| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 05:33:03
Hi there, my first "discussion" post in a long time, from Ed's answers topic :
quote:
From THO :
So saith Ed. I happily confirm that Realmsplay sessions in the “home” campaign are character-development driven, heavy roleplaying, not battle or game advancement oriented.
First, I'll use acting for what THO calls "heavy role-playing".
Some times ago, when my last long-lasting campaign was brutally ended because one player decided he had enough of D&D, I came to the conclusion that D&D wasn't the good game for us.
Why? Because D&D mechanics doesn't support what THO describes as the "Ed's home campaign style" above. There is nothing in the game about character-development, acting and such thing. Please, don't tell me that the "Ad hoc XP reward" little paragraph in the DMG is a "kind of support".
Some say, no problem, those things don't have (and even shouldn't) be included in the rules. Not so long ago, I had no problem with this idea, but that trouble maker player showed me that I was wrong.
How ? The problem is about the core idea of D&D : Rewards are given for overcoming challenges and those rewards will give characters what they need to overcome bigger challenges. You can try to add as much XP/Advancement house rules as you want, the basic idea of "level" is linked with the idea of "overcoming bigger and bigger challenge". The problem is that good acting and character-development have nothing to do with overcoming challenges.
A simple example to keep you interested: if in a D&D fight, a character do an action that is not the best one, but the one that fits any "acting" purpose, then he's penalized (the challenge will be harder to overcome).
My first idea (suggested by the same player) was to use a different game than D&D and I got a copy of Burning Wheel and read it cover to cover.
Good news : A very good mechanic to give reward for character-driven actions, good acting, etc. Even better, there is no classes, no levels, only skills that advance when used.
Bad news : A "LoTR" & "historical medieval" feel that really don't fit well the realms, i.e. detrimental magic and "life was harsh in those times".
At this point, my conclusion is that if I really want to role-play in the realms the way I (and my players) like, I should build a custom game, probably using lots of idea from BW.
I'm curious to here your opinions.
|
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| EvilKnight |
Posted - 30 Oct 2006 : 01:17:46
I agree with you wildmage.
I grew up with DND (OADND on) game system. The best games have always been the ones before we really knew the rules. Lately, I feel the rules and trying to work around them has gotten in the way of really enjoying the Forgotten Realms. I think it only came into sharp contrast when I started up a game with teenagers at the library (most that did not know any rpg). As well as the librarian that was to co-DM and the learning curve for the rules wore her out. I'm sticking with DND because it is the big one out there and they have a good chance of finding the rule books and others to play with.
I think being 30-something pushing 40 with work, kids, wife, home, mortgage got me to start wondering if all the prep time and onus on the DM was worth it. So I started poking around and came across BW and it hit a chord that made me wish that my new FR game played similarly. It seems to support the type of gameplay I would like for the FR without having to come to terms and train others to ignore the myriad possibilities that the rules create (metagaming) and role-play.
Will I switch to BW... probably not. Just because it doesn't quite work for how I like the FR game play to work and the work involved is more than I'm willing to put in. But BW has definitely opened my eyes to possibilities. I think I would like to try taking a little corner of the Realms and "burn it" in BW parlance just to try it out. But, I'll probably just stick with the pain I know (like MS Windows).
EvilKnight |
| wildmage |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 21:39:57
Just a quick thought- I think this really comes down to always thinking about what contributes to fun in the game and expanding that rather than strictly adhering to any one set of rules. I agree that having the XP award primarily increase the character's fighting abilities does not jive well with having XP rewards as the only recourse for good role-playing (or acting, whatever you prefer), which doesn't necessarily mean effective fighting.
