I have to concur with that. playing an addaptation of Worlds largest dungeon - exploring can be a real pain. A description of the corridor beats the otherwise madatory exact measurements
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html "Signature in a box"Show
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.
Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment. Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
XDMC 19 (silver): A full fledged assassins guild (with stats, skill challenges, ...)link XDMC 14 (Bronze): a one shot campaign for beginning DMs/players. link XDMC 16: Paragon path: the Epitome: being better then all then any one else. link (note: this is balanced) XDMC 25: The Gelatinous Cube mount Guide To Disreality: a collection of houserules - Introduction & table of content
Best non-combat setting i've ever playd in is World of Darkness. Recommend it to all roleplayers.
It's made for a real-world supernatural investigation horror campaigns, but the rules also cover medival heroes such as those in fantasy games like DnD
Best non-combat setting i've ever playd in is World of Darkness. Recommend it to all roleplayers.
It's made for a real-world supernatural investigation horror campaigns, but the rules also cover medival heroes such as those in fantasy games like DnD
And (perhaps) odly, it contains quite the balanced combat system. (For example, damage is dependant on Strength - even for guns*)
If you look at it, WoD only has 24 skills**. 4E has 17*** skills, but compared DnD doesn't require at least 5 of them of them (3 weapon skills, science, computer).
And though I don't have my books here ... IIRC for each skill in WoD there's pretty much no rules to use the skills, except for the painfully obvious ones. (how to jump using athletics, how to persude using persuasion, etc ...)
___________________ *: more powerful guns require more strength - to compensate for recoil. More stength = able to wield more powerful gun = More damage. **: Academics, Computer, Crafts, Investigation, Medicine, Occult, Politics, Science , Athletics, Brawl, Drive, Firearms, Larceny, Stealth, Survival, Weaponry, Animal Ken, Empathy, Expression, Intimidation, Persuasion, Socialize, Streetwise, Subterfuge) *** Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, History, Insight, Intimidate, Nature, Perception, Religion, Stealth, Streetwise and Thievery
Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html "Signature in a box"Show
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.
Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment. Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
XDMC 19 (silver): A full fledged assassins guild (with stats, skill challenges, ...)link XDMC 14 (Bronze): a one shot campaign for beginning DMs/players. link XDMC 16: Paragon path: the Epitome: being better then all then any one else. link (note: this is balanced) XDMC 25: The Gelatinous Cube mount Guide To Disreality: a collection of houserules - Introduction & table of content
I am sympethic to the idea that D&D should contain rules for all kinds of other stuff. In the end, an RPG is product and I'm paying for the concrete things it gives me: rules, artwork, flavor text and organization. I am not paying for the ephemeral things it it does not give me or vaguely suggests to me. The fact that one can use freeform or virtual coin flips to resolve things that the rules don't cover is true, but its universally true for any game, roleplaying or not.
Mechanics are in and of themselves fun. We don't use them in an RPG to decide who won the fight. If that's all we wanted to know, we could flip a coin or roll on a table. We use them because process is interesting and fun. When you get into a fight in an RPG, you get to play a fun game. Why shouldn't you get to play a fun game too when your character does other things? Why is freeform sufficient now when we just spent an hour using ultra-heavy mechanics to beat up some orcs? Why don't we just page 42 or skill roll the entire combat encounter?
Whether or not the game SHOULD include certain rules is a different issue, but the desire to have them is completely natural. Its not an issue of the game needing to validate that your character did something. Its an issue of you getting some added value out of your game when your character does something. That, in a roleplaying game, what you roleplay actually means something to the game, not just the narrative (which it would have regardless of if you were even playing a game at all).
My suggestions on this issue are to either reflavor the combat mechanics and use them for everything or build a collection of various games and insert them to represent various tasks.
Edit: I'm avoiding this topic all together from now on. After reading the post above mine I've concluded that some people are insane and just want mechanics to have mechanics whether or not they are actually meaningful.
The above is the post the latter is referring to. Certain mechanics may not be meaningful to you, but they certainly are for others. The great divide of 4th edition haters and 4th edition lovers should be enough to prove that. Including thorough mechanics that create a complete game for the sake of addressing different play styles could have done more to bring players back (or kept them to begin with) than essentials did. What kind of mechanics do I want? I don't know, i'm not a game designer. I just know what I like and what I don't. 4th edition is great at what it does. Sadly it's lacking to a lot of people. I see a lot of new games gaining steam because of the percieved "ball drop" that 4th edition is responsible for. There is a ton of innovation going on in the industry and D&D decided to focus on one aspect of table-top RPGs, do it well, and tack on page 42 for everything else. That's pretty much what 4th edition is. It's the evocation specialist wizard of the industry. Personally, I like generalist wizard better as there are times I don't have uses for a fireball.
When you get so vague, it's hard to actually discuss something. No game system can do everything. Or rather, they can't do everything and expect to succeed. This goes back to my square peg/round hole. If you don't like what a particular system does, then it might just not be a match. It's not a failure of D&D for it to not have rules for being a shopkeep or housewife. Maybe someone really wants that game. That not being this game is not a poor reflection on it.
