Community

Oct 2, 2011 -- 2:22PM, XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:

Now I said earlier that in my opinion 3.5 is a better system with regards to combat and I am going to share why I think this.  Years ago I ran a pure role playing non-combat game using the D&D 3.5 rules.  The class that everyone could choose from was the Aristocrat, Expert and Noble (Dragonlance Campaign Setting Book).  Now, while these classes do have minor combat abilities they wouldn't be missed if they were never used.  Also, I do understand that two of those classes are NPC classes but in all honesty they are no different than PC classes.  Now in the game I ran the PC's all had professions and were in the same city.  The whole game was nothing but role playing and using their skills.  There was tons of intrigue, suspense, comedy and a whole lot of other things going on.  The PC's used their skills and Professions to make money because there was no adventuring going on.  In the end it was a very very enjoyable and different game.

Now what this did was it allowed us to not only role play but to actually feel like we were still using the system because we actually were even though there was no fighting going on.  My player's didn't feel at all cheated when there was no combat because they didn't have tons of combat abilities going to waste in the background.

other then the Profession skill and ability-less classes, what in that paragraph shows 3.5's greater ability to RP? all i see here is "3.5 is great for roleplaying because we can play characters with no abilities (i have no clue what the noble class is) and we can roll profession checks."

i would like to see what you're looking at, but i'm seeing nothing.

you're way too hung up on assigning numbers to everything Xun, especially when the numbers it does generate usually only matters on a micromanging scale. i simply don't see how "i roll an 11 on profession + my 9 bonus, i make 10GP this week" makes for better RP when coupled with "i can't fight worth a darn".

the only line that mattered "There was tons of intrigue, suspense, comedy and a whole lot of other things going on" relies far more on the group's mindset then the edition. bravo if you have a group that's into that sort of thing...

now the important thing you have to remember Xun is this:

combat doesn't kill roleplay. combat is a constant state of tension and flux where "bad stuff" can happen on a moment's notice.

one of the big reasons people like using combat (other then, and let's all admit it, it's fun to bash in a few goblin skulls every now and then) is because combat is a quick source of instant conflict. there is little better way to grab someone's attention then adding conflict.

note that i am talking about conflict in the narrative sense.

this is when the best, IMO, RP happens.

the same way that i'm sure you didn't go "alright guys, week 1, roll profession. week 2, roll profession. week 3, roll profession, week 4 roll profession. remove a month's worth of food and taxes from your total.

HOORAY ROLEPLAY"

no, i'm sure you framed various situations for the characters to react to, either because of their own willing actions or in response to something an NPC did.

you created conflict, ie: tension.

combat is the very same way. 5 orcs in a 40x30 room in itself does about as much as "roll profession" to create any sort of conflict or narrative, it relies entirely on:

A) the GM to place something there that conflicts or works towards with the PCs' goals
B) the Players to be willing to invest into the character as a character, rather then a pile of numbers.

if of those 5 orcs, one of them is "Hewn-Tusk the Foul" the man who killed the father of Jhonas, expect some sort back-and-forth between the PCs and the NPC before, during and after combat... if that's what they're interested in.

neither ability-less classes nor profession checks do anything to foster more RP if the players didn't want to RP to begin with.

i just don't see it.