Why D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
TristramEvans said:
I'm sure Prince Valiant would work just fine for GoT
Click to expand...
Or Bunnies & Burrows..

images
 
Last edited:
silva said:
Another point worth considering is: do RPGs really explore the kind of stuff that appeals in novels and series like GoT? I think not.
Click to expand...
I been told that playing in my AiME session felt like they were adventuring in Middle Earth. That my Harn campaigns felt more like being in a medieval world than my Majestic Wilderlands campaigns.

So again I am going to disagree with you. However it not a piece a cake. As a referee if you are going to impart a setting with a specific feel, you have think about how you roleplay and how things are presented. It often more work than most want to put into what is a hobby. That OK but just because many hobbyist opt for monsters and gold doesn't mean it a failure of a system.

After all VtM is riddled with a wealth of details on how to roleplay and support a campaign with a focus on playing angst ridden vampire with a rich culture of their own. Yet most used it as a monster with superpower fight night game. Both extremes had fun and that good enough for me.

And VtM and the rest of the line was a damn good monster manual for my Majestic Wilderlands campaign. :grin:
 
Silva: why are you ignoring the fact you’ve just been given examples of social rules for NPC persuasion?

People are drawing the line at compelling other PCs, which is hardly the same thing.

That said, one could use a system where the PC makes a roll (or not) to establish they have a good argument, just like for an NPC. If so, the other PC has the option of accepting the argument and receiving a fortune point, or refusing and not getting one.

Problems is how to prevent players colluding and having petty arguments just to get points.
 
silva said:
Or Bunnies & Burrows..
Click to expand...

I dunno, don't know the game. Possibly, yes.

All you require for an effective RPG, is a framing for the discussion between players and GM, a resolution mechanic that the GM can apply to resolve disputes, and a method of translating characters into game terms to allow them to interact with the system. If B&B presents that, then you could run GoT with it. But I suspect D&D (or Prince Valiant) would be better.
 
Arminius said:
Silva: why are you ignoring the fact you’ve just been given examples of social rules for NPC persuasion?

People are drawing the line at compelling other PCs, which is hardly the same thing.
Click to expand...
Because I think its reasonable to conclude that PvP would be important to a GoT game. And as such, some sort of support from the system would be welcome.


That said, one could use a system where the PC makes a roll (or not) to establish they have a good argument, just like for an NPC. If so, the other PC has the option of accepting the argument and receiving a fortune point, or refusing and not getting one.

Problems is how to prevent players colluding and having petty arguments just to get points.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I would play it. (on your last point, perhaps makes so the points are only useful as a bonus on arguments, so theres no point in abusing them, or else limit them to say, 5 per player or something)

You dont even need to include metacruttency like fortune points. Just have the persuading player beat a diffiulty number based on the resisting player willpower or something, and then giving them maluses for a a time if resisting the proposed course of action.

Or something. Anything is better than licking the GM balls to have what you want.
 
TristramEvans said:
I dunno, don't know the game. Possibly, yes.

All you require for an effective RPG, is a framing for the discussion between players and GM, a resolution mechanic that the GM can apply to resolve disputes, and a method of translating characters into game terms to allow them to interact with the system. If B&B presents that, then you could run GoT with it. But I suspect D&D (or Prince Valiant) would be better.
Click to expand...
Sorry I though you were teasing and not really serious. I agree with your assertion above. From what Ive heard of Valiant, it looks nice. Ill have to take a look in it.
 
silva said:
So if a player wants to make a persuasive PC at your table, his persuasion ability as a character is the same as his person in real life?
Click to expand...
No because I consider their Charisma stats in how I roleplay. I know they have a 16 and roleplay accordingly compared to a character with a 6 charisma.

