Candlekeep Forum

Candlekeep Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Forgotten Realms Journals

General Forgotten Realms Chat

Combat's Role in D&D

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON

Smilies

[quote][i]Originally posted by Diffan[/i]
[br]So in another thread, it was discussed that combat is an oft-centered point, or rather, the MAIN center aspect of the role-playing game. On one hand I do agree that D&D has always been, at it's roots, a wargame with role-play elements. I mean it's what it evolved from originally with Chainmail.

As the game changed over the decades, one might say that the focus shifted slightly towards other aspects besides combat. Now I'm not an expert considering that I only got into the game in the late 90's when AD&D 2E was in full swing but even then it was basically boiled down to "here's a quest, kill the monsters, grab their loot, save the day - rinse and repeat." and things were pretty good. You did have some exploration (dungeons, jungles, deserts, woods, etc.) and you had occasional discussions with NPCs or people of importance and each other and sometimes the whole session was planning or talking with a healthy dose of goofing around. Still, at it's heart Combat remained the key figure and that was certainly the goal when it came to class design.

With 5th Edition in full-swing one of the designer's key components with the new edition was pushing the 3-Tiers of play concept. This was Exploration, Combat, and Social elements. A good doze of all 3 were needed to make the game really great. And conversely, this is something people really felt was left to the way-side with the previous edition (4E).

For one, I simply don't see it. I think 4E did a pretty amazing job of incorporating all the elements of play for their system. The thing is, [i]Players[/i] didn't want to choose other tier options when a combat one is present. And that's not a fault of the system but of the DM's push to make combat central to the story or the game. For example in the 4E PHB the Paladin gets a 2nd level prayer called Astral Speech, which once per day gives them a +4 bonus to their Diplomacy checks for the encounter (social interactions, etc.) but a lot of characters would instead take Bless Weapon or Virtue or Call to Challenge (all combat-centered). In a campaign where you're dealing with a lot of NPCs and trying to convince dignitaries of your plans Astral Speech is far more potent of an option but yet, the other options are often taken because you want that extra boost for fighting.

Take the options in 4th Edition that allow Martial Characters unique out-of-combat traits - they're called Martial Practices. They were pretty cool concept that allowed for some interesting interactions with both the Exploration and Social tiers of play. But it required a feat to take them, a feat many players felt was far more suited to an extra bonus to attack or damage rolls or to get a Superior Implement or weapon.

The point I'm making is that combat and it's role in anyone's D&D game, regardless of edition, is ultimately what the group and the DM brings to the table. Hack 'n' Slash style games can be emulated with pretty much any version of D&D and you can have great immersive role-play driven campaigns with any version of D&D too. The tools are there to make of them what you wish.

So feel free to discuss, politely please, what about D&D or specific editions therein that helped you focus on the 3-tiers of play or maybe discuss what you feel was lacking in a version of D&D or maybe another d20 game and how you handled it? I don't want this to dissolve into an edition bashing sessions so I'm just going to ignore Opinions without reference. Saying "I think 3.5 was crap because there's too many supplements" for example doesn't really provoke any sort of discussion and is basically a statement, which ultimately goes no where. WHY do you have the feelings or opinions you do? If you say 4E was just a tactical board game, then be precise in why you feel that way and be sure to accept that not everyone feels the same and will definitely come back with anecdotes and rules to the contrary.

Basically lets have a discussion.
[/quote]

