun, but I feel like when other Players 'get into character' it tends to elevate the game for all of us.
 
I think some players desire rules for social interactions because it puts more restraints on the GM... removes some of the dreaded 'GM fiat'.
I know both players and GMs who want social interaction rules for this reason. But such players are still sorely misguided, IME:thumbsup:.
Why? Because it simply doesn't work that way. Or rather, it doesn't work any more than you're going to "win the campaign" by your mastery of the combat system:shade:!
And we all know this ain't going to happen, I believe...

To borrow an explanation from Rory Miller/Chiron (which wasn't given for RPGs, but whatever:smile:), we should really borrow a page from snowsports/climbing enthusiasts and start seeing working with new GMs and/or rules and/or settings as what it is: a fundamentally different experience, akin to going to a new ski resort with an unknown trek, or a new peak. It should be exciting.
Adapting to the novelty and being able to thrive with them all is a virtue which speaks to your skill as player/GM. Not being able to play with them means you've faced your own* limitations.
But - at the same time - you should accept that rule systems, settings, groups, GMs and such things are going to impact your game. No way around that, in fact it's even desirable...explanation incoming:wink:.

And that includes GM fiat. That's why you prefer playing with one GM, but maybe not with another, even in the same system. Because you like one GM's fiat better than another's, it's more predictable to you (though it might be the opposite for another player whose expectations align better with those of the other GM).

Trying to iron out GM fiat out of a game by means of rules? Yes, I've tried it for years.
And the closer I was getting to it, the less I liked the game. It was losing all flavour, to me. In the end, I understood that to me, it's the individual quirks of the interaction of GM/group/system/setting/dice having their own sense of humour/the pancakes or whatever else we're guzzling on...that's what makes the game memorable.
Granted, it might backfire, as in giving the game a taste that you abhor. In this case: no gaming is better than bad gaming. Be polite, give them a face-saving** excuse if necessary, and find another group:evil:!

*And I say that as someone who knows his limitations prevent him from enjoying two major groups of games, and playing with a non-insignificant portion of new groups:devil:.
Basically, I'm not saying "you should have no limitations". I'm saying "find what your limitations are and experiment within them", OK:tongue:?
**Face-saving both for you and for them, and again, only if necessary. Like, I suspect most people are going to like "I found out I really can't stand PF1" much better than "your DMing sucks donkey balls":grin:!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
Yes. I've come to largely the same conclusion.

The other argument often made for detailed social interaction rules is they allow someone who is socially unskilled to play a character who is.

I've never seen that actually work in practice.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I've come to largely the same conclusion.

The other argument often made for detailed social interaction rules is they allow someone who is socially unskilled to play a character who is.

I've never seen that actually work in practice.
I group that idea along with the "protection from GM fiat" idea. And for much the same reasons, might I add.
What I'm in favour of, is requiring to invest skill points in the area, to basically confirm your results...
I'd also allow the more socially skilled players to suggest the lines to the less skilled ones, if the less skilled ones have both invested in social skills and are willing to listen.
Usually, the latter isn't true, though, so I just advise them against it, for the reason robertsconley outlined, below:shade:.

Like level or skills in combat, no amount of mechanics is going to make up for what is in the end a very bad plan.
You summed up succinctly what I wrote a long post to explain:thumbsup:.
 
You summed up succinctly what I wrote a long post to explain:thumbsup:.
Thanks. However I will add my response doesn't address the issue. Players trying to play X type of character and having a hard time of it.

If rules can't fix "bad plans" what can? Coaching by the referee to help the player over the long run.
 
Thanks. However I will add my response doesn't address the issue. Players trying to play X type of character and having a hard time of it.

If rules can't fix "bad plans" what can? Coaching by the referee to help the player over the long run.
Well, no, your post didn't address the issue. You just said why one of the possible approaches is a deadend:thumbsup:.
 
I think rules can help, and can provide a structure for player thought that can get them there. As can combat rules that make explicit things like positioning, social interaction rules can provide structure and ideas.
No rules can really fix unthinking play or a limited GM. Like toddlers, these folks can break anything :smile:

My view (on all rules) is they should effectuate player strategy and tactics, that is be a framework to resolve what the players come up with, not be a substitute for it.

One reason I do not care for feats and the like as they combine in my mind what should be separate elements, not a package that one plops down, the feat does the thinking for you, and people fall into the trap that what you can do is defined by the feats.

For example on social interaction, the player still puts forth their argument...any skill is just a reflection of how eloquently and effectively they can make that argument...not a substitute for it, an argument the NPC is not going to agree with is going to be hard to make work unless the skill is so high could sell a fish water.

Rules that are meant to force an outcome....and do no more than say I argue (without having to say what you argue, specifics as to what do you want and why) .....or worse guarantee an outcome with some GM choose negative thing (never seen that be anything but milk toast)...to me are roll playing, no role, no engagement with the setting or even really the GM even, just engagement with rules and wants. You don't need people for that, a computer could do just a s well, maybe better as any negative consequences would likely be enforced and not ignored.