Other things that can be considered part of the game will never be done the way people want them to. This could easily be my ignorance talking, but I've not yet been made aware of a system that does social interactions in a particular engaging, complex, and sytemic way. Beyond the kind of thing where one player sets up another player's actions, like in a bad cop good cop routine, which is handled just fine with assists and skill checks. I can't fathom an equivalent for flanking rules or weapon die in those scenarios that wouldn't take people out of why they actually like those parts.
The funny part is, WoD games can be just as combat-heavy and RP light as any other RPG. The reason they typically aren't? The presentation. Everything about the WoD books screams "this is a roleplay-heavy game". Combat is mentioned basically as a culmination of RP efforts (especially in Hunter and, to a similar degree, Werewolf), and not stressed that much. Pages upon pages of fluff-blocks, fiction, eye-witness accounts, and so on fill the WoD books. They drive home the point that it is first and foremost a roleplaying/storytelling game to a degree that most other RPGs don't even come close to.
Pick up pretty much any WoD book, and the first thing you'll flip to is a several-page story that contains not one single game mechanic. At the start of many chapters are exerpts and quotes that likewise don't contain any rules. The story is shoved to the foreground as forcefully as possible, and combat takes a back seat. This is not to say the combat rules are lacking or badly done. Quite the contrary, actually. I find them to be well thought-out, easy to learn, and lace themselves into the story with a good fluidity.
It does make me wonder if D&D had taken the same approach if people would see it differently than they do now. Now please don't get me wrong...D&D can be chock full of RP and combat can be something that only happens every now and then, much like the WoD games go. I'm a true-to-heart RPer, and wouldn't have it any other way. When I DM, my D&D games have just as much (if not significantly more) RP than combat. Don't think that I am slighting D&D's ability to foster RP. The presentation, however, is that of a combat game that you can RP in if you want to. And yes, I realize that D&D evolved from miniature combat games, has always been about "kill/loot/repeat" and all that. I get that. My personal take on it, however, is that if you're going to market a roleplaying game that you want people to take seriously as a roleplaying game, then it should be presented as a roleplaying game. WoD does not, in and of itself, lend itself to RP any more than D&D does. It just doesn't. The presentation, however, makes all the difference. In WoD, you have to forceably overlook the RP elements to focus on the combat. In D&D (4E, especially), you have to forceably overlook the combat elements to focus on the RP. Again, it's all in the presentation. This is simply my opinion, of course, and in the end doesn't amount to a hill of beans. D&D is what it is.
The funny part is, WoD games can be just as combat-heavy and RP light as any other RPG. The reason they typically aren't? The presentation. Everything about the WoD books screams "this is a roleplay-heavy game". Combat is mentioned basically as a culmination of RP efforts (especially in Hunter and, to a similar degree, Werewolf), and not stressed that much. Pages upon pages of fluff-blocks, fiction, eye-witness accounts, and so on fill the WoD books. They drive home the point that it is first and foremost a roleplaying/storytelling game to a degree that most other RPGs don't even come close to.
Pick up pretty much any WoD book, and the first thing you'll flip to is a several-page story that contains not one single game mechanic. At the start of many chapters are exerpts and quotes that likewise don't contain any rules. The story is shoved to the foreground as forcefully as possible, and combat takes a back seat. This is not to say the combat rules are lacking or badly done. Quite the contrary, actually. I find them to be well thought-out, easy to learn, and lace themselves into the story with a good fluidity.
It does make me wonder if D&D had taken the same approach if people would see it differently than they do now. Now please don't get me wrong...D&D can be chock full of RP and combat can be something that only happens every now and then, much like the WoD games go. I'm a true-to-heart RPer, and wouldn't have it any other way. When I DM, my D&D games have just as much (if not significantly more) RP than combat. Don't think that I am slighting D&D's ability to foster RP. The presentation, however, is that of a combat game that you can RP in if you want to. And yes, I realize that D&D evolved from miniature combat games, has always been about "kill/loot/repeat" and all that. I get that. My personal take on it, however, is that if you're going to market a roleplaying game that you want people to take seriously as a roleplaying game, then it should be presented as a roleplaying game. WoD does not, in and of itself, lend itself to RP any more than D&D does. It just doesn't. The presentation, however, makes all the difference. In WoD, you have to forceably overlook the RP elements to focus on the combat. In D&D (4E, especially), you have to forceably overlook the combat elements to focus on the RP. Again, it's all in the presentation. This is simply my opinion, of course, and in the end doesn't amount to a hill of beans. D&D is what it is.
Very good point though, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
The funny part is, WoD games can be just as combat-heavy and RP light as any other RPG. The reason they typically aren't? The presentation. Everything about the WoD books screams "this is a roleplay-heavy game". Combat is mentioned basically as a culmination of RP efforts (especially in Hunter and, to a similar degree, Werewolf), and not stressed that much. Pages upon pages of fluff-blocks, fiction, eye-witness accounts, and so on fill the WoD books. They drive home the point that it is first and foremost a roleplaying/storytelling game to a degree that most other RPGs don't even come close to.