On the subject of if you act as the village idiot, should you end up 20th level commoner? I think this would only be the case if you were an EXTREMELY heavy-handed DM. This simply does not do a good job of taking what's fun about D&D and trying to maximize it. What it comes down to is that while actually playing D&D (whether in the Realms or otherwise) you're always interpreting the rules and possibly adding or subtracting your own as you see fit. D&D is not a boardgame with a set of strictly adhered-to rules. The village idiot could just as easily be a 20th level fighter, cleric, paladin, or even wizard. The player dictates the character's choices/actions, not the other way around. It is up to the DM to decide what the outcome of those player choices are. Decisions such as what character class the player's character should have are best handled by the PLAYER. It is up to the DM to put together a series of fun and challenging encounters (combat or non-combat) and for the players to deal with those however they choose. There is NO 1 "right" way to play the game, or to play any single encounter. As long as the DM and all the players agree about this, then you should be able to work together and have fun. The characters won't always make the "optimal" decision, which is JUST FINE. Characters might "waste" a round or two of combat walking or talking or doing something other than casting a spell or attacking. When they level up, they may make tons of choices that are "non-optimal." Or they might solely min/max on paper, but as long as they play in-character and have fun without taking fun away from other players, then that's OK too. Once the players realize this, they'll learn to roll with the punches and not worry about min/maxing so much and they will probably become better role-players and everyone will have MORE FUN, which is the only true bottomline with this game.
An alternative to giving XP awards for good role-playing is to instead give in-game awards to the character that lead to more choices and role-playing options. Have the local king/mayor/etc. offer the best role-player a tract of land instead of 25,000 gp. Now the character has to decide whether or not to build something there, hire farmers to work the land, etc. without solely spending his/her time figuring out the best combat feat to take and which uber-magic item to buy with 25,000 gp. Defending that property or clearing out the wights that live in a crypt on the land or the hag that lives in a cave on the backend of the land give new adventuring possibilities that focus on accomplishing something and having more fun rather than merely leveling up. |
| EvilKnight |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 01:48:56
Hello Skeptic,
I'm glad you brought up this subject. I too have been taking a long hard look at the mechanics presented in BW. I like how they focus a game on the 'actor' play and get the players more involved in the story. I have been chewing on ways the BW system could be massaged to produce the feel that is "The Forgotten Realms." For one, it just doesn't give the high magic fantasy feel (maybe a bit too gritty). I've been thinking of ways the magic system could be tweeked (maybe better ideas after Magic Burner gets published) as well as Faith being tweeked to the individual gods.
The emotional attributes do not help with the FR feel either but I hate to throw them out because they make the elf and dwarf races feel different for role-play even though it is a RPG mechanic driving it. That is the big hold up right now for me -- how to retain that driver for role-playing such races without Grief and Greed.
Below is a copy of some text that I was writing out trying to come to terms on a BW and FR mix (Burning Toril). I look forward to more conversations on this topic maybe even using BW as the foil for some good ideas.
Lifepaths may be the place to start.
I think lifepaths would be the place to start to really hone in on the feel of a Burning Toril. That is where the big work is because of the deep history and depth that the Realms has to offer. Cormyrian Villager Lifepaths, Cormyrian Noble Lifepaths, Chondathan race traits, regional lifepaths/traits, Daleland Lifepaths, Great Rift Southern Dwarf Lifepaths, Evereska Sun Elf Lifepaths, Luiren Strongheart Halfling Lifepaths, etc. Would there be a replacement for Grief for the elves? The elves actually came from another plane of existence, the Crown Wars, a whole cultural history significantly different from the assumed background concept of BW. I do not think Grief fits with a Realms concept but I would like something there (Despair? Desire to disconnect - the Reverie? Yearning for lost plane of existence/home? A feeling of disconnect that comes and goes).
The Cleric/Faith idea needs to be explored for FR concept in BW. I do not feel the spell like thing works too well. The straight BW method could work with a bit more flair somehow, maybe... But the whole polytheistic religious conflict going on in the Realms is a big concept that needs to fit in to the Lifepaths and/or belief mechanics somehow.
FR does have a high fantasy feel to it that BW might need some additions to it for. Need to add the way of the Art in addition to Sorcery. The magic concept needs to start with the whole idea of the Weave (which is great). Also the Weave ties into the faith/gods again. Mystra can imbue sorcerous power/spellfire on individuals.
