Why D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
To me the idea of wanting charisma score to dictate player on player interactions is like wanting to abstract puzzle-solving into intelligence checks or combat tactics into wisdom checks (both of which I've seen advocated, presumably seriously). I mean, they all kind of make sense logically in the sense that they're more true to what the capabilities of the fictional persona would be in the fictional world, but they're so totally and fundamentally at odds with why I enjoy playing the game that I have trouble even relating to the mindset that would find that desirable. I guess it's a difference in perspective of getting enjoyment from being a third-party observer of activity in the fictional world rather than being a first-person participant in that action - that you're more into telling stories about these characters and seeing what happens to them than experiencing the world through their eyes? I dunno. Like I said, it's hard for me to even comprehend it.
 
So @Faylar it seems like you are saying ‘biggest number wins’? That doesn’t allow for much nuance or player creativity.
Except on those wicked diceless games where players wager face down how many "effort points" they are using, which add to their stats. Then it gets interesting! :grin:
 
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?
I'm not saying that AT ALL.
I'm saying its a gague towards success.
If you know the odds are not in your favor, you may decide not to chance it, or you may alter your approach. Its as much a roleplaying aid as it is a mechanics.
 
To me the idea of wanting charisma score to dictate player on player interactions is like wanting to abstract puzzle-solving into intelligence checks or combat tactics into wisdom checks (both of which I've seen advocated, presumably seriously). I mean, they all kind of make sense logically in the sense that they're more true to what the capabilities of the fictional persona would be in the fictional world, but they're so totally and fundamentally at odds with why I enjoy playing the game that I have trouble even relating to the mindset that would find that desirable. I guess it's a difference in perspective of getting enjoyment from being a third-party observer of activity in the fictional world rather than being a first-person participant in that action - that you're more into telling stories about these characters and seeing what happens to them than experiencing the world through their eyes? I dunno. Like I said, it's hard for me to even comprehend it.

It is dictating to say it should have an influence, just as Str and Dex do on combat? Pretty sure reaction rolls are adjusted for Cha in B/X. Not sure why this is even a controversial question.
 
To me the idea of wanting charisma score to dictate player on player interactions is like wanting to abstract puzzle-solving into intelligence checks or combat tactics into wisdom checks (both of which I've seen advocated, presumably seriously)
Have you tried to read or play a game that does it?

Sometimes an absurd idea is just a normal idea that was never given a chance.

Edit: BTW, Im not advocating for games that abstract whole sequences into tests, but for games that factor Charisma and other stuff into social tests.
 
Have you tried to read or play a game that does it?

Sometimes an absurd idea is just a normal idea that was never given a chance.
Didn't 4th D&D try to do that with skill checks and such? I am ill versed on 4th, but I seem to recall that being a thing.
 
I am 40. I've been single for exactly 4 days in my entire adult life. lol
Same difference for this reference at that point though. :tongue:

But the term "date night" for you is still synonymous with...Solo Roleplaying? ;)
 
Didn't 4th D&D try to do that with skill checks and such? I am ill versed on 4th, but I seem to recall that being a thing.
Dont know D&D4e, so I can't say. But I would recommend Cortex, Fate, PbtA or Fria Ligan games as good examples that I know and work well.
 
I like to think I am open to new ideas more often than not. I am also willing to concede that I don't understand an opposing position. Can someone please give me some examples of using hard coded rules in a RPG to adjudicate player vs. player roleplay so I have a frame of reference?
 
I like to think I am open to new ideas more often than not. I am also willing to concede that I don't understand an opposing position. Can someone please give me some examples of using hard coded rules in a RPG to adjudicate player vs. player roleplay so I have a frame of reference?
I don't know about that, but many systems have rules for adjudicating social interactions among characters. They are probably most often used for PC vs. NPC, but I bet most could be used for PC vs PC too.
 
It is dictating to say it should have an influence, just as Str and Dex do on combat? Pretty sure reaction rolls are adjusted for Cha in B/X. Not sure why this is even a controversial question.
Reaction rolls with a Cha adjustment to determine influence on NPCs I'm totally on board with. Applying the same mechanic when players are in disagreement with each other (that if player A rolls well enough players B and C will do what player A says whether they want to or not) is utterly off-putting to me (outside of the obvious exception cases of magical/psychic/etc. forced mind control, but even there using those abilities on other players has always, in every game I've played in over 35+ years, been looked down upon as very poor form, a major violation of the player-level social contract, and a good way not to get invited back).
 