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Diffan	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 17:25:02 So in another thread, it was discussed that combat is an oft-centered point, or rather, the MAIN center aspect of the role-playing game. On one hand I do agree that D&D has always been, at it's roots, a wargame with role-play elements. I mean it's what it evolved from originally with Chainmail. As the game changed over the decades, one might say that the focus shifted slightly towards other aspects besides combat. Now I'm not an expert considering that I only got into the game in the late 90's when AD&D 2E was in full swing but even then it was basically boiled down to "here's a quest, kill the monsters, grab their loot, save the day - rinse and repeat." and things were pretty good. You did have some exploration (dungeons, jungles, deserts, woods, etc.) and you had occasional discussions with NPCs or people of importance and each other and sometimes the whole session was planning or talking with a healthy dose of goofing around. Still, at it's heart Combat remained the key figure and that was certainly the goal when it came to class design. With 5th Edition in full-swing one of the designer's key components with the new edition was pushing the 3-Tiers of play concept. This was Exploration, Combat, and Social elements. A good doze of all 3 were needed to make the game really great. And conversely, this is something people really felt was left to the way-side with the previous edition (4E). For one, I simply don't see it. I think 4E did a pretty amazing job of incorporating all the elements of play for their system. The thing is, Players didn't want to choose other tier options when a combat one is present. And that's not a fault of the system but of the DM's push to make combat central to the story or the game. For example in the 4E PHB the Paladin gets a 2nd level prayer called Astral Speech, which once per day gives them a +4 bonus to their Diplomacy checks for the encounter (social interactions, etc.) but a lot of characters would instead take Bless Weapon or Virtue or Call to Challenge (all combat-centered). In a campaign where you're dealing with a lot of NPCs and trying to convince dignitaries of your plans Astral Speech is far more potent of an option but yet, the other options are often taken because you want that extra boost for fighting. Take the options in 4th Edition that allow Martial Characters unique out-of-combat traits - they're called Martial Practices. They were pretty cool concept that allowed for some interesting interactions with both the Exploration and Social tiers of play. But it required a feat to take them, a feat many players felt was far more suited to an extra bonus to attack or damage rolls or to get a Superior Implement or weapon. The point I'm making is that combat and it's role in anyone's D&D game, regardless of edition, is ultimately what the group and the DM brings to the table. Hack 'n' Slash style games can be emulated with pretty much any version of D&D and you can have great immersive role-play driven campaigns with any version of D&D too. The tools are there to make of them what you wish. So feel free to discuss, politely please, what about D&D or specific editions therein that helped you focus on the 3-tiers of play or maybe discuss what you feel was lacking in a version of D&D or maybe another d20 game and how you handled it? I don't want this to dissolve into an edition bashing sessions so I'm just going to ignore Opinions without reference. Saying "I think 3.5 was crap because there's too many supplements" for example doesn't really provoke any sort of discussion and is basically a statement, which ultimately goes no where. WHY do you have the feelings or opinions you do? If you say 4E was just a tactical board game, then be precise in why you feel that way and be sure to accept that not everyone feels the same and will definitely come back with anecdotes and rules to the contrary. Basically lets have a discussion.
30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
cpthero2	Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 21:40:51 Learned Scribe Delnyn, Well met good sir! quote: I suspect the players generated classes starting at minimum character level 5, got their class features and WBL "goodies", then murderhobo'ed their way to epic level so rapidly a 20% XP penalty would have been reduced to at best a speed bump...even if it were enforced. Yeah, if there is a big enough series of gains going on like that, I could see. Plus... murderhobo'ings are the way to go. lol quote: By all means, vet new players before they join your gaming group. I dealt firsthand with Druid of Death (literally in two cases) wannabes. Sure, they will get furious with you. Personally, I am as popular with about two dozen short-term (i.e., one session and Sayanora!) players as the Simbul in pre-Spellplague Thay. It is worth your happiness and your veteran players' happiness to rid yourselves of combat-obsessed powergamers as fast as possible. I say AMEN brother! Ok, I'm an atheist, but I remember going to a Souther Baptist church for fun one day when I was stationed down south in the Army, and the way they say it is amazing. :) haha quote: DM Credo: The only munchkins allowed at the gaming table come from Dunkin' Donuts! As a high priest of Mask would do to his mother's piggy jar: I'm stealing that. ;) quote: And yes, nuke the overnight Ph.D.'s. Nuke dropped! Best regards,
Copper Elven Vampire	Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 16:42:24 quote: Originally posted by Diffan quote: Originally posted by Copper Elven Vampire Combat role is to kill face to face if it's melee. Combat is to kill from a distance if you're arcane or divine. At least divine classes allow training in weapons. lol. If you're a rogue I assume combat is sneak attacking, skills and feats galore. Combat in this context is simply the attack phase of the game. Character's rolling initiative, engaging in combat via weapons or spells, attempting to stop an enemy, etc. The exact means of how combat is achieved, is left vague. Very vague. lol. I personally don't like the AoO system, but I play it and DM it regardless. Sometimes I have to remind players that when you're within 5 feet of an enemy, even when your attacks are over for the round, you can still get several attacks if you're in a melee, and even a spell or two depending.
Delnyn	Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 15:53:04 Master cpthero2, I suspect the players generated classes starting at minimum character level 5, got their class features and WBL "goodies", then murderhobo'ed their way to epic level so rapidly a 20% XP penalty would have been reduced to at best a speed bump...even if it were enforced. By all means, vet new players before they join your gaming group. I dealt firsthand with Druid of Death (literally in two cases) wannabes. Sure, they will get furious with you. Personally, I am as popular with about two dozen short-term (i.e., one session and Sayanora!) players as the Simbul in pre-Spellplague Thay. It is worth your happiness and your veteran players' happiness to rid yourselves of combat-obsessed powergamers as fast as possible. DM Credo: The only munchkins allowed at the gaming table come from Dunkin' Donuts! And yes, nuke the overnight Ph.D.'s. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Great Reader Diffan, Agreed on that one level differential. That is the only thing that could bring sense to it. Otherwise, stuff got insane as we all know, i.e. Druid of Death and world annihilation. lol Best regards,
Diffan	Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 14:19:55 quote: Originally posted by Copper Elven Vampire Combat role is to kill face to face if it's melee. Combat is to kill from a distance if you're arcane or divine. At least divine classes allow training in weapons. lol. If you're a rogue I assume combat is sneak attacking, skills and feats galore. Combat in this context is simply the attack phase of the game. Character's rolling initiative, engaging in combat via weapons or spells, attempting to stop an enemy, etc. The exact means of how combat is achieved, is left vague.
Copper Elven Vampire	Posted - 21 Mar 2020 : 19:46:09 Combat role is to kill face to face if it's melee. Combat is to kill from a distance if you're arcane or divine. At least divine classes allow training in weapons. lol. If you're a rogue I assume combat is sneak attacking, skills and feats galore.
cpthero2	Posted - 21 Mar 2020 : 19:34:55 Great Reader Diffan, Agreed on that one level differential. That is the only thing that could bring sense to it. Otherwise, stuff got insane as we all know, i.e. Druid of Death and world annihilation. lol Best regards,
Delnyn	Posted - 17 Mar 2020 : 02:10:56 quote: Originally posted by Diffan Delnyn, thank you for the responses. I understand now what you mean by they don't stack but overlap. Thus an 8th level Fighter's BAB will only ever go to 9 if they take another level of Fighter or have another class exceed the Fighter by 8 levels with a full BAB (excluding Prestige Classes). Also, one of the issues I always had with 3.5 was how no one pretty much enforced the Multiclass restrictions of 1 level between them (minus your favored class). I get most play humans, which mitigates this somewhat but I usally have to throw in that reminder when I DM'ed 3.5 I like how your skill system works, especially that things which are linked help make those checks stronger. Since doing more 13th Age, where the SKill System is really sort of ad-hoc - you get a small statistical bonus but the player needs to determine how it applies to the situation - I really like the free-form this provides. I wrestled a heck of a lot of skill systems, and I don't pretend I covered all bases. The 4e skill challenges and 5e advantage mechanic are elements I shamelessly adopted. I know nothing about 13th Age, so I am assigning myself some gaming homework. Although not explicitly stated, ability score increases still happen every 4 character levels. Multiclassing is risky for those who want to cast spells higher than 5th level. The overlap-not-stack policy extends to epic levels, but hit points, attack rolls, saves and especially feat acquisitions for classes take a serious downtune. For "pure" monsters, it is business as usual. Killing that ancient green dragon and taking its stuff just got a whole lot deadlier for the party.
Diffan	Posted - 16 Mar 2020 : 08:00:26 Delnyn, thank you for the responses. I understand now what you mean by they don't stack but overlap. Thus an 8th level Fighter's BAB will only ever go to 9 if they take another level of Fighter or have another class exceed the Fighter by 8 levels with a full BAB (excluding Prestige Classes). Also, one of the issues I always had with 3.5 was how no one pretty much enforced the Multiclass restrictions of 1 level between them (minus your favored class). I get most play humans, which mitigates this somewhat but I usally have to throw in that reminder when I DM'ed 3.5 I like how your skill system works, especially that things which are linked help make those checks stronger. Since doing more 13th Age, where the SKill System is really sort of ad-hoc - you get a small statistical bonus but the player needs to determine how it applies to the situation - I really like the free-form this provides.
