I may be an outiler here, but while combat being a minor part of the overall campaign I want to play I’m incredibly annoyed if its broken or simplistic.
Roleplay never struck me as the kind of thing that needed rules as detailed as combat. Say negotiating with someone in game is already complex enough since you can do nearly anything you can in a real conversation including optimizing body language or having other people to suggest the same idea as you have.
Roleplaying is all about playing a character who is different from yourself. In real life, I can’t wield a two-handed battleaxe (or a shotgun, for that matter). Almost no one can. However, many people can do other things I can’t, such as seducing enemy spies, lying convincingly to a room full of people, or piecing together esoteric knowledge gleaned from ancient texts written in seven dead languages. Therefore, I cannot realistically roleplay a character who does these things.
This is where the rules come in. Instead of “optimizing body language”, which I can’t do in real life, I roll a d20 and add my Charisma modifier along with my Bluff rank. If the result is high enough, then everyone in the room is convinced that I am the Grand Vizier and they should do what I say. This includes the NPCs, who are controlled by the GM, as well as the PCs, who are not convinced in real life, but pretend to be for the purposes of the game.
This way, I can play the character I want to play, who is different than my real-world self—and I can do so fairly, because everyone follows the same rules.
Combat works the same way, except that it can be even more fun if done properly. Of course, if you aren’t a fan of turn-based strategy games such as X-Com or even chess, then you might want to stay away from detailed combat rules and stick to something more cinematic.
Of course, some combat (as well as social) systems are simply way too complicated (f.ex., Rifts and Earthdawn, IMO). I shouldn’t need to consult three different tables just to swing my sword or tell a convincing white lie. But that’s a problem with specific dice systems, not with dice systems as a general category.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I want to see a system that explicitly timeskips combat encounters. Like maybe do fights like Risk, with perhaps charts for who got injured and how badly. Ideally, fighting would be generally bad for all involved.
I’ve always wondered what it would be like to have a timescaled combat system, where you spend as much time playing out combat vs simulated battle time as you would playing out “scenes” vs simulated scene time. Most battle systems work on some assumption that e.g. 1 turn = 3 seconds of “world time”. This system would have similar strategic conscious player-control over outcomes to that of a real fight: very little beyond shifts in intent and the rest just game-simulations of instinct, body movement, applications of martial training, etc.
Throw initial conditions (e.g. initial intent of first action, like “hold ground and overpower incoming enemies” vs “charge and slash at any opening in this enemy’s guard”), plug in training and reflexes and trained reactions for the combatants, compute results, wham, five or ten seconds of combat have elapsed and the computer tells you that you just broke your arm while killing two goblins (possibly generating an epic recounting of your spectacular exploits, à la Dwarf Fortress). Ideally a computer would be doing all the heavy lifting, of course, which implies making software on top of designing rules, which implies way more time and effort than I’ve ever been motivated to put into something like this.
I may be an outiler here, but while combat being a minor part of the overall campaign I want to play I’m incredibly annoyed if its broken or simplistic.
Roleplay never struck me as the kind of thing that needed rules as detailed as combat.
Thanks, this matches my impressions of D&D perfectly but I haven’t actually been able to articulate it before.
In general, a system needs rules for resolving disputes about what is going to happen, and that’s mostly combat. The roleplaying part doesn’t need a ‘system’ at all.
In general, a system needs rules for resolving disputes about what is going to happen, and that’s mostly combat. The roleplaying part doesn’t need a ‘system’ at all.
It bloody well does need a system! It’s just that often the “system” doesn’t take pages of rules, it may be “the Dungeon Master has the last say on everything”, or even not be an implicit assumption.
Some roleplaying systems are made to encourage the players to take a major hand in the world building, especially their character’s relationship to it. Not only “what town does my guy come from”, but also things like “is the mayor of that town a villain?”, “Why did the Gods abandon the world?”, etc. Those aspects are important, especially when you have creative players that want to do that kind of stuff—good rules around that can prevent it from getting out of hand. Check out this for more specific examples.
I may not be disagreeing with you! More like, bouncing off your comment to go on a rant!
But I am disagreeing with the notion that game rules should be essentially about determining the success of the players’ actions (combat, picking locks, climbing walls, seducing the guard); they can also be about collaborative world building and storytelling—not only “what happens?”, but also “what kind of world are we living in?”, “what kind of story is this?”, “What are this guy’s dreams and weaknesses?”.
Framing things as “dispute resolution” may carry the implication that the rules are mostly about disputes between characters (playing and non-playing) - for example, “My guy thinks the Sheriff should publicly resign now that his sins have been brought to light; he thinks he’s not taking any bullshit from nosy strangers”—wham, dispute! You’re going to need rules to handle intimidation, wit, maybe fistfights or gunfights, and maybe even escalation. But a dispute can also be “Bob wants the story to be about a band of outcasts going from town to town looking for thrill and adventure; Joe wants the story to be about the guilt and redemption of a pastor who made some mistakes”—often the “game rules” may not even frame that as a dispute and the resolution will be “The Dungeon master says fuck’em, today’s story is about killing dark elves in the forest and if you try to go muckin’ around the fields you’ll be fighting dark elves anyway!”.
(I checked out SpookyBeans, but didn’t see much in terms of rules, I guess you have to buy it :P)
Aha. SpookyBeans used to be a 1-page download. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely simplistic and flexible, and is more about disputes between players rather than characters, like the kind you mentioned. Basically, anything can happen if anyone says it happens, and then the rules come into play when people disagree about what happens.
I agree that meta-level disputes about “what the story should be about” and such are outside the scope of the D&D rules. But I still haven’t seen anything that addresses those better than “have the players work that out somehow”.