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.
 
Reaction rolls with a Cha adjustment to determine influence on NPCs I'm totally on board with. Applying the same mechanic when players are in disagreement with each other (that if player A rolls well enough players B and C will do what player A says whether they want to or not) is utterly off-putting to me (outside of the obvious exception cases of magical/psychic/etc. forced mind control, but even there using those abilities on other players has always, in every game I've played in over 35+ years, been looked down upon as very poor form, a major violation of the player-level social contract, and a good way not to get invited back).

Not sure I've ever encountered a game that does that. In AW one can roll to persuade another PC and there is a mechanic where you and agree and gain an advantage or resist and lose the advantage but the decision is always the player's to make, the game just gives you incentive to agree.
 
I was talking about spanking monkeys not beating dead horses. ;)

I'm lost in the animal abuse metaphors...but I'm relatively certain I don't look to RPGs to codify rules for Riding Mr. Snuffleupagus
 
Dont know D&D4e, so I can't say. But I would recommend Cortex, Fate, PbtA or Fria Ligan games as good examples that I know and work well.
Ah...see, I think that is important.
Those represent wildly different games. If those are your preferences, I don't see how we can really see eye to eye on it because, yes D&D totally wouldn't work for you.
However, stating that D&D can't run GoT for those same reasons is still flawed because it still only applies to how you want a game to be run, and that does nt really pertain to how a conversion could work for other people.
Me personally, I would not participate in anything Fate or PbTa as I have a genuine disinterest bordering on bias against those systems. Of course, that is also MY problem. :tongue:
 
I'm lost in the animal abuse metaphors...but I'm relatively certain I don't look to RPGs to codify rules for Riding Mr. Snuffleupagus
Beating a dead horse - entertaining a topic beyond it's shelf life. Running a joke long past it's conclusion... hat sort of thing.
Have you honestly not heard that one before, or are you joshing me? (actually uncertain)
 
Ok. It's probably worth talking about what the actual Game of Thrones rpg does.

For one it presents rules for noble house creation. All the players play members of the same noble house. This is the basic structure of play. You might be the heir, or a loyal retainer, or a mercenary but you have some connection to that house. You could do this in any game of course, but the rpg foregrounds it and gives rules for making that house as a group (some of the criticism of the game is that it doesn't do enough with this).

It foregrounds status. The game combines skills and stats into one list of abilities one of which is status which has important effects both in the game world obviously and in mechanics - it takes the role of initiative in intrigue.

The combat system has some innovations that are particularly appropriate. You have a small pool of hitpoints and when you are reduced to 0 you can decide to take wounds to continue the fight. This is good for modelling situations like tourneys, when they player has to decide how much they really want their PC to win. It also dovetails neatly into another mechanic where the winner of the fight gets to decide what happens to the loser..eg Dead, mutilated, unconscious, forced to take the black etc.

There is a mass combat system in the core rules not in a supplement, because this is a setting with a lot of war of course.

Finally there is a system for court intrigue. This is an interesting system, although many people will hate it. This is a specific social combat system for handling elaborate intrigues and seductions where boths sides have something they clearly want from the other. (For everything else you do things in a more traditional way) One of the things this does, is gives non-combat characters access to a mini-game along side the level of combat. It also means that intrigue can represent a kind of natural climax to a game session or adventure in much the way combat often does in D&D.

There are no personality mechanics, or mechanics for redemption or anything like that. It's a traditional rpg system and not narrative in any way.

It's worth thinking about what kind of structure of play this system is designed to implement. This is one that, based on initial adventures provided, works well when the house are present at some kind of event eg a Wedding, or a Tournament, or a Royal Court. At this event, there will be potential allies and enemies who can advance or hinder the party's overarching agenda as well as usually some kind of littlefinger type doing some kind of plot behind the scene: it could be something like poisonin someone important, trying to blackmail a PC or one of their allies, trying to frame a PC or one of their allies with some kind of horrible reputation damaging behaviour or crime etc. Combat is likely to happen if assassins need to be interrupted or in the event of a tournament, and of course a PC can always ask for trial by combat or challenge someone to a duel.

It works best as a situation based scenario as it allows for all the PCs to use their skill sets. The traditional rpg squad based combat doesn't really seem to fit that well and will likely lead to courtier players feeling bored and with little to contribute.

I'd note that structure of play outlined above doesn't specifically require a specific system to be implemented, but like most games works better when there is one that meshes the system and character options with how it's intended to be played.