Delnyn	Posted - 14 Mar 2020 : 19:57:32 First, Happy Pi Day to everyone at Candlekeep! Here are some answers to Diffan's questions, addressed by point. 2. The Moon Elf Fighter 1/Wizard 1 has the following: BAB+1 Fort+2/Ref+0/Will+2 Leve1 1 generic feat/Level 1 bonus fighter feat/Scribe Scroll 10+Con hit points three 0-level spells, one 1-level spell, summon familiar Skill Points: (2+Int)X4 for fighter 1 plus (2+Int)X4 for wizard 1. (Note: Try not to overlap skills between classes. That will waste precious skill points. Use wizard for Concentration, Knowledge, Spellcraft and fighter for Jump, Ride, Intimidate for example) The moon elf has character level 1, not character level 2. Since Wizard is a favored class for elves and the fighter class and wizard class are at same level, no 20% XP penalty applies. Our elf only needs 2,000 XP to advance to Level 2. 6. Let's skip to the eldritch knight example. The prerequisites are taken from DMG 3.5 page 188: Must be proficient with all martial weapons. Must be able to cast 3rd level arcane spells. The second prerequisite requires Wizard 5, so I need to edit the example's class levels. One level in fighter is sufficient to satisfy the first prerequisite for martial weapon proficiencies. Here is the Moon Elf Fighter 1/Wizard 5 before taking the first level in eldritch knight. BAB+2 (not BAB+3) Fort+2/Ref+1/Will+4 (Not Fort+3/Ref+1/Will+4) Level 1 and Level 3 generic feats (no Level 6 generic feat because character level is 5)/level 1 bonus fighter feat/Scribe Scroll/level 5 bonus wizard feat 4+Con plus 4X(2+Con)=12+(5XCon) hit points (Because of overlap, you do not add the 10+Con hit points from the fighter level.) Spells/Day: 4 0-level, 3 1-level, 2 2-level, 1 3-level plus bonus from Int,summon familiar Skill Points: (2+Int)X4 for fighter plus (2+Int)X8 for wizard. Let's assume the elf does not overlap skills between the two classes. Our elf need 6,000 XP to advance to level 6 and get first level as eldritch knight. Let's check our moon elf Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 1. BAB+3 (prestige class bonuses stack with core bonuses) Fort+4/Ref+1/Will+4 Level 1,3,6 generic feats/Level 1 bonus fighter feat/Scribe Scroll/level 5 bonus wizard feat/bonus eldritch knight feat 12+(5XCon) hit points plus (6+Con) hit points Spells/Day: 4 0-level, 3 1-level, 2 2-level, 1 3-level plus bonus from Int,summon familiar Skill Points: (2+Int)X4 for fighter plus (2+Int)X8 for wizard plus (2+Int) for eldritch knight. Let's assume the elf does not overlap skills between the fighter and wizard classes. The elf may stack skill points to fighter and/or wizard skill points as he or she sees fit. The elf needs 7,000 XP to advance to Level 7. However per Point #7, if the elf does not advance to eldritch knight 2, then our poor fellow is forever barred from ever again advancing in eldritch knight and gets a 90% XP penalty indefinitely. He or she may advance to character level 9 and forego the level 9 generic feat to remove the 90% penalty. 4. Yes, it makes slightly easier for humans to multiclass. This question reminds me of a minor but potentially brutal house rule: Q: What happens if your character incurs a 100% or greater penalty from ditching prestige classes and having non-favored class levels differ by more than two? A: Congratulations! You just retired your PC! I do remind the player about this before they make such a commitment. If they want to retire, the character becomes an NPC and may even be hired or even become a cohort under the rules of feat Leadership. 5. Yes, I use elite array 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Assign any score to any ability, then apply racial modifiers. 8. Here is an example of the skill house rule. Lets us suppose a 2nd level sorceror with a 15 intelligence and 5 ranks in Spellcraft tries to decipher a gate spell written on a scroll without benefit of read magic. This would give a Spellcraft DC of 29. Our sorcerer would have a skill stat of Spellcraft +7. In RAW, the sorcerer would succeed if the sorcerer rolled at natural 20. Unless the encounter somehow (even if indirectly) ties into a struggle between Tymora and Beshaba, I rule this as impossible for a 2nd level sorcerer to pull off. He or she could pull it off at 6th level and 29-20 = 9 skill ranks in Spellcraft. I do in fact allow mitigating measures for requisite ranks. Having 5 or more ranks in Knowledge(arcana) reduces required ranks by 2 (think synergy bonus). Skill Focus (spellcraft) would reduce required ranks by 3. The logic applies to other synergy relations, feats and class features. If our sorcerer has 5 ranks in Knowledge(arcana) and the Magical Aptitude feat (+2 bonus on Use magic Device and Spellcraft), then the effective required Spellcraft ranks would be 5. Our sorcerer could attempt to decipher the spell with a chance of success. His bonus would be +11 and will succeed on a natural 18 or higher. 9. This one is where I took a long look and spent much time in consideration. Diffan is right. This is an unnecessary gimp on barbarians. With the Candlekeep scribes as my witness, I will officially exempt rage, frenzy and the like from this rule effective today. As far as the bonus spell slot issue is concerned, after a few encounters with overzealous rules-lawyering power-gamering murderhobos, I felt compelled to spell it out for all to see. My apologies to the scribes who believe this rule should be considered implied and therefore automatic. quote: Originally posted by Diffan quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 1. The 2ed concept of kits is very much alive. If you really want to play gish, consider a core class like a duskblade. Multiclass fighter/wizard is perfectly OK, but consider Point #2. 2. Levels, base attack bonus, skill points/ranks overlap-not stack!- for core classes. Character level is the maximum level for any one core class (assuming no prestige classes). You don't get extra feats for multiclassing. I'm not quite certain I follow the method here? So at 1st level my Moon Elf Fighter (BAB +1, Fort +2/Ref +0/Will +0, 2+Int skills x4, one bonus fighter feat) then decides that he's smart enough to take on the responsibilities of an Apprentice and gains enough XP for level 2. He takes his 1st level of Wizard. Normally his BAB is still +1, Fort +2/Ref +0 but his Will goes to +2 due to the wizard. He'll have 10+con HP plus 2 (half of d4) +Con for his next level. He still gets three 0-level spells, One 1st-level spell. What changes in your game? quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 3. Hit points are deterministic just like they are in 4ed. PC's receive maximum hit points at first class and half maximum after that. The credo is a disinterested third party must be able to reverse engineer a character. No. Rolling. Allowed. Period. This is usually the method I use for our D&D games (regardless of Edition) though if they're really adamant about rolling, they can roll for HP in front of me and take the result. It's usually not worth it from my experience. quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 4. Humans do not get a bonus feat at 1st level nor bonus skill points. They get a second favored core class instead. So this make them multiclass easier? quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 5. Abilities scores are based upon the elite array. Refer to the credo in Point #3 and put it in bold italic font. So depending on edition: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8? quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 6. Prestige classes work like core classes. Per point #2, it may get a wee bit harder to qualify. The overlap policy applies to multiple prestige glasses as they do to multiple core classes. The overlap among core classes is stacked with the overlap among prestige classes. Character level is the maximum core class level plus the maximum prestige class level, with attendant restrictions on the number of feats. Still kinda confused. So my Elf mage/fighter from earlier example that wants to go into Eldritch Knight would look like what by say, 6th level? Normally they'd go Elf Fighter 4/ Wizard 2/ Eldritch Knight 1 (BAB +6; Fort +6/Ref +1/Will +4; 3 Bonus fighter feats, summon familiar, scribe scroll, 1 bonus Fighter feat from EK, and Four 0-level spells, two 1st-level spells). quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 7.Put prestige into prestige classes. Prestige classes with five or fewer levels are treated as usual. Six or more levels, however, mean the character-and player!-are committed to the last level. If the character leaves the prestige class before taking the final level, they may no longer advance in the prestige class just like leaving the paladin or monk class. Furthermore, the character is levied a 10% XP penalty for each level before 10th that was skipped. Players who want to remove this penalty must advance their character level so they can get another feat. The player may choose to forgo the feat to remove the penalty. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to this rule. I really sort of hate Dipping. quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 8. The untrained versus trained rules for skill checks stay, but with additional restrictions. Subtract 20 from DC's 21 or greater to determine the minimum number of ranks in the relevant skill to have any chance of success. Sorry, natural 20 is not an automatic success. I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish? Usually you can't even try to attempt a skill if it requires training (like Open Lock) so a Fighter with a Dex of 20 (+5 bonus) attempts to Open Lock and rolls a 19 (24 total) it's reduced to a new total of 4? Not that people usually attempt things untrained to begin with... quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 9. Temporary ability score increases never affect hit points, skill points, access to spells and psionic powers or bonus spell slots or power points per day. That's a real hit to the Barbarian, unless his rage just provides Temp HP in a more standardized way? otherwise, I can see this as a good thing. Though you normally don't get bonus spell slots from temporary bonuses anyways.
cpthero2	Posted - 11 Mar 2020 : 00:28:21 Learned Scribe Delnyn, That is absolutely fantastic! I love how you used the faerie dragons there! :) It is all in the awesome, small scale, fun details like that. Very cool. Best regards, quote: Originally posted by Delnyn Senior Scribe cpthero2, "Yes" to your question about non-scaled sandbox campaigns. I made some brief comments in your other scroll about sandbox campaigns. The players themselves tend to start small and stay local for the few three or four levels. My XP system differs from other DM's, especially at low levels. That overall discussion is better suited for the Sandbox campaign scroll. As far as combat's role is concerned at low levels, they tend toward pest control missions. Rather than swing melee weapons or string bows, the characters typically devise a "smoke 'em and choke 'em" strategy to exterminate vermin nests. Sometimes the players caught me off guard with a totally unanticipated solution. On one of these rat patrol missions, the party negotiated a deal with a faerie dragon living just outside Goldenfields. For the price of one apple pie paid in advance plus one apple pie per breath weapon, the faerie dragon would breathe euphoria gas into the rat holes. The party members would then fish out the stoned rats by mage hand, hooked poles, etc. and stuff the rats into nets for extermination. It was a delightful combination of having someone with Diplomacy, someone speak Draconic for translation and someone with Profession (baker) to bake the apple pies. I was delighted. The deal called for three breath weapons at the cost of four apple pies. Each apple pie cost 3 copper prices for raw ingredients. One pie was botched, so the party had to cough up 15 copper pieces, which was more than covered by the 1 gold per party member fee. And the party got a friendly contact. quote: Learned Scribe Delnyn, I like your approach there! Those are clearly focused on the getting rid of that uber combat dynamic. Out of curiosity, do you feel that a non-scaled, sandbox campaign would help since you always have people sort of looking over their shoulder now knowing what is to come, as in real life? Best regards,