Pick up pretty much any WoD book, and the first thing you'll flip to is a several-page story that contains not one single game mechanic. At the start of many chapters are exerpts and quotes that likewise don't contain any rules. The story is shoved to the foreground as forcefully as possible, and combat takes a back seat. This is not to say the combat rules are lacking or badly done. Quite the contrary, actually. I find them to be well thought-out, easy to learn, and lace themselves into the story with a good fluidity.
It does make me wonder if D&D had taken the same approach if people would see it differently than they do now. Now please don't get me wrong...D&D can be chock full of RP and combat can be something that only happens every now and then, much like the WoD games go. I'm a true-to-heart RPer, and wouldn't have it any other way. When I DM, my D&D games have just as much (if not significantly more) RP than combat. Don't think that I am slighting D&D's ability to foster RP. The presentation, however, is that of a combat game that you can RP in if you want to. And yes, I realize that D&D evolved from miniature combat games, has always been about "kill/loot/repeat" and all that. I get that. My personal take on it, however, is that if you're going to market a roleplaying game that you want people to take seriously as a roleplaying game, then it should be presented as a roleplaying game. WoD does not, in and of itself, lend itself to RP any more than D&D does. It just doesn't. The presentation, however, makes all the difference. In WoD, you have to forceably overlook the RP elements to focus on the combat. In D&D (4E, especially), you have to forceably overlook the combat elements to focus on the RP. Again, it's all in the presentation. This is simply my opinion, of course, and in the end doesn't amount to a hill of beans. D&D is what it is.
There's a huge difference between WoD and D&D however. WoD is a setting with some game mechanics tacked on so you can run it. Those mechanics are so deeply embedded in the setting material it is almost impossible to extricate them, and frankly they're not all that facile at dealing with any kind of story concept that doesn't fit within the WoD paradigm. That's fine, WoD never pretended to be a system where you would home brew your own setting or make characters that weren't very tightly integrated to the conceits of that setting. D&D is an entirely different kind of game. It certainly isn't a universal game like GURPS is, but it has a MUCH broader range of applicability than WoD. It doesn't assume any specific setting, and only a very general type of genre, nor does it dictate theme or tone of the game, etc. 4e is a toolbox, not a setting.
Also, I think if you read through your PHB again you'll also find that there is a pretty decent chunk of discussion about RP and characterization, etc. Each race and class description outlines possible character concepts for that race/class, suggests names, complementary mechanics, etc. The first 2 chapters spend quite a bit of time discussing RP and giving examples. Certainly it isn't like the presentation of WoD. OTOH it isn't trying to establish a fixed type of game either. In fact some of the reason it doesn't contain long chunks of narrative and such is because it is trying to AVOID pigeonholing the game.
I'd finally observe once again that, while WoD had its moment in the Sun, D&D has pretty faithfully stuck to its guns on being a general non-specific fantasy adventure RPG. D&D is vastly preferred if sales and community are any indication. WoD, for all its adept world construction, has faded. I'd point out that most such niche setting specific games eventually do fade. The specific cultural mileu that they speak to eventually becomes dated, etc. D&D and other games like it (I'd point to Traveller as a good example) don't suffer from this issue. They may wax and wane with the general popularity of TTRPGs, but D&D and Traveller have remained from the very earliest days of RPGs as the dominant games in their genre, and I'd propose that the reason is that they DON'T tie themselves down and can be rather heavily reimagined without losing their identities.
I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm not suggesting D&D become WoD in its presentation by pigeonholing the way they devs think everyone should play the game (which they most certainly do, but in other, more subtle and mechanical ways). All I was getting at is that perhaps if more fluff/flavor text were pushed to forefront it might make a difference. Yes, there are tiny blocks of RP suggestions that accompany races and classes. No doubt about that. And yes, near the beginning of the book it states "This is a rolepaying game". Now you know as well as I do that 4E took the crunch-over-fluff approach. This is obvious in almost every 4E prodcut released so far, with the main exceptions being the campaign books, draconomicon, and a select few others, none of which are required to play the game. With WoD, on the other hand, even the core rulebook is stuffed full of storyline potential.
The writers of WoD are not saying "You must play THIS way or you'll break the game", however. What they give are suggestions just like the fluff suggestions of D&D. They simply shove it more to the front of the game than D&D does (or ever did). I'm not saying this is either a good thing or a bad thing. That's for each individual to decide. It is hard to argue, though, that WoD can be seen by the casual observer as anything other than a story-driven game. It was quite intentional in its design. How many new players come to these very boards asking about the RP qualities of D&D? Several. So many of the complaints we see every day around here concern "combat over RP". Yes, 99% of them are baseless and made by folks who are either prejudice against the system or just want to cause trouble, but if the presentation of D&D was more story-driven than rules-driven, it might make it a lot harder for the casual observer to see it as something other than a combat game.