As to the original post...
Reading the pillars of D&D at the very start....rare is the game I have been involved in in the last 20+ years that uses D&D rules (of any edition) that is not just combat, combat, combat. Exploration, is getting to the combat, social interaction is getting the combat mission or the GM using it for exposition. Stealth, tactics, strategy, coordination, what are those?....those are simply feat and combat spell choice...run into range and attack. The opposition is 1 dimensional so it is a tactic that works, and/or the whole encounter design system so one sided danger is a word the PCs do not know. Scouting and stealth are not required. Or more dishearteningly, you can see the GM fudging because TPK is the logical outcome for such willy nilly, even with the easy encounters.

I really do not know why this is. These GMs and players say they want something else, but not anywhere close. I have come to the conclusion that the rules and modules they use (official) that allow and support this type of play, maybe even encourage it as the modules seem to be very much go to point A, kill monster, go to point B, kill monster, bring back clue to point C, go to point C, kill monster...level up and buy gear in there.

Really in short, like a lack luster computer RPG, except the computer RPG may have better NPC dialog. Maybe it is better analogized to a CCC, but not as familiar with those.

Just makes me think it is in the nature of the rules, and the idea that earlier editions of D&D = hack n slash, like that is what you are supposed to do.

Now people that choose another rule system besides D&D, seem to play more along the lines of how we played OD&D, exploration and social interaction actually happen, scouting, stealth and anything but run into range and attack is the way.
 
The modern insistence on really leaning into the idea of D&D as a tactical grid based combat is really weird. Especially, as when they redesigned the game around that it was so wildly reviled. It feels like people want to play tactical combat, but they really want the idea that they're to connected some long standing D&D tradition, to the extent that they don't care if it means the rules set they are using isn't the best for what they are actually trying to do with it (I guess that's the cultural moment we live in more generally).

I've thought recently, that if you do want tactical grid based combat, you're much better of building it on a science-fiction chassis. Ranged combat is more important, and therefore cover is more imporant and positioning matters a lot more. You don't need to have a particular class to learn a multi-target spell, you just need a grenade or a rocket launcher.

In 5e I'm always surprised that people take the 3 pillars at face value. Like "Exploration" is a meaningful thing at all in the context of the rules - and isn't just some vague idea of "not combat; not talking". Or that it's at all meaningful to call "Combat" and "Social" pillars when the one is where the vast bulk of the games rules are and the other is roll an ability check. It's like a giant bait and switch.

"People said 4e was all about combat. How can we address that?"
"We'll say the game is equally about 3 things, combat, social encounters and exploration."
"Interesting idea, but won't that take a lot of work to implement".
"Oh we don't need to implement it, we just need to say it".
 
Real Three Pillars from Personal Experience:
1) If you put anything animal/critter like that can be fed to calm it down, expect players (via characters) to adopt it. (Also children.),
2. If PC's go into town, they will go shopping. (Even if told "No magic items sold in stores" they will STILL try and shop for them.
3. At least one rule will have to be looked up, no matter how long you've played.
 
The modern insistence on really leaning into the idea of D&D as a tactical grid based combat is really weird. Especially, as when they redesigned the game around that it was so wildly reviled. It feels like people want to play tactical combat, but they really want the idea that they're to connected some long standing D&D tradition, to the extent that they don't care if it means the rules set they are using isn't the best for what they are actually trying to do with it (I guess that's the cultural moment we live in more generally).

I've thought recently, that if you do want tactical grid based combat, you're much better of building it on a science-fiction chassis. Ranged combat is more important, and therefore cover is more imporant and positioning matters a lot more. You don't need to have a particular class to learn a multi-target spell, you just need a grenade or a rocket launcher.

In 5e I'm always surprised that people take the 3 pillars at face value. Like "Exploration" is a meaningful thing at all in the context of the rules - and isn't just some vague idea of "not combat; not talking". Or that it's at all meaningful to call "Combat" and "Social" pillars when the one is where the vast bulk of the games rules are and the other is roll an ability check. It's like a giant bait and switch.

"People said 4e was all about combat. How can we address that?"
"We'll say the game is equally about 3 things, combat, social encounters and exploration."
"Interesting idea, but won't that take a lot of work to implement".
"Oh we don't need to implement it, we just need to say it".

Yeah, 5E design suffered for having to please too many different masters.

If they actually created a system that was equally focused on their three pillars, then the game would likely be quite different.

For the Social Pillar, there’d be significant social mechanics, which would send a large portion of the audience into a tizzy.

For the Exploration Pillar, they’d probably have to change the skill system and add abilities for each class to interact with the world in an exploratory way.

Easier to simply put in the bare minimum on each front, and rely on the longstanding idea that social elements don’t need mechanics, and that the GM will create a world for the players to explore.

But....the game’s a huge hit, so it’s hard to argue with the approach they decided on.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top