Delnyn	Posted - 11 Mar 2020 : 00:15:20 Senior Scribe cpthero2, "Yes" to your question about non-scaled sandbox campaigns. I made some brief comments in your other scroll about sandbox campaigns. The players themselves tend to start small and stay local for the few three or four levels. My XP system differs from other DM's, especially at low levels. That overall discussion is better suited for the Sandbox campaign scroll. As far as combat's role is concerned at low levels, they tend toward pest control missions. Rather than swing melee weapons or string bows, the characters typically devise a "smoke 'em and choke 'em" strategy to exterminate vermin nests. Sometimes the players caught me off guard with a totally unanticipated solution. On one of these rat patrol missions, the party negotiated a deal with a faerie dragon living just outside Goldenfields. For the price of one apple pie paid in advance plus one apple pie per breath weapon, the faerie dragon would breathe euphoria gas into the rat holes. The party members would then fish out the stoned rats by mage hand, hooked poles, etc. and stuff the rats into nets for extermination. It was a delightful combination of having someone with Diplomacy, someone speak Draconic for translation and someone with Profession (baker) to bake the apple pies. I was delighted. The deal called for three breath weapons at the cost of four apple pies. Each apple pie cost 3 copper prices for raw ingredients. One pie was botched, so the party had to cough up 15 copper pieces, which was more than covered by the 1 gold per party member fee. And the party got a friendly contact. quote: Learned Scribe Delnyn, I like your approach there! Those are clearly focused on the getting rid of that uber combat dynamic. Out of curiosity, do you feel that a non-scaled, sandbox campaign would help since you always have people sort of looking over their shoulder now knowing what is to come, as in real life? Best regards,
Starshade	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 23:32:34 3 tiers of play? You know, there is lots of "theories" floating around about gameplay, as the Bartle test for DOS era muds and selective mmorpg's, or the garbage "GNS Theory"... But it was Wotc, which did this one: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html
cpthero2	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 20:55:59 Great Reader Diffan, Thank you as always for your reply! :) quote: Doesn't this take kind of ignore the individual's own personal desire to play the game and the ways in which they approach it though? It could, but then again I had mentioned at least for my own table that, "The problem is, as you clearly articulated, it is what the DM brings and what the players want." Clearly I was referencing the notion of how a DM makes it happen, but the converse applies too. I'm glad you rebutted that though so I could clarify. Thanks! I also interview potential players before I invite them to my table though. I place up ads on social media to the appropriate groups, and then meet with the person. I tell them about my DM style, ask them about their player style, describe the processes I have in play to make sure it is all a mutually beneficial set of styles, and if everyone likes, we move on from there. I never play randomly anymore, assuming it will work out. It rarely does. quote: As for the thespian part, simply put not everyone is good at acting, lol. Great point. What I do to promote it, optionally, is use a system called karma (thanks Travis!) that rewards roleplaying, that corresponds to a psyche profile they optionally create at the beginning of the campaign (which, if done well, can start them at a higher level at the beginning). So, it doesn't matter what they act as long as it comports with that psyche profile (as I use relative alignment systems). I also use a flat XP system per session: 1/3 of what it takes the average party level to advance per session. That takes compulsory combat out, and promotes RP just as much. Furthermore, I utilize a series of karma awards that promotes active thespian development. If people take measures to clearly increase their thespian skills at the table (not required) then I award them significant karma for that. Karma is a metagame function that allows them to do amazing feats of strength, wizardry, acrobatics, summon allies, change out feats they regret, swap skill points, heal in combat from the powers that be, and much more. So, I've created some systems to incentivize people to RP hardcore, but not in a compulsory way. quote: Skills not every gamer or DM might have a good understand of. You make a perfectly valid point here, for sure. I do work now days as a business and public administration consultant and my background degree-wise is in economics, marketing, and public finance. One of my hopes is that perhaps people may show some interest in this here on the site enough to where I could dedicate a scroll to promoting slimmed down versions of these topics and help build skills in a usable manner to get people to add some more, desired, layers to their Realms as well. :) quote: I find the best kind is to start small, a few local villages or towns, maybe one larger trading port, and then work up from there. That way the DM can focus on the local issues without having to instantly come up with large worldly events. Another great point here. It takes me about a year to create a campaign, in real world time. I do the following to make that happen so that I can get both the large world events, as well as the small local ones: Establish an overarching campaign wide theme for a 2 - 4 million square mile region in the Realms Create 5 - 10 major story arcs Select 3 - 5, levels one to twenty adventures Alter the adventure themes to tie into each 2 to 3 of the major story arcs Create 5 to 10 minor story arcs that promote County level (as an example of small regional areas) or smaller group engagement Develop communities by creating fully fleshed out villages proper and for their environs that associate to the 5 to 10 minor story arcs Pre-establish weather, environmental, cultural, and economic progress for a (4) year, in game period of time that I monitor so that actions take place in the background, independent of the characters doing things quote: The similarities are there for a few reasons: first being ease of play. I can appreciate that outlook. I just love the Realms so much, I decided years ago to alter how I layout it out for players and their characters so they can really delve into and enjoy it more fully in very detailed ways. That's why I tend to take about a year to make each campaign in this manner, and it takes me about a month to read it all through again to get it fresh and ready for play (a month in between all of the other things I do). quote: I really don't use XP anymore. I dig that. Almost sort of kind of, sounds like GURPS, a little. You get a point or three at most to improve skills. Not going to lie, I would love it if they would switch to a skill based system, but that is just tossing the applecart to hard I think. quote: I feel these both sort of play with one another. It certainly adds a reason to take packing mules, horses, and more supplies for your journeys (and people on hand to guard or take care of them) and it also gives more nods to classes like the Ranger or the guy who graps Survival as a skill to help foraging in the wilderness. But this is all based on the group-dynamic and level is certainly an issue too. By 10th level (or 12th/15th in 4E) these become trivial elements due to the sort of ways in which PCs can travel via Magic or flying mounts. True on all accounts I believe. It makes the challenge at lower level necessary to consider survival skills, and planning, which is a challenge all unto its own, while at the same time, allowing the fruits of their labor to be enjoyed when they are high enough level to get around certain things. quote: this is one of my biggest pet peeves of games like GURPS or 3e/PF D&D. I hate Skill ranks. Hate them with a burning hot passion. I can certainly appreciate that some approaches don't work for all. My reason for enjoying the utility of such a system is that it evens the playing field powerfully. The biggest problem with the skill based system, especially in GURPS, is that the DM has to be overly knowledgeable about an enormous amount of skills. Hard to make that happen without at times making it feel like Hackmaster. Then again, that is why I am looking at doing a hybrid. quote: Good advice for any RPG :) Thanks! :) quote: No worries, I'm glad I got this discussion going and how well it's been received. Me too. I just really am glad that there are so many people that approach it academically as opposed to internalizing it and making it so very personal, as can happen a lot of the time. Best regards, quote: Originally posted by Diffan quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Great Reader Diffan, Fantastic post: thank you! You're busting through the thin veneer of what is falsely labeled a "roleplaying" game in that roleplaying was playing a role, not acting. That really is where it splits. Players want to self-aggrandize through dominant ways associated with human histories form of conquest: beating the crap out of people, taking their stuff, and being the superior one. It's low brow, with a fancy set of clothing over the top of it in most cases I feel. The problem is, as you clearly articulated, it is what the DM brings and what the players want. Until there is more of a sense of promoting the thespian aspect of it, it will continue as a hack n'slash or similar derivative. Doesn't this take kind of ignore the individual's own personal desire to play the game and the ways in which they approach it though? It's painting D&D (as a system) with a broad brush simply because it does have a lot of Combat-focus. The reasons FOR the PCs approaching combat should be a whole different discussion on the matter. Not everyone who's playing D&D is playing it Murder-Hobo style. The system, despite the hyper-combat focus, is still simply a set of tools. How the players use those tools is the real question. As for the thespian part, simply put not everyone is good at acting, lol. I'm certainly not and really only use the 3rd Person ("My character does this or interacts with that") method 90% of the time. I do "interact" with NPCs and the other characters sometimes In Character but I woudln't say that is a common approach of mine. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Your point here is exactly why I have been creating the other scrolls about morals, values, freedom, politics, economics, and more. When you realize that the contest, or the "fight" if you will, is more than swinging a sword and could be something as "simple" as having to help disturb an economic power play that involves currency devaluation between two trading nations that are in the midst of a trade deal, that then goes on to include the Spymaster, a diviner, the diplomancer, etc., you can quickly see there are a million ways to make compelling adventures, but they are not as easy as shifting the numbers around, calling monsters something else, and utilizing trite, low brow, explanations for the failed and awkward social mechanics of a DM that plays out people in the D&D world as effectively living zombies. This sort of campaign, I should add, isn't also going to be everyone's taste and really doesn't apply to a few character classes. I mean, the concept is really cool and involved and has a LOT of elements that aren't hack-and-slash, but I feel to do this properly requires a lot of real in-world knowledge of how trade, devaluing money, and economics work. Skills not every gamer or DM might have a good understand of. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 1) Run a sandbox campaign. Yeah, it's a lot of work but it pays dividends in group happiness across the board. I find the best kind is to start small, a few local villages or towns, maybe one larger trading port, and then work up from there. That way the DM can focus on the local issues without having to instantly come up with large worldly events. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 2) Question why so many aspects of power bases, i.e. the gods, nation-states, are so monolithic, and in many ways similar, even though they are described as being different, i.e. Thay, Durpar, Mulhorand, and the Dales. There seems to be a false averaging out of conflict to keep things on par and approachable the world over in a way that is frankly childish. The similarities are there for a few reasons: first being ease of play. It's easier to go into a town with simply different window dressing, different looking people, or oddities and exoitic elements but having a core familiar function. Again, I feel the pull for games like D&D is the ease of entry and play. This doesn't mean there can't be more at play or things that differentiate once place or deity from another - I think there's actually a bit different with Thay (a necropolise-based Undead hub) and the Dalelands (a functioning micro city-state of independent peoples) who both have oddly different world-views. 