I may be an outiler here, but while combat being a minor part of the overall campaign I want to play I’m incredibly annoyed if its broken or simplistic.
Roleplay never struck me as the kind of thing that needed rules as detailed as combat. Say negotiating with someone in game is already complex enough since you can do nearly anything you can in a real conversation including optimizing body language or having other people to suggest the same idea as you have.
I disagree—up to a point.
Roleplaying is all about playing a character who is different from yourself. In real life, I can’t wield a two-handed battleaxe (or a shotgun, for that matter). Almost no one can. However, many people can do other things I can’t, such as seducing enemy spies, lying convincingly to a room full of people, or piecing together esoteric knowledge gleaned from ancient texts written in seven dead languages. Therefore, I cannot realistically roleplay a character who does these things.
This is where the rules come in. Instead of “optimizing body language”, which I can’t do in real life, I roll a d20 and add my Charisma modifier along with my Bluff rank. If the result is high enough, then everyone in the room is convinced that I am the Grand Vizier and they should do what I say. This includes the NPCs, who are controlled by the GM, as well as the PCs, who are not convinced in real life, but pretend to be for the purposes of the game.
This way, I can play the character I want to play, who is different than my real-world self—and I can do so fairly, because everyone follows the same rules.
Combat works the same way, except that it can be even more fun if done properly. Of course, if you aren’t a fan of turn-based strategy games such as X-Com or even chess, then you might want to stay away from detailed combat rules and stick to something more cinematic.
Of course, some combat (as well as social) systems are simply way too complicated (f.ex., Rifts and Earthdawn, IMO). I shouldn’t need to consult three different tables just to swing my sword or tell a convincing white lie. But that’s a problem with specific dice systems, not with dice systems as a general category.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I want to see a system that explicitly timeskips combat encounters. Like maybe do fights like Risk, with perhaps charts for who got injured and how badly. Ideally, fighting would be generally bad for all involved.
I’ve always wondered what it would be like to have a timescaled combat system, where you spend as much time playing out combat vs simulated battle time as you would playing out “scenes” vs simulated scene time. Most battle systems work on some assumption that e.g. 1 turn = 3 seconds of “world time”. This system would have similar strategic conscious player-control over outcomes to that of a real fight: very little beyond shifts in intent and the rest just game-simulations of instinct, body movement, applications of martial training, etc.
Throw initial conditions (e.g. initial intent of first action, like “hold ground and overpower incoming enemies” vs “charge and slash at any opening in this enemy’s guard”), plug in training and reflexes and trained reactions for the combatants, compute results, wham, five or ten seconds of combat have elapsed and the computer tells you that you just broke your arm while killing two goblins (possibly generating an epic recounting of your spectacular exploits, à la Dwarf Fortress). Ideally a computer would be doing all the heavy lifting, of course, which implies making software on top of designing rules, which implies way more time and effort than I’ve ever been motivated to put into something like this.
Thanks, this matches my impressions of D&D perfectly but I haven’t actually been able to articulate it before.
In general, a system needs rules for resolving disputes about what is going to happen, and that’s mostly combat. The roleplaying part doesn’t need a ‘system’ at all.
It bloody well does need a system! It’s just that often the “system” doesn’t take pages of rules, it may be “the Dungeon Master has the last say on everything”, or even not be an implicit assumption.
Some roleplaying systems are made to encourage the players to take a major hand in the world building, especially their character’s relationship to it. Not only “what town does my guy come from”, but also things like “is the mayor of that town a villain?”, “Why did the Gods abandon the world?”, etc. Those aspects are important, especially when you have creative players that want to do that kind of stuff—good rules around that can prevent it from getting out of hand. Check out this for more specific examples.
It doesn’t sound like you’re actually disagreeing with me. I said:
The concept of the Dungeon Master having “last say” doesn’t even come into question until there’s a dispute.
See also SpookyBeans, which nicely refines all dispute resolution into a single mechanism.
I may not be disagreeing with you! More like, bouncing off your comment to go on a rant!
But I am disagreeing with the notion that game rules should be essentially about determining the success of the players’ actions (combat, picking locks, climbing walls, seducing the guard); they can also be about collaborative world building and storytelling—not only “what happens?”, but also “what kind of world are we living in?”, “what kind of story is this?”, “What are this guy’s dreams and weaknesses?”.
Framing things as “dispute resolution” may carry the implication that the rules are mostly about disputes between characters (playing and non-playing) - for example, “My guy thinks the Sheriff should publicly resign now that his sins have been brought to light; he thinks he’s not taking any bullshit from nosy strangers”—wham, dispute! You’re going to need rules to handle intimidation, wit, maybe fistfights or gunfights, and maybe even escalation. But a dispute can also be “Bob wants the story to be about a band of outcasts going from town to town looking for thrill and adventure; Joe wants the story to be about the guilt and redemption of a pastor who made some mistakes”—often the “game rules” may not even frame that as a dispute and the resolution will be “The Dungeon master says fuck’em, today’s story is about killing dark elves in the forest and if you try to go muckin’ around the fields you’ll be fighting dark elves anyway!”.
(I checked out SpookyBeans, but didn’t see much in terms of rules, I guess you have to buy it :P)
Aha. SpookyBeans used to be a 1-page download. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely simplistic and flexible, and is more about disputes between players rather than characters, like the kind you mentioned. Basically, anything can happen if anyone says it happens, and then the rules come into play when people disagree about what happens.
I agree that meta-level disputes about “what the story should be about” and such are outside the scope of the D&D rules. But I still haven’t seen anything that addresses those better than “have the players work that out somehow”.
THANK you. Role-playing theory is awesome.