I always hated the DND concept of a wizard memorizing a spell and having it wiped from their mind when they cast it (blaheech). The Weave concept could be great. Instead of memorizing a spell, a wizard would use his 'workbook' (spellbook) to help him tangle or tension the weave around him that day for the spells he wants. Or maybe he needs to figure out where all the weave lines he needs to touch are for the spells he wants that day. He does have to remember how he does it (because it is slightly different each day he tangles/tensions it or renews the tensions). Then when he casts, he concentrates on his tangle and releases it in a controlled way that brings the magical effects into the material world (in a controlled manner). Or a failure means that the tensions/tangles changed locations since he identified them the last time he studied. Or he didn't prepare it correctly and it unravelled before he got around to trying to use it. A Sorcerer would just have a natural affinity/feel to where the tensions and tangles are to twang and fiddle with. Need to come up with a fundamental difference between the two that still maintains the concept of the Weave. Maybe sorcerers are on the level of channelling spellfire in a small way and do not realize it? The Taxing mechanic is a great way to limit the power of wizards and sorcerers (which tend to be too powerful at high levels in DND).
My first thought for a dirty conversion of DND spells would be to make the D20 spell levels the Obstacles for casting them. Their effects would still need a BW explanation. YAY!! - no more experience levels, higher level spells are just plain harder to learn and prepare; and more dangerous to cast (for all spell hurlers - make them think twice about whether the situation calls for the big guns).
Throw away copying spells. Everyones 'workbook' would be different just due to the way the Weave naturally bends and folds around an individual. That idea could explain spell resistance ideas (natural folds of the Weave around a monster makes them immune or resistant in some way). One can study another 'workbook' and get clues to another spell. But they need to research to make the spell their own and make the charts and reminders thay need to consult to truely understand the spell in a reproducable way in their own 'workbooks'.
EvilKnight |
| Varl |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 19:28:03
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Ok, but the point is what is the link between "good acting", character-driven actions, etc. and gaining more levels to overcome bigger challenge ?
For me, it's an abstract thing. I reward players for good roleplaying because that's what the game is, and through roleplaying your character well, tells me that the character is learning something about him or herself that (in theory anyway) leads to experience, or to remembering a previous experience that happened to the character, which ultimately, is what experience is. Recollection of past deeds that were successful or unsuccessful, and being able to use that information to get out of the character's current predicament.
If roleplaying, and the awarding of experience points for that, somehow enhances the player's experience with the game, and thus synergetically enhances the character's experiences by proxy, I'm okay with that. Players that can roleplay their way out of a confrontation, whether by negotiation, threat, or subtlety, to me is worth just as much if not more experience than the guy that cuts up an antagonist. In fact, as a DM, those are the actions and choices that impress me the most. If a player can wow me through his character's roleplaying (with me being the antagonist, ever doubtful and full of distrust 99% of the time), why shouldn't that garner good experience? He might have saved someone's life by doing so.
Now granted, there are certain creatures in the game that have 100% magic resistance to roleplaying, either because they don't care, don't feel anything, or are simply hungry (heh), and no amount of roleplaying will ever get them to listen, but that's fine too. That where the sword comes into play.
quote:
Like I said earlier, if I'm very good at playing a character who is "the village idiot", should I become a 20th level commoner? If a want to play a character who has as his main goal to become rich, why I should gain good skills to fight (BAB) and a greater capacity to endure injuries (HD) ?
Good point, but a character's main goal to become rich has nothing to do with his skills. His skills might help him achieve that goal, but the goal itself should be its own reward. A goal of gathering riches isn't going to help you swing your sword or cast your spell any better, unless those riches give you access to better and better swords and spells. The experience of getting rich, the character's life goal, shouldn't play a part in how well you swing your sword. It only allow you access to better items so you can swing a better sword. |
| Dart Ambermoon |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 03:01:18
Ah, well...I see...
I would say that partly depends.If your goal is to become rich, as per your example, then it depends on how you go about becoming rich. If you invest on the property market of Waterdeep, of course that shouldn´t improve your fighting skills or hit dice (though I hear those trades can become quite violent *winks*), but rather improve proficiencies you use for these things. If you´re trying to become rich by robbing Fzoul´s personal pieces of poetry and selling them to the highest bidder, that´s a whole different matter.