3) Overhaul the XP system!!!! Utilize a reward system for quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 RP, RP as defined as: acting, using actual acting methods. I utilize a karma system that my friend Travis created. I also average combat XP as a level every three sessions, no matter what you do. You could kill all the gods: you get 1/3 of a level, every session. This *immediately* disincentiveses the combat aspect. If you gain a level every three sessions, then you go up whether it is through RP or killing. I really don't use XP anymore. A few encounters, battles, or moving the story forward now take the place of XP. As I get further into other systems like 13th Age, I'm really liking the incremental bonuses you get with each session or two. Maybe you don't level up fully this time but you can get a spell or feat or some small bump to HP to carry with you to the next big event and then level up fully later. This also does away with going out into the woods to find a den of Kobolds to slaughter just for some additional XP that would push them over the top (a concept I pretty much hate - thanks to World of Warcraft). quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 4) Don't scale encounters. I could go into the mountains right now without one of my sidearms that could kill a bear where I live. That bear isn't going to take it easy on me. He's going to do what he does. So, that being said, that's just how life works. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if I am eaten by a bear, but I still get crapped out 18 hours later. 5) Utilize the environment to its fullest. I have had campaigns end due to exposure. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if the character's die due to starvation, dehydration, etc. However, that crap happens, and it is something that adds a level to of challenge to the game. I feel these both sort of play with one another. It certainly adds a reason to take packing mules, horses, and more supplies for your journeys (and people on hand to guard or take care of them) and it also gives more nods to classes like the Ranger or the guy who graps Survival as a skill to help foraging in the wilderness. But this is all based on the group-dynamic and level is certainly an issue too. By 10th level (or 12th/15th in 4E) these become trivial elements due to the sort of ways in which PCs can travel via Magic or flying mounts. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 6) Nuke the overnight Ph.D's. I am in the process of overhauling my skill system to join GURPS and D&D in some hybrid. When you go up a level in (12) in game hours, and now you are a master of geology, or speak three more languages, something is wrong. Don't let the knowledge system break the game as it always does. Make that a challenge too. this is one of my biggest pet peeves of games like GURPS or 3e/PF D&D. I hate Skill ranks. Hate them with a burning hot passion. They're the LAST thing I calculate when I make a character and 9/10 I'll just round up what the max skill amount I can have and then divide that buy the number of skills I have and boom, I'm done. I also hate the way Knowledge, Profession, Craft, and Perform are done. These should all have more intricacies for their use than simply a 1-roll DC check. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 5) Truly take on the personal of a storyteller. If you take on that persona, you can truly, in a neutral way tell a story that has no bearing on your success or failure as a storyteller, because if the game is a sandbox game, the players characters tell the story, you just facilitate all of the other stuff in between. :) Good advice for any RPG :) quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 **Point of note: I wasn't speaking at you so much Great Reader Diffan, as I was speaking openly to whoever is interested about my ideas, so no criticism to you! :) Best regards No worries, I'm glad I got this discussion going and how well it's been received.
Diffan	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 20:24:59 quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 1. The 2ed concept of kits is very much alive. If you really want to play gish, consider a core class like a duskblade. Multiclass fighter/wizard is perfectly OK, but consider Point #2. 2. Levels, base attack bonus, skill points/ranks overlap-not stack!- for core classes. Character level is the maximum level for any one core class (assuming no prestige classes). You don't get extra feats for multiclassing. I'm not quite certain I follow the method here? So at 1st level my Moon Elf Fighter (BAB +1, Fort +2/Ref +0/Will +0, 2+Int skills x4, one bonus fighter feat) then decides that he's smart enough to take on the responsibilities of an Apprentice and gains enough XP for level 2. He takes his 1st level of Wizard. Normally his BAB is still +1, Fort +2/Ref +0 but his Will goes to +2 due to the wizard. He'll have 10+con HP plus 2 (half of d4) +Con for his next level. He still gets three 0-level spells, One 1st-level spell. What changes in your game? quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 3. Hit points are deterministic just like they are in 4ed. PC's receive maximum hit points at first class and half maximum after that. The credo is a disinterested third party must be able to reverse engineer a character. No. Rolling. Allowed. Period. This is usually the method I use for our D&D games (regardless of Edition) though if they're really adamant about rolling, they can roll for HP in front of me and take the result. It's usually not worth it from my experience. quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 4. Humans do not get a bonus feat at 1st level nor bonus skill points. They get a second favored core class instead. So this make them multiclass easier? quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 5. Abilities scores are based upon the elite array. Refer to the credo in Point #3 and put it in bold italic font. So depending on edition: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8? quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 6. Prestige classes work like core classes. Per point #2, it may get a wee bit harder to qualify. The overlap policy applies to multiple prestige glasses as they do to multiple core classes. The overlap among core classes is stacked with the overlap among prestige classes. Character level is the maximum core class level plus the maximum prestige class level, with attendant restrictions on the number of feats. Still kinda confused. So my Elf mage/fighter from earlier example that wants to go into Eldritch Knight would look like what by say, 6th level? Normally they'd go Elf Fighter 4/ Wizard 2/ Eldritch Knight 1 (BAB +6; Fort +6/Ref +1/Will +4; 3 Bonus fighter feats, summon familiar, scribe scroll, 1 bonus Fighter feat from EK, and Four 0-level spells, two 1st-level spells). quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 7.Put prestige into prestige classes. Prestige classes with five or fewer levels are treated as usual. Six or more levels, however, mean the character-and player!-are committed to the last level. If the character leaves the prestige class before taking the final level, they may no longer advance in the prestige class just like leaving the paladin or monk class. Furthermore, the character is levied a 10% XP penalty for each level before 10th that was skipped. Players who want to remove this penalty must advance their character level so they can get another feat. The player may choose to forgo the feat to remove the penalty. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to this rule. I really sort of hate Dipping. quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 8. The untrained versus trained rules for skill checks stay, but with additional restrictions. Subtract 20 from DC's 21 or greater to determine the minimum number of ranks in the relevant skill to have any chance of success. Sorry, natural 20 is not an automatic success. I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish? Usually you can't even try to attempt a skill if it requires training (like Open Lock) so a Fighter with a Dex of 20 (+5 bonus) attempts to Open Lock and rolls a 19 (24 total) it's reduced to a new total of 4? Not that people usually attempt things untrained to begin with... quote: Originally posted by Delnyn 9. Temporary ability score increases never affect hit points, skill points, access to spells and psionic powers or bonus spell slots or power points per day. That's a real hit to the Barbarian, unless his rage just provides Temp HP in a more standardized way? otherwise, I can see this as a good thing. Though you normally don't get bonus spell slots from temporary bonuses anyways.
Diffan	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 20:10:02 quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Great Reader Diffan, Fantastic post: thank you! You're busting through the thin veneer of what is falsely labeled a "roleplaying" game in that roleplaying was playing a role, not acting. That really is where it splits. Players want to self-aggrandize through dominant ways associated with human histories form of conquest: beating the crap out of people, taking their stuff, and being the superior one. It's low brow, with a fancy set of clothing over the top of it in most cases I feel. The problem is, as you clearly articulated, it is what the DM brings and what the players want. Until there is more of a sense of promoting the thespian aspect of it, it will continue as a hack n'slash or similar derivative. Doesn't this take kind of ignore the individual's own personal desire to play the game and the ways in which they approach it though? It's painting D&D (as a system) with a broad brush simply because it does have a lot of Combat-focus. The reasons FOR the PCs approaching combat should be a whole different discussion on the matter. Not everyone who's playing D&D is playing it Murder-Hobo style. The system, despite the hyper-combat focus, is still simply a set of tools. How the players use those tools is the real question. As for the thespian part, simply put not everyone is good at acting, lol. I'm certainly not and really only use the 3rd Person ("My character does this or interacts with that") method 90% of the time. I do "interact" with NPCs and the other characters sometimes In Character but I woudln't say that is a common approach of mine. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Your point here is exactly why I have been creating the other scrolls about morals, values, freedom, politics, economics, and more. When you realize that the contest, or the "fight" if you will, is more than swinging a sword and could be something as "simple" as having to help disturb an economic power play that involves currency devaluation between two trading nations that are in the midst of a trade deal, that then goes on to include the Spymaster, a diviner, the diplomancer, etc., you can quickly see there are a million ways to make compelling adventures, but they are not as easy as shifting the numbers around, calling monsters something else, and utilizing trite, low brow, explanations for the failed and awkward social mechanics of a DM that plays out people in the D&D world as effectively living zombies. This sort of campaign, I should add, isn't also going to be everyone's taste and really doesn't apply to a few character classes. I mean, the concept is really cool and involved and has a LOT of elements that aren't hack-and-slash, but I feel to do this properly requires a lot of real in-world knowledge of how trade, devaluing money, and economics work. Skills not every gamer or DM might have a good understand of. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 1) Run a sandbox campaign. Yeah, it's a lot of work but it pays dividends in group happiness across the board. I find the best kind is to start small, a few local villages or towns, maybe one larger trading port, and then work up from there. That way the DM can focus on the local issues without having to instantly come up with large worldly events. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 2) Question why so many aspects of power bases, i.e. the gods, nation-states, are so monolithic, and in many ways similar, even though they are described as being different, i.e. Thay, Durpar, Mulhorand, and the Dales. There seems to be a false averaging out of conflict to keep things on par and approachable the world over in a way that is frankly childish. The similarities are there for a few reasons: first being ease of play. It's easier to go into a town with simply different window dressing, different looking people, or oddities and exoitic elements but having a core familiar function. Again, I feel the pull for games like D&D is the ease of entry and play. This doesn't mean there can't be more at play or things that differentiate once place or deity from another - I think there's actually a bit different with Thay (a necropolise-based Undead hub) and the Dalelands (a functioning micro city-state of independent peoples) who both have oddly different world-views. 3) Overhaul the XP system!!!! Utilize a reward system for quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 RP, RP as defined as: acting, using actual acting methods. I utilize a karma system that my friend Travis created. I also average combat XP as a level every three sessions, no matter what you do. You could kill all the gods: you get 1/3 of a level, every session. This *immediately* disincentiveses the combat aspect. If you gain a level every three sessions, then you go up whether it is through RP or killing. I really don't use XP anymore. A few encounters, battles, or moving the story forward now take the place of XP. As I get further into other systems like 13th Age, I'm really liking the incremental bonuses you get with each session or two. Maybe you don't level up fully this time but you can get a spell or feat or some small bump to HP to carry with you to the next big event and then level up fully later. This also does away with going out into the woods to find a den of Kobolds to slaughter just for some additional XP that would push them over the top (a concept I pretty much hate - thanks to World of Warcraft). quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 4) Don't scale encounters. I could go into the mountains right now without one of my sidearms that could kill a bear where I live. That bear isn't going to take it easy on me. He's going to do what he does. So, that being said, that's just how life works. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if I am eaten by a bear, but I still get crapped out 18 hours later. 5) Utilize the environment to its fullest. I have had campaigns end due to exposure. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if the character's die due to starvation, dehydration, etc. However, that crap happens, and it is something that adds a level to of challenge to the game. I feel these both sort of play with one another. It certainly adds a reason to take packing mules, horses, and more supplies for your journeys (and people on hand to guard or take care of them) and it also gives more nods to classes like the Ranger or the guy who graps Survival as a skill to help foraging in the wilderness. But this is all based on the group-dynamic and level is certainly an issue too. By 10th level (or 12th/15th in 4E) these become trivial elements due to the sort of ways in which PCs can travel via Magic or flying mounts. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 6) Nuke the overnight Ph.D's. I am in the process of overhauling my skill system to join GURPS and D&D in some hybrid. When you go up a level in (12) in game hours, and now you are a master of geology, or speak three more languages, something is wrong. Don't let the knowledge system break the game as it always does. Make that a challenge too. this is one of my biggest pet peeves of games like GURPS or 3e/PF D&D. I hate Skill ranks. Hate them with a burning hot passion. They're the LAST thing I calculate when I make a character and 9/10 I'll just round up what the max skill amount I can have and then divide that buy the number of skills I have and boom, I'm done. I also hate the way Knowledge, Profession, Craft, and Perform are done. These should all have more intricacies for their use than simply a 1-roll DC check. quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 5) Truly take on the personal of a storyteller. If you take on that persona, you can truly, in a neutral way tell a story that has no bearing on your success or failure as a storyteller, because if the game is a sandbox game, the players characters tell the story, you just facilitate all of the other stuff in between. :) Good advice for any RPG :) quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 **Point of note: I wasn't speaking at you so much Great Reader Diffan, as I was speaking openly to whoever is interested about my ideas, so no criticism to you! :) Best regards No worries, I'm glad I got this discussion going and how well it's been received.
Renin	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 19:50:00 In going back to address Diffan�s last paragraph, I�ll say that I started back with 2nd edition, and with memory and nostalgia being what it is, loved it. But I haven�t played it since 3e came out. What I liked about 3e was the easing of the attacking requirements (I had no problem with the sliding scaling of THAC0, but not the rest of my group!). What I did not like was the eventual build to a power build/one-shot BANG murder hobo that 3.5 and Pathfinder later could produce. I, of course, speak purely about the combat system. Right now, I play Pathfinder 1st edition, and will, at some point, move to 2nd edition. I won�t lie; I�m a concrete rules player of games (any games!) kind of guy. If the rule says �A happens� then when I do A, A better always be the result. I don�t like a DM taking that away from me, and Pathfinder is really concrete about that being the end result. However, I am no power gamer. I do bemoan that what I still feel is missing since 2nd is that I cannot be as diverse a fighter as I was then. My elven fighter Renin was near as good with a bow as a blade back then. In PF, you�re only scaled one way-is it melee, is it ranged? Is it with combat maneuvers, or is crit fishing? I don�t care for that specialized form of melee either. You�d think I�d enjoy the full freedom of 5e, but as it has been discussed, the lack of more, or greater options, feels stifling or boring in some situations. But, each system has a definite weakness or flaw to find after playing it so long and pushing through all the rules parameters. My group is also not a set of power gamers-far from it! We still play with the 2nd edition mindset. �Who crafts weapons?� All items are found during adventuring, or given by kings! So, what you get is what you get, and you continue on with that. I won�t lie; I�ve never cared much, or given one rip about Exploration rules or the like. I would ask, Diffan, do you mean hex crawling the mountainside? Moving through halls of a dungeon, or running through the streets of a nation's capitol? I think I could still safely say that it�s never been much fun or exciting. I will say I read a thread at paizo about a variant rule a DM was running about traps that made the event a bit more exciting-the gist of it was this; if a trap wasn�t found, and was primed to go off, all those that would be affected by it could roll Initiative. If that number was higher than the Perception DC of the trap itself, you could act before it. Do something thematically; you could push someone out of the way of an arrow trap, leap out of the way of a falling scythe, pull someone away from a burst spore cloud. The rogue could even attempt to Disarm it quickly if he had the initiative. That�s about all I did to make some of the exploring a little bit more exciting than �Roll for traps.� �you find none/one.� you disarm it/you set it- off here�s your damage.�
cpthero2	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 19:41:55 Learned Scribe Delnyn, I like your approach there! Those are clearly focused on the getting rid of that uber combat dynamic. Out of curiosity, do you feel that a non-scaled, sandbox campaign would help since you always have people sort of looking over their shoulder now knowing what is to come, as in real life? Best regards, quote: Originally posted by Delnyn I concur with Diffan's OP contention that excessive focus on combat is more a function of the DM's and player's proclivities, whatever the edition used. His/her concern about the so-called Treadmill of Power that exploded in the 3.x editions is something I take very seriously as should we all. I made efforts to dampen the Treadmill of Power and (harshly) discourage hyper-concentrated murderhobo builds. These house rules are certainly not suited for many campaigns and -trust me!- they infuriated quite a few prospective players. Here are several (not all) adjustments I made in my 3.xed campaigns, Realms related or not: 1. The 2ed concept of kits is very much alive. If you really want to play gish, consider a core class like a duskblade. Multiclass fighter/wizard is perfectly OK, but consider Point #2. 2. Levels, base attack bonus, skill points/ranks overlap-not stack!- for core classes. Character level is the maximum level for any one core class (assuming no prestige classes). You don't get extra feats for multiclassing. 3. Hit points are deterministic just like they are in 4ed. PC's receive maximum hit points at first class and half maximum after that. The credo is a disinterested third party must be able to reverse engineer a character. No. Rolling. Allowed. Period. 4. Humans do not get a bonus feat at 1st level nor bonus skill points. They get a second favored core class instead. 5. Abilities scores are based upon the elite array. Refer to the credo in Point #3 and put it in bold italic font. 6. Prestige classes work like core classes. Per point #2, it may get a wee bit harder to qualify. The overlap policy applies to multiple prestige glasses as they do to multiple core classes. The overlap among core classes is stacked with the overlap among prestige classes. Character level is the maximum core class level plus the maximum prestige class level, with attendant restrictions on the number of feats. 7.Put prestige into prestige classes. Prestige classes with five or fewer levels are treated as usual. Six or more levels, however, mean the character-and player!-are committed to the last level. If the character leaves the prestige class before taking the final level, they may no longer advance in the prestige class just like leaving the paladin or monk class. Furthermore, the character is levied a 10% XP penalty for each level before 10th that was skipped. Players who want to remove this penalty must advance their character level so they can get another feat. The player may choose to forgo the feat to remove the penalty. 8. The untrained versus trained rules for skill checks stay, but with additional restrictions. Subtract 20 from DC's 21 or greater to determine the minimum number of ranks in the relevant skill to have any chance of success. Sorry, natural 20 is not an automatic success. 9. Temporary ability score increases never affect hit points, skill points, access to spells and psionic powers or bonus spell slots or power points per day. 10. Make Craft and Profession skills integral to the gaming session. Give XP awards for successful use of Craft and Profession skills. I go so far as to treat Profession skill checks as bardic knowledge when it pertains to the profession. 11. Epic progessions of classes are severely slowed down. Monsters are kept the same as usual. Of course, epic has its own headaches which are beyond the scope of this writeup.