This is not the only way you could translate Game of Throne into structures for a RPG (and some people seem to bounce off it because they want something else from it) but it's one particular way you can do it that feels appropriate to the source material.

It's a pity that Green Ronin don't seem to do worthwhile playtesting because the system is quite flawed in it's implementations of these ideas. But if I was looking for another system that does this structure of play I wouldn't ever look at D&D. Something like a simplified Riddle of Steel (which is awesome for single combats and duels) combined with the intimacies system from Exalted 3 and amyne the company rules from Reign would be what I would personally want.
 
T T. Foster To me it’s a very different type of game, definitely more 3rd person, and probably not attractive as part of a long-form campaign. But it seems ok for shorter forms, or forms where, as I alluded above, players and characters don’t have a 1:1 relationship.

Lessa silva, yes a penalty for not doing as you’ve been persuaded might be better.

However, there are very good reasons why social mechanics make less sense than combat mechanics in a TTRPG. Pretty much the same reason, I would suppose, that you wouldn’t use a combat system for a boffer LARP.
 
I like to think I am open to new ideas more often than not. I am also willing to concede that I don't understand an opposing position. Can someone please give me some examples of using hard coded rules in a RPG to adjudicate player vs. player roleplay so I have a frame of reference?
In Cortex Plus, players play pools of traits against each other (Ie: Handsome d6 + Silvertongue d6 + Confident in my home turf d8), according to situation, and compare the 2 highest dice.

The one with highest values wins and applies "stress" and "conditions" dice on the loser: Insecure d6, Afraid 2d8 or Horny d10 or Inspired d4 (it could be positive things too, like in a flirt or an inspirational speech). These "condition" dice are added to anyone who can take advantage of the loser. So anyone fighting them gets to add the Afraid d8 to their pool, or anyone trying to convine them add the Insecure d6 to their pool, etc.

If any of those dice reach d12 you pass out or are out of the scene due to Stress.

So, you never "mind control" your opponent, you fill him with negative conditions, or Stress, which makes him lose more and more agency, and more and more vulnerable by others influence or tampering. A corolary of that is that, when you see that the opponent has better abilities than you, you will give up on sight. AKA the threat of inflicting conditions and stress makes players give up or choose their battles carefully. Take a look at Smallville, Marvel Heroic, or Leverage for examples.

P.S: I dont know if I remembered the details right, but the essential is there.
 
Have you honestly not heard that one before, or are you joshing me? (actually uncertain)

lol, I am familiar with the phrase, I thought the extended metaphor involving muppets was demonstrating it in a tongue in cheek fashion...
 
In Cortex Plus, players play pools of traits against each other (Ie: Handsome d6 + Silvertongue d6 + Confident in my home turf d8), according to situation, and compare the 2 highest dice.

The one with highest values wins and applies "stress" and "conditions" dice on the loser: Insecure d6, Afraid 2d8 or Horny d10 or Inspired d4 (it could be positive things too, like in a flirt or an inspirational speech). These "condition" dice are added to anyone who can take advantage of the loser. So anyone fighting them gets to add the Afraid d8 to their pool, or anyone trying to convine them add the Insecure d6 to their pool, etc.

If any of those dice reach d12 you pass out or are out of the scene due to Stress.


That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
 
Lessa silva Thanks for the example. I am not familiar with Cortex Plus but it is on the rules reading list after Dungeon Degenerates and Flashing Blades.
 
I like to think I am open to new ideas more often than not. I am also willing to concede that I don't understand an opposing position. Can someone please give me some examples of using hard coded rules in a RPG to adjudicate player vs. player roleplay so I have a frame of reference?
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.
 
Brock, another one, from Monsterhearts:

"Turn Someone On:

When you turn someone on, roll 2d6 and add the Hot stat.
On a 10+, take a String against them.
On a 7-9, they choose one:
- give themselves to you,
- promise something they think you want,
- give you a String against them."

Again, no Mind control, instead you gain influence over them. Strings represent advantage over a person, be it sexual, social, morale, etc. and allows you to interfere later with their tests (adding bonuses or maluses). So, again, you don't want to have a person full of Strings on you. Monsterhearts is a great example of a game about social influence. Its various mechanics turn around this, how to gain, leverage in your favor, etc. Its a very different take than Cortex, for eg. And its all super simple and fast too, like most PbtA.
 
gj5thk66owu21.jpg
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top