It not about me just to get one over the player. It me trying to bring a setting to life in a way that the player felt like they been to the place and had a interesting time having adventures. Irregardless of system, I will incorporate the character's social stats and abilities in how I roleplay an NPC.

silva said:
In other words, pure GM fiat.
Click to expand...
Again if I haven't won your trust after the first few session then perhaps my campaign is not for you. That includes trusting that I am factoring your character abilities in the things you don't see while playing.

silva said:
Is that the kind of social support you find appropriate for a game of interpersonal drama, be it GoT or whatever?
Click to expand...
What I expect is the rulebook to adequately describe how people act in Westeros and the different range of personalities involved beyond the main characters. I can take it from there. That one thing that The One Ring and Adventure in Middle Earth does very well. For those who want to just roll play the Audience mechanic is good for that. Add up the modifiers and make your roll.

However for those who want to roleplay also an excellent terse list of things that I need to factor in while roleplaying that character.
 
CRKrueger said:
Doesn’t address well...through mechanics.

That assumes people want or need a meaty Social Conflict system that is more than Roleplaying and a skill roll with advantage/disadvantage.

For many, all they would need is a GM to custom-tailor some classes and off they go.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that attitude ("let's just kitbox some appropriate classes and let's go") is what I was specifically lamenting the loss of in my earlier post. That concept was not only baked into, but activelly promoted by TSR-era D&D. When it comes to 5E it seems people can't concieve of it.
 
robertsconley said:
No because I consider their Charisma stats in how I roleplay. I know they have a 16 and roleplay accordingly compared to a character with a 6 charisma.

It not about me just to get one over the player. It me trying to bring a setting to life in a way that the player felt like they been to the place and had a interesting time having adventures. Irregardless of system, I will incorporate the character's social stats and abilities in how I roleplay an NPC.

Again if I haven't won your trust after the first few session then perhaps my campaign is not for you. That includes trusting that I am factoring your character abilities in the things you don't see while playing.

What I expect is the rulebook to adequately describe how people act in Westeros and the different range of personalities involved beyond the main characters. I can take it from there. That one thing that The One Ring and Adventure in Middle Earth does very well. For those who want to just roll play the Audience mechanic is good for that. Add up the modifiers and make your roll.

However for those who want to roleplay also an excellent terse list of things that I need to factor in while roleplaying that character.
Click to expand...
Will you apply the same reasoning to combat? (aka make it GM-fiat)

If not, you're a D&D zealot.

edit: I understand somene not liking social mechanics like reaction tables or morale or drama points or whatever. People play what they like. But trying to rationalize why socializing should be GM fiat while martial stuff should not is bullshit. Say it's just your tastes and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
It's a fair question, and one that's certainly been discussed before. If it's a conflict between two PCs (and not two players), and the PCs have social stats and skills, then there's an argument to be made that it should be resolved with mechanics first and foremost, just as one would resolve physical combat with the rules and not by having the players duke it out in real life. I'm not saying you have to do it that way, but there's nothing absurd about doing it that way either.
 
In a superhero game do you need a system to determine if two PC telepaths can influence one another?

Why is telepathy and mind control any different than "role playing?" Because it's a ratable power? What if I wanted my character's ability to persuade to be a ratable power? Does the game consider that a thing?

Old school D&D really didn't. It assumed the only way to explicitly control PCs was mind altering magic, because things like charm and geas were the only social mechanics with rules. Newer school D&D is a bit different with rated abilities in interpersonal reaction, but just handwaves the mechanics and consequences.
 
TristramEvans said:
Kinda sad this is the legacy of modern D&D, people see it as a restriction limited to an isolated premise, rather than a toolbox that you can adapt to fit whatever campaign world you concieve of

View attachment 20479
Click to expand...

That D&D is only suited to narrow dungeoncrawling and point/hexcrawls is more prevalent among the OSR than 5e I'd say.
 
Gabriel said:
In a superhero game do you need a system to determine if two PC telepaths can influence one another?

Why is telepathy and mind control any different than "role playing?"
Click to expand...

Wait, what?
 