Delnyn	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 09:58:49 I concur with Diffan's OP contention that excessive focus on combat is more a function of the DM's and player's proclivities, whatever the edition used. His/her concern about the so-called Treadmill of Power that exploded in the 3.x editions is something I take very seriously as should we all. I made efforts to dampen the Treadmill of Power and (harshly) discourage hyper-concentrated murderhobo builds. These house rules are certainly not suited for many campaigns and -trust me!- they infuriated quite a few prospective players. Here are several (not all) adjustments I made in my 3.xed campaigns, Realms related or not: 1. The 2ed concept of kits is very much alive. If you really want to play gish, consider a core class like a duskblade. Multiclass fighter/wizard is perfectly OK, but consider Point #2. 2. Levels, base attack bonus, skill points/ranks overlap-not stack!- for core classes. Character level is the maximum level for any one core class (assuming no prestige classes). You don't get extra feats for multiclassing. 3. Hit points are deterministic just like they are in 4ed. PC's receive maximum hit points at first class and half maximum after that. The credo is a disinterested third party must be able to reverse engineer a character. No. Rolling. Allowed. Period. 4. Humans do not get a bonus feat at 1st level nor bonus skill points. They get a second favored core class instead. 5. Abilities scores are based upon the elite array. Refer to the credo in Point #3 and put it in bold italic font. 6. Prestige classes work like core classes. Per point #2, it may get a wee bit harder to qualify. The overlap policy applies to multiple prestige glasses as they do to multiple core classes. The overlap among core classes is stacked with the overlap among prestige classes. Character level is the maximum core class level plus the maximum prestige class level, with attendant restrictions on the number of feats. 7.Put prestige into prestige classes. Prestige classes with five or fewer levels are treated as usual. Six or more levels, however, mean the character-and player!-are committed to the last level. If the character leaves the prestige class before taking the final level, they may no longer advance in the prestige class just like leaving the paladin or monk class. Furthermore, the character is levied a 10% XP penalty for each level before 10th that was skipped. Players who want to remove this penalty must advance their character level so they can get another feat. The player may choose to forgo the feat to remove the penalty. 8. The untrained versus trained rules for skill checks stay, but with additional restrictions. Subtract 20 from DC's 21 or greater to determine the minimum number of ranks in the relevant skill to have any chance of success. Sorry, natural 20 is not an automatic success. 9. Temporary ability score increases never affect hit points, skill points, access to spells and psionic powers or bonus spell slots or power points per day. 10. Make Craft and Profession skills integral to the gaming session. Give XP awards for successful use of Craft and Profession skills. I go so far as to treat Profession skill checks as bardic knowledge when it pertains to the profession. 11. Epic progessions of classes are severely slowed down. Monsters are kept the same as usual. Of course, epic has its own headaches which are beyond the scope of this writeup.
Brimstone	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 05:36:30 When I started playing 2E in 96, we had A LOT of Role Playing. Combat was fun, it was the Role Playing that I really enjoyed. Then when I played 3/3.5E it was all about Combat with a decent amount of Role Playing. Then 3/3.5E became all about "building the perfect character" with little emphasis on Role Playing. That might be one of the reasons I went back to the older versions of the game. The older editions were so simple. Plus I don't have to worry about WotC/Paizo rolling out a new edition and having to start all over again, and I can run whatever version of The Realms I want.
cpthero2	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 00:53:23 Learned Scribe Renin, I completely agree with you. A lot of it is all in the small, nuance of game place through social events, or at least strongly related. I had a character in my last campaign, Crus, an aged, grumpy, moderately powerful wizard who left his life of other employ to live in a sleepy, river vale. If you encountered him, he was like a deep fried Southern old man who was cantankerous because age allowed it. He always asked for fresh fruit from his orchard, and had juice made for him by whoever came to talk with him. It's all in the small stuff! :) Best regards, quote: Originally posted by Renin When combat is the only thing at my table (forever DM now), and when it's in small chunks for 3 hours every 4 weeks with roll20, I do find it a bit of a sad state of affairs. Combat is fun; because combat is a game of chance and randomness that the players can work to swing in their favor. It's fun because it's a roll of dice, where a 1 in 20 chance allows you completely fufill your character's build or desire of action, or you become the goat and hope that Dice Gods of Luck don't crush you when the DM takes a turn. However, one of my favorite Social things from my last campaign is that an underhanded noble, who was doing illegal activities, but not evil, was more reviled by my PCs group than the invading Baneite armies. They tried thwarting all his actions, tried to see if there was more they could pin on him (is he Baneite? Let's find proof! Or make proof!), so yes, at the end of the day, some Social stuff is just as much fun. I've always found the rules lacking for any social situation. Why? Because I, or some of my players, simply cannot be that Charismatic. There will always be some amount of meta-play where my PC will simply act a certain way, because that's the way he is. Also, not everyone is capable of 'acting' that way either. Social situations are a real abstract form of game play to me; not everyone in my group can play as smart, witty, or as clever as their characters; so, the dice rolls have to prevail.
Renin	Posted - 10 Mar 2020 : 00:40:49 When combat is the only thing at my table (forever DM now), and when it's in small chunks for 3 hours every 4 weeks with roll20, I do find it a bit of a sad state of affairs. Combat is fun; because combat is a game of chance and randomness that the players can work to swing in their favor. It's fun because it's a roll of dice, where a 1 in 20 chance allows you completely fufill your character's build or desire of action, or you become the goat and hope that Dice Gods of Luck don't crush you when the DM takes a turn. However, one of my favorite Social things from my last campaign is that an underhanded noble, who was doing illegal activities, but not evil, was more reviled by my PCs group than the invading Baneite armies. They tried thwarting all his actions, tried to see if there was more they could pin on him (is he Baneite? Let's find proof! Or make proof!), so yes, at the end of the day, some Social stuff is just as much fun. I've always found the rules lacking for any social situation. Why? Because I, or some of my players, simply cannot be that Charismatic. There will always be some amount of meta-play where my PC will simply act a certain way, because that's the way he is. Also, not everyone is capable of 'acting' that way either. Social situations are a real abstract form of game play to me; not everyone in my group can play as smart, witty, or as clever as their characters; so, the dice rolls have to prevail.
cpthero2	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 23:23:59 Learned Scribe keftiu, Ahh...I misunderstood then. Thanks for clarifying that! :) Yeah, mobile can be a problem when you're trying to hit the quotes and all that on here correctly. I do agree with your point. I think there is so much more room for story development, and it does seem to be so often hyperfocused into the combat, almost pointlessly. Best regards, quote: Originally posted by keftiu Cpthero2 (sorry, can�t easily quote on mobile), the reason I call out Western/European examples and not those examples from broader in the world is because D&D largely centers those European-inspired cultures in their worlds. There�s a reason most campaign settings feature kings and dukes and not daimyos and shahs. Presentting a recognizably Western world as the one to be defended from savages and evil is where it becomes especially guilty of implicit supremacist, colonialist views.
keftiu	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 21:53:59 Cpthero2 (sorry, can�t easily quote on mobile), the reason I call out Western/European examples and not those examples from broader in the world is because D&D largely centers those European-inspired cultures in their worlds. There�s a reason most campaign settings feature kings and dukes and not daimyos and shahs. Presentting a recognizably Western world as the one to be defended from savages and evil is where it becomes especially guilty of implicit supremacist, colonialist views.
cpthero2	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 21:40:49 Great Reader Irennan, Great points on recognizing the great points from Learned Scribe keftiu. The killing that is just done haphazardly has always been so frickin' banal to me. It's just mindlessly boring. Why? I mean, if that is what your character is, then do your thing. However, it breaks massive immersion for me when everyone is doing it, and I think....WTF is happening? hahaha Best regards, quote: Originally posted by Irennan quote: Originally posted by keftiu Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale. Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs? What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable. tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable. Valid points. It's for this reason (especially the first point) that in my games antagonists are never a race of brutes or "inherently evil" creatures that can be easily dehumanized, but they're always people, and I try to present them as people. I almost never set killing as something you can do in the open to get what you want; killing someone always has repercussions. I also try to make fights happen, and to set conditions or previous narrative so that both the players and their characters WANT to fight, only when it's a good way to continue the story. Of course, this is what I aim to, but I don't always succeed at it, and players are ultimately free to do what they want, if they're ready to accept the consequences (just to be clear, this doen't mean punishment. For example, killing someone important won't exlcusively have negative consequences, but might--depends on the implications--also net the players the alliance of factions that oppose that person).