´
I think the examples you mentioned are along those lines of what I meant by "in-game rewards". Some clever business which furthers a character´s ambition to enrich himself, thereby would be rewarded with the profit he makes in-game, not XP which advance him in his class (unless his class were merchant or maybe thief), so I agree with you on that point. But if said character would use those talents of negotiation to avoid a fight or to overcome an obstacle, then, depending on his class (e.g. Barbarian = no, Bard = yes), that would absolutely be worth XP. I mean, if your main ambition is to be rich, you´re not going to play a Ranger, are you?
I believe it all depends on which style of game you favour. A group that loves to act will seek and find ways to overcome obstacles differently, than by kicking in their teeth.
There´s a lot of leeway in definition to this (interesting) topic...say you´ve got a fighter who hasn´t had a battle in a while because the campaign revolved around a lot of social gatherings for the last few sessions. But his play was extrordinary, so the DM decides to award him XP for it and he manages to gain a level. Now, he might not have battled in the last while, but it could be argued he studied a lot of peoples´ facial expressions and their corresponding bodily reactions. If said fighter can incorporate this into his fighting, then it will make him better.
What I´m trying to say is...don´t let the rules as written get in the way of you and yours playing and advancing as you see fit. If a player completely neglects her class in the way she acts, she shouldn´t get XP. But if she portrays her character in a continuous and fitting fashion while acting (and if she does, she will incorporate chosen class as well), that´s a whole different story. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 02:34:39
quote:
Originally posted by Dart Ambermoon
But, as GM, you can suit the XP-reward to your tastes, no?
I mean, even if theres no mechanic in the official rules, you still reward players for their "acting", since it´s important to you and your group, yes?
I´m sorry if I´m understanding you wrong, but I generally agree wholeheartedly with you, I just never had a problem with the issue, since I tailor XP´s after my own fashion, rather than in strict rules adherence. And as I said...there are many in-game rewards for in-game acting. In my experience, many players enjoy those a lot more than XP anyway.
Ok, but the point is what is the link between "good acting", character-driven actions, etc. and gaining more levels to overcome bigger challenge ?
Like I said earlier, if I'm very good at playing a character who is "the village idiot", should I become a 20th level commoner ? If a want to play a character who has as his main goal to become rich, why I should gain good skills to fight (BAB) and a greater capacity to endure injuries (HD) ? |
| Dart Ambermoon |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 02:09:46
But, as GM, you can suit the XP-reward to your tastes, no?
I mean, even if theres no mechanic in the official rules, you still reward players for their "acting", since it´s important to you and your group, yes?
I´m sorry if I´m understanding you wrong, but I generally agree wholeheartedly with you, I just never had a problem with the issue, since I tailor XP´s after my own fashion, rather than in strict rules adherence. And as I said...there are many in-game rewards for in-game acting. In my experience, many players enjoy those a lot more than XP anyway. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 02:03:24
I don't want to go too much into definitions* fights here, my English skills just don't permit it ;)
The important point for me in this topic is the fact that D&D doesn't have a proper mechanic to reward character-driven actions, good acting, and role-playing characters different than "dungeon crawling adventurers’ heroes".
* Little detail : for me acting, like rolling dices for a fight are parts of what role-playing is.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 01:44:54
Whether or not you can act/play a character/roleplay in Diablo (you can, as with any non-abstract game), it's mainly called a roleplaying game in the specialized sense of CRPG which is more about stat acquisition and inventory management than character. The alternative is that any game in which you have an avatar that's theoretically a role, even without any appreciable engagement with that role, is a roleplaying game -- too loose to be useful. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 01:25:33
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
To roleplay is to act out a role/part/character. I'm more sensitive to language abuse than the next guy, but where is it here?
If Diablo is a role-playing game (and I have no problem with this fact) then I need to use the word acting. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 00:45:39
To roleplay is to act out a role/part/character. I'm more sensitive to language abuse than the next guy, but where is it here? |
| Dart Ambermoon |
Posted - 28 Oct 2006 : 00:29:08
Well, to say it simply, I´ve always given out more XP for playing true to character, which includes acting and using game mechanics like fighting and development of said character.