Gabriel said:
...
Old school D&D really didn't. It assumed the only way to explicitly control PCs was mind altering magic, because things like charm and geas were the only social mechanics with rules. Newer school D&D is a bit different with rated abilities in interpersonal reaction, but just handwaves the mechanics and consequences.
Click to expand...

B/X and BECMI had a reaction roll system for NPCs, 5e has a very similar reaction roll system in the DMG.
 
Voros said:
That D&D is only suited to narrow dungeoncrawling and point/hexcrawls is more prevalent among the OSR than 5e I'd say.
Click to expand...

how do you mean point/hexcrawls?
 
TristramEvans said:
how do you mean point/hexcrawls?
Click to expand...

Wilderness adventures: in the point crawl the GM has selected location encounters on the map (e.g. Night's Dark Terror) and hexcrawls involve more random rolling to determine what is in a hex the PCs enter (e.g. Carcosa).
 
Voros said:
Wilderness adventures: in the point crawl the GM has selected location encounters on the map (e.g. Night's Dark Terror) and hexcrawls involve more random rolling to determine what is in a hex the PCs enter (e.g. Carcosa).
Click to expand...

Oh OK, sure, that's very much what I'd consider one method of doing a sandbox (and honestly was way more common in my experience of D&D than actual dungeons).
 
silva said:
Or something. Anything is better than licking the GM balls to have what you want.
Click to expand...
There it is. I knew it would pop out eventually.
The hatred of a GM having more power than a player. The desire to control other players through social skills.

You want Narrative Control. You want to have rules that if you play them correctly, you decide what happens, period.
That’s all this is about, it’s all it’s ever been about.
 
TristramEvans said:
Oh OK, sure, that's very much what I'd consider one method of doing a sandbox (and honestly was way more common in my experience of D&D than actual dungeons).
Click to expand...

Ditto. Which is why when it is presented by some as this mind-blowingly novel or 'lost art' way to play D&D the OSR has 'rediscovered' I'm left scratching my head.
 
Krueger you're quite a character. :hehe:
 
TristramEvans said:
Wait, what?
Click to expand...

If I'm playing in a game where we play superheroes, is it important to rate telepathic/mind control characters on their ability to mind control others?

If I'm playing in a game where we play adventurers getting into fights with monsters, is it important to rate combatants on how well they hit and harm opponents?

If I'm playing in a game where we play negotiators trying to trick and manipulate others, should there be mechanical ratings for those abilities?

The prevailing answers seem to be Yes, Yes, No. Even though the third question is just the first question with different window dressing.
 
On a more serious note.

silva said:
Will you apply the same reasoning to combat?
Click to expand...
In general no, for a specific action perhaps if the result is clear cut.

silva said:
If not, you're a D&D zealot.
Click to expand...
Odd, consider I am know for my love of GURPS and Harnmaster more than D&D.

silva said:
But trying to rationalize why socializing should be GM fiat while martial stuff should not is bullshit. Say it's just your tastes and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Having been speared in a groin by a errant branch while playing LARP event, I will take dice, grid, some miniatures, and detailed combat wargame for tabletop roleplaying any day.

I guess you will just have to live with the contradictions that I embody. Are you through pontificating or you do have a another question?
 
Gabriel said:
If I'm playing in a game where we play superheroes, is it important to rate telepathic/mind control characters on their ability to mind control others?

If I'm playing in a game where we play adventurers getting into fights with monsters, is it important to rate combatants on how well they hit and harm opponents?

If I'm playing in a game where we play negotiators trying to trick and manipulate others, should there be mechanical ratings for those abilities?

The prevailing answers seem to be Yes, Yes, No. Even though the third question is just the first question with different window dressing.
Click to expand...

It is particularly odd as similar to Finch's false claim that OD&D didn't have mechanics to find traps (dwarves had a roll to find traps and of course 'later' so did thieves) D&D, at least B/X, BECMI and 5e, do have social mechanics with the reaction roll.
 