cpthero2	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 21:38:28 Learned Scribe keftiu, You make some fantastic points! quote: D&D's central gameplay mechanic is violence. Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale. I agree with that 110%! That is the mechanism, and that is why looking at interesting philosophical, economic, etc. options in addition to violence is a good thing to mix it up. I certainly don't move that violence should be removed. Human beings, IMO, are violent, nasty, ugly animals that have it inherent in our nature to be that way. I accept that, and feel we'll never get it under control. However, that doesn't mean we cannot concomitantly accept that we can have the other options alongside for a more robust array of storytelling. I feel that is where we agree more than likely. quote: So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. I get your point here, but I think that omits the obvious: all cultures of the world, current and former, are just as bad. Japan, Ancient Mongolia, Germany, America with slavery, to name but a few as well. I mean, the list goes on. The point, not to push the Code of Conduct here by getting past real world examples, is to acknowledge that it isn't just one outlook. It is recognizing that this is a fundamental nature of humans, and to expound out beyond that to all other cultures being intolerant too. It's why I push so much intolerance in my campaign version of the Realms. as a well traveled person myself in the real world, I know intolerance is the norm, not the exception. It just depends on who you are, where you are going, and what their views are in that locale. It doesn't mean I like it, but it is that way. Heck, otherwise, Thay, Calimshan, Mulhorand, tribes of the Endless Wastes, and many other city-states and nation-states wouldn't have so much intolerance. In fact, here is an FR list of the nastiness of Slavery in the Forgotten Realms. I hate slavery, but I think it is a good villain component to the Realms to have as you can have characters actively work against it (one of my most recent character concepts was to work against slavery). https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Slavery Thanks again for the post! I love this kind of dialogue and exploration. Best regards, quote: Originally posted by keftiu Posting my thoughts in slightly longer format now that I'm off my tablet and in front of a proper keyboard. D&D's central gameplay mechanic is violence. Characters are defined by their class, which (depending on edition, but certainly from 3.x onward) hinge almost completely on their role in combat; the primary verb in a player's toolbox is fighting. The most common means of advancement is experience gained by killing things. While these things have the weight of decades of tradition and reinforcement in other mediums, it's worth taking the step back and acknowledging that the average player character has killed dozens of people and beings by the time they're at all accomplished in their "adventuring career." Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale. Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs? What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable. tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.
Irennan	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 21:21:50 quote: Originally posted by keftiu Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale. Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs? What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable. tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable. Valid points. It's for this reason (especially the first point) that in my games antagonists are never a race of brutes or "inherently evil" creatures that can be easily dehumanized, but they're always people, and I try to present them as people. I almost never set killing as something you can do in the open to get what you want; killing someone always has repercussions. I also try to make fights happen, and to set conditions or previous narrative so that both the players and their characters WANT to fight, only when it's a good way to continue the story. Of course, this is what I aim to, but I don't always succeed at it, and players are ultimately free to do what they want, if they're ready to accept the consequences (just to be clear, this doen't mean punishment. For example, killing someone important won't exlcusively have negative consequences, but might--depends on the implications--also net the players the alliance of factions that oppose that person).
cpthero2	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 21:17:51 Great Reader Irennan, Ahhh....my mistake. I misunderstood you there. Well, then I can definitely see your point there. Best regards! quote: Originally posted by Irennan quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Great Reader Irennan, I don't completely agree with the notion that, quote: OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support)... because the a lot of what you and I, Great Reader Diffan, and many others have recently participated in is talking about the very heady topics of society, behavior, etc.: values, ethics, principles, values, economics, religion in more than a paragraph of dogma, and more. When you go beyond the thin veneer of those topics, it is challenging. I really feel that they could release books on the gods, by god for example, that explains what their religion is and why it is that way. I would get inline for a heady, epic 200 page "bible" on Tyr, etc. I would also really enjoy a philosophy book on the Adama, more than an FR Wiki explanation in one paragraph. It literally will take that kind of lore to make this change from combat intensive to acting/thespian heavier games IMO. Thoughts? Best regards, By mechanical support I don't mean info or lore. It would certainly be interesting to receive more lore about the values and ethics of certain regions, but we're talking about the game system, not the setting or the lore. I tend to decouple those things. What I meant is that we don't need a set of "roll X Y times to get Z outcome" kind of rules to run the social aspect of the game.
keftiu	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 21:04:16 Posting my thoughts in slightly longer format now that I'm off my tablet and in front of a proper keyboard. D&D's central gameplay mechanic is violence. Characters are defined by their class, which (depending on edition, but certainly from 3.x onward) hinge almost completely on their role in combat; the primary verb in a player's toolbox is fighting. The most common means of advancement is experience gained by killing things. While these things have the weight of decades of tradition and reinforcement in other mediums, it's worth taking the step back and acknowledging that the average player character has killed dozens of people and beings by the time they're at all accomplished in their "adventuring career." Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale. Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs? What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable. tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.
Irennan	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 20:37:58 quote: Originally posted by Diffan quote: Originally posted by Irennan The thing is that every edition for D&D gives combat a wide variety of options in the form of spells, maneuvers, powers, different equipment and what you have. OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support), if you want mechancis that ENHANCE (not make possible, big difference) the social and exploration pillars, D&D won't offer you much beyond a single roll (or a handful at best) or a few tables. This is true, depending on edition, I feel. For example Bards in most editions can excel with the myriad of social options they have available to them. From spells to skills to class features they're sort of the best option when it comes to that pillar of play. Similar is the Ranger to the Exploration pillar, in that they too have a range of Skills, Spells, and Features that really help give them a boost over other classes. But like you said it's simply a better roll or a more focused aspect that applies some of the time to these pillars and not a larger extrapolation of mechanics that delve too far. Rangers can forage (a simple check with a boost) and they have do some other natur-y things and have a few spells that will help (again, a simple casting or roll is required). But with that being the case, Is really more needed or a better question: Wanted? From one side I think it's needed (not to run that aspect of the game, because--as I mentioned--you can run a campaign based on social interactions more than combat even without much support, as shown by the people who do it with D&D. It' needed to enhance the other aspects. Combat gets a whole system of mechanics, why wouldn't other interactions also get one? On the other hand, I feel that it requires a careful balance: aka, don't overdo it, and that this balance is harder to achieve for the other pillars than it is for combat, if you want your system to not be niche. That's because, objectively speaking, a lot of people find combat fun, so if you overdo it a bit, it won't have the same negative effect that overdoing rules for (say) exploration would. quote: quote: Originally posted by Irennan I've read somewhere about a system (I can't recall the name, it was a screenshot of a page from the rulebook) that handles certain social interactions like combat. I.e., there are turns, "hp", and a certain series of actions that you can take, defensive and offensive (like counterargument, ignoring, seducing, etc...), and each does a certain amout of damage. So, when you answer to a question, or when you make a point, or when you roleplay a character trying to use their charm, you pick the action corresponding to the kind of stuff you did/said and roll for its effects, and this goes on until one side loses all their "hp". The effectiveness of the actions, and your hp, depend on your stats, skills etc... I don't think this is a necessarily good system (it may slow down interactions by a lot, therefore making RP feel rather innatural), but this is what I mean by mechanics that (try to) enhance social interactions. Eh, that doesn't sound very good at all. It sorta has some likeliness to 4th Edition's Skill Challenges in which the DM sets a number of chances the PCs have to achieve a specific task before they either succeed or fail but it doesn't go into HP for the encounter or anything like that. The initial implementation of Skill Challenges weren't overwhelmingly positive but when a DM takes them and integrates them into a continuous RP session, asking for a roll here or there, or maybe having the Player think of ways to use their skills to the situation, it can be much more enjoyable. I remember someone once said that if you don't actually know you're in a Skill Challenge and complete one, you've done a good job. I've used them for various effects such as pursuing people on the Sea of Swords, to evading pursuit in the streets of Sembia, to wooing certain Waterdhavian nobles at a ball. So long as people are engaged with the RP and using their skills via critial thinking, it works wonders. I wish that was something 5E would've touted on more during development. I know it doesn't look good--as I said, it would make social interactions feel awkward and slow, with all the number trackings and the stopping to roll mid-dialogue. It was an example of a pillar getting a set of mechanics (actually, a subsystem, much like combat gets its own) as support, rather than one roll.
Irennan	Posted - 09 Mar 2020 : 20:29:43 quote: Originally posted by cpthero2 Great Reader Irennan, I don't completely agree with the notion that, quote: OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support)... because the a lot of what you and I, Great Reader Diffan, and many others have recently participated in is talking about the very heady topics of society, behavior, etc.: values, ethics, principles, values, economics, religion in more than a paragraph of dogma, and more. When you go beyond the thin veneer of those topics, it is challenging. I really feel that they could release books on the gods, by god for example, that explains what their religion is and why it is that way. I would get inline for a heady, epic 200 page "bible" on Tyr, etc. I would also really enjoy a philosophy book on the Adama, more than an FR Wiki explanation in one paragraph. It literally will take that kind of lore to make this change from combat intensive to acting/thespian heavier games IMO. Thoughts? Best regards, By mechanical support I don't mean info or lore. It would certainly be interesting to receive more lore about the values and ethics of certain regions, people, and faiths (though remember that this is a game--not everyone wants it to become an academic effort) but we're talking about the game system--the crunch--not the setting or the lore. I tend to decouple the game rules from the setting itself. What I meant is that we don't need a set of "roll X Y times to get Z outcome" kind of rules to run the social aspect of the game.

Candlekeep Forum

Snitz Forums 2000