It also shouldn´t be forgotten that a lot of rewards for acting, roleplay and advancement of character can actually take place inside of the game/story arc/campaign. XP aren´t the only reward players can be gien for good roleplay/acting. Friends, foes, contacts,etc. are all things that rather come from how a character might act in a situation than whether he manages to roll a crit. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 22:52:01
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
There are systems that mechanically support heavy roleplaying. D&D isn't one of them, so to do heavy roleplaying you give the ruleset relatively little weight in play. Both ways work (but bribing players with character 'power' to roleplay doesn't).
Experience awards are, on the level of individual campaigns, one of the easiest ways to adjust D&D to encourage the kind of play you want. In fairness, the original AD&D experience rules directly factor in adherence to character, albeit mainly to class archetype.
Even if AD&D 1E XP system included more details about giving awards for acting (I don't like the abuse of the role-play term) or taking character-driven actions, there is a fundamental problem with the idea of encouraging such things by giving more "power" to overcome bigger challenge.
A player is very good at acting the village idot, then he will become the first 20th level commoner ? 
That effect is lessened (but not eliminated) if the characters are trying to become "dungeon crawling adventurers heroes" and it's why many DMs have used this system for their games. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 21:04:26
There are systems that mechanically support heavy roleplaying. D&D isn't one of them, so to do heavy roleplaying you give the ruleset relatively little weight in play. Both ways work (but bribing players with character 'power' to roleplay doesn't).
Experience awards are, on the level of individual campaigns, one of the easiest ways to adjust D&D to encourage the kind of play you want. In fairness, the original AD&D experience rules directly factor in adherence to character, albeit mainly to class archetype. |
| VonRaventheDaring |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 17:06:01
I can understand the frustration that the 'normal' style causes being as i have played many games that were ran that way. I prefer to do a heavy focus on rp not so much game mechanics but thats because i enjoy the feel of a novel to come from my games. Having said that I find that Shadowrun was more drama filled i mean it says in the book any punk with a gun off the street can get lucky and kill you, not so in D&D i mean a first level Anything really can't threaten a 20th level fighter, or mage. I have to say i like the Rift systems approach to experiance where they reward roleplaying, thinking, and to a minor degree actually slaying the beast. Ironically to me at least Rift has no novels of note but it would be good for give you a novel feel to games. I get that from Ed's novels that these are characters that feel real and that i could have joined that group, i hope that makes sense. |
| Sian |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 16:15:34
i use the normal system as a guideline about how much Xp the characters should get ... and then i fiddle with it so it fits what i think they should get for their roleplay and such |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 16:08:36
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
How ? The problem is about the core idea of D&D : Awards are given for overcoming challenges and those awards will give characters what they need to overcome bigger challenges. You can try to add as much XP/Advancement house rules as you want, the basic idea of "level" is linked with the idea of "overcoming bigger and bigger challenge". The problem is that good acting and character-development have nothing to do with overcoming challenges.
A simple example to keep you interested: if in a D&D fight, a character do an action that is not the best one, but the one that fits any "acting" purpose, then he's penalized (the challenge will be harder to overcome).
...
I'm curious to here your opinions.
In 15 years of AD&D and D&D, my actual Silver Marches campaign is my first time using the normal xp reward. I always have distributed xp based in roleplay, interaction, drama, etc. (something similar to the system of Shadowrun), and it always worked. The groups alway have evoluted normally, without problem, and without gain xp for a simple kobold killed.
I´m only using the "normal" system in that campaign to see exactly how it works. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 08:03:01
We're all of us welcome to our opinions.
But consider: If THO's description of hers and Ed's playstyle is accurate, then they took the first edition of the system you describe as being inadequate and made it adequate.
From what little I know of their playstyle, this wasn't a matter of rules changes but one of player and DM behaviour.
They chose to roleplay, and that was enough.
So my suggestion would be to look away from the rules and turn your attention to creating encounters/events/scenarios that encourage roleplaying.
I've heard good things about Burning Wheel from Jeff and Judd (Sons of Kryos), so maybe adopting that is the way to go.
Ultimately I don't think it's an issue of mechanics, though. Roleplaying happens if the players are committed to it from the get go.
Maybe try the Sons of Kryos message boards for help also?
J. Grenemyer |
|
|