Voros said:
Ditto. Which is why when it is presented by some as this mind-blowingly novel or 'lost art' way to play D&D the OSR has 'rediscovered' I'm left scratching my head.
Click to expand...
Well as that was part of the team that popularized the term. It was created as a shorthand to explain why it was worth paying $70 for the Necromancer Games Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. Since most of us involved ran our campaign that way for years there nothing lost about it. But we did spread the word around.
 
dbm said:
And how would you use that to decide if they are more persuasive of the king than their rival? Numbers in isolation are pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...
They aren't though, they state a lot about the character at a glance.
If you see a character with a 16 Charisma, you may hate them, but you know that they will still probably win you over to their point of view despite it. Its a role playing game and this helps set the yardstick for interaction. When it comes to mechanics, you still get the mechanical advantages for a confrontation with that attribute, but that is also more dynamic than a casual role playing engagement.

Knowing that you are trying to track a bleeding ogre through the snow brings with it a certain certainty that you are going to succeed. Just as knowing that your Charisma 18 is going to win over the Wisdom 8 dolt.
Same goes with knowing that you are tracking an Elven ranger through their homeland is going to be far more tricky, so is knowing that you are using your pitiful 10 charisma to convince the wisdom 18 inquisitor of your false innocence.
They have purposes beyond a white room and can help determine if a dangerous attempt will even be risked in the first place.
 
Gabriel said:
If I'm playing in a game where we play superheroes, is it important to rate telepathic/mind control characters on their ability to mind control others?

If I'm playing in a game where we play adventurers getting into fights with monsters, is it important to rate combatants on how well they hit and harm opponents?

If I'm playing in a game where we play negotiators trying to trick and manipulate others, should there be mechanical ratings for those abilities?

The prevailing answers seem to be Yes, Yes, No. Even though the third question is just the first question with different window dressing.
Click to expand...


Well, I mean, one of those I can do sitting on the couch without getting up or there being any legal consequences...
 
Gabriel said:
The prevailing answers seem to be Yes, Yes, No. Even though the third question is just the first question with different window dressing.
Click to expand...
I think it's due to the notion that "persuasion on other PCs = mind-control" as Brock cited above. Which perhaps was true a long time ago, in the 70s and 80s maybe, but nowadays is a moot point as there are lots of games that do social interaction with no mind control at all (we even had a thread about it months ago that discussed it).
 
Voros said:
It is particularly odd as similar to Finch's false claim that OD&D didn't have mechanics to find traps (dwarves had a roll to find traps and of course 'later' so did thieves) D&D, at least B/X, BECMI and 5e, do have mechanics to do so.
Click to expand...
So to be clear this is what being talked about.

Book I Men & Magic mentions of the word trap
1596057922723.png
1596058429780.png
1596058391960.png

Book 3 Underworld & Wilderness Adventures trap rules
1596058289913.png
From the Old School Primer
First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules
Most of the time in old-style gaming, you don’t use a rule; you make a ruling. It’s easy to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash of insight to really “get it.” The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they “can” do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there’s some random element involved, and then the game moves on. This is why characters have so few numbers on the character sheet, and why they have so few specified abilities. Many of the things that are “die roll” challenges in modern gaming (disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and experimentation in old-style games. Getting through obstacles is more “hands-on” than you’re probably used to. Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players. Players use observation and description as their tools and resources: rules are for the referee only.

A simple example: the pit trap. By tradition, many pit traps in 0e are treated as follows. They can be detected easily, by probing ahead with a 10ft pole. If you step onto one, there is a 1 in 6 chance that the pit trap will open. And that’s all there is to it. By contrast, modern games usually contain character classes with specific abilities to detect and disarm traps. Let’s take a look at how a pit trap might be handled according to the 0e and the modern approaches.
Click to expand...
 
So Faylar Faylar it seems like you are saying ‘biggest number wins’? That doesn’t allow for much nuance or player creativity.

Now, I am guessing you wouldn’t take a simple ‘highest wins’ approach, so my question still stands: how would you use those numbers to decide who wins when contesting skills or abilities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top