Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...

[Cam_Banks]

Here's a related question. If you have people playing D&D-style games with extensive amounts of character interaction, NPCs, player-created backgrounds, social adventures, etc, is this a case of people simply not playing the "right" game (since D&D has never really mechanically cleaved to that) or is it people enjoying that particular means of handling those elements without significant rules?

There's a guy I know who revels in the almost complete lack of social/drama/whatever rules in classic whitebox OD&D. He says it frees him and his group up for roleplaying without rules getting in the way. Shouldn't this be a valid play style?

Cheers,
Cam

[Talen Lee]

It is valid but ill-behooves a designer to treat the behaviours of players as excuses for his mistakes. I would not argue that all RPGs need a social system, but if you've put a social system in it, it has to not suck.

[TheChrisWaits]

There's a guy I know who revels in the almost complete lack of social/drama/whatever rules in classic whitebox OD&D. He says it frees him and his group up for roleplaying without rules getting in the way. Shouldn't this be a valid play style?

The thing is, if you spend most of your playtime doing things not in those rules, are you really playing that game?

[veekie]

There's a guy I know who revels in the almost complete lack of social/drama/whatever rules in classic whitebox OD&D. He says it frees him and his group up for roleplaying without rules getting in the way. Shouldn't this be a valid play style?

The thing is, if you spend most of your playtime doing things not in those rules, are you really playing that game?

Well, as I understand it, theres a sizable number of people who are interested in having the game system used to handle the combat part and prefer to roleplay the social component without a conflict resolution system other than their own tongues. For them, the game would be better off not to have any social rules at all, since they get in the way.

If thats how they get their maximum fun, good for them.

[Cam_Banks]

There's a guy I know who revels in the almost complete lack of social/drama/whatever rules in classic whitebox OD&D. He says it frees him and his group up for roleplaying without rules getting in the way. Shouldn't this be a valid play style?

The thing is, if you spend most of your playtime doing things not in those rules, are you really playing that game?

They would argue that yes, they are. Of course, I doubt they spend most of their time doing that; it's D&D, after all. But it's a significant amount of time, and in this case they specifically note the absence of non-combat/action related rules as being a plus.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

No.  Games should be played the way they should be played.  BW does it one way, dnd does it another.  If one is what you are looking for, do that.  DnD focuses on round by round tactical combat.  BW does not.

It's probably just the way I'm parsing it, but that comes across a bit like a notion that a group that emphasizes roleplaying while enmeshed in a DnD game is 'doing it wrong'.  I'm sure that's not the intent, as it butts right up alongside Stormwind Fallacy.

First off Stormwind Fallacy is bad jargon, so say what you mean.   And given that the STF is a rip off of my statement "Just because you make your character well does not mean you will play it poorly" I don't see how it applies.

"Roleplaying" is also bad jargon.  What do you mean specifically?

[Josh]

Here's a related question. If you have people playing D&D-style games with extensive amounts of character interaction, NPCs, player-created backgrounds, social adventures, etc, is this a case of people simply not playing the "right" game (since D&D has never really mechanically cleaved to that) or is it people enjoying that particular means of handling those elements without significant rules?

There's a guy I know who revels in the almost complete lack of social/drama/whatever rules in classic whitebox OD&D. He says it frees him and his group up for roleplaying without rules getting in the way. Shouldn't this be a valid play style?

Is it a valid play style, no.  It is something you can do, but you are "not playing."  In the sense of if you are talking while you are playing cards you a "not playing."  In this situation you are generally doing whatever the GM decides, like it or not.  This is called Fiat and fiat is bad. 

Next, this kind of behavior leads to problems.  People disagree, people bicker and people have problems with the results.  And there is no recourse. 

Can you do this, sure.  Is it a good idea, no.  Does it work sometimes for some people, yes.  Are other systems better at giving people more satisfying experiences, yes. 

[Cam_Banks]

Is it a valid play style, no.  It is something you can do, but you are "not playing."  In the sense of if you are talking while you are playing cards you a "not playing."  In this situation you are generally doing whatever the GM decides, like it or not.  This is called Fiat and fiat is bad.

This is known as playing a role, which is what separated D&D from Chainmail. It isn't like talking during cards. It would be more like acting out the part of a millionaire banker who is buying up large sections of New Jersey while you're playing Monopoly, except that in Monopoly, you're not expected to do that. In RPGs, there's an expectation that you're creating a character with a personality, background, certain ways of talking, and so forth, and this is what these people are doing. They're roleplaying. It's a roleplaying game, it just so happens that there's no explicit rules to control those personalities, certain ways of talking, and so forth, other than perhaps alignment.

Next, this kind of behavior leads to problems.  People disagree, people bicker and people have problems with the results.  And there is no recourse.

Right, there must usually be an implicit sense of trust in the play group. The folks I know who enjoy playing D&D this way all manage to get along very well, because they have established a set of table rules for this.

Mind you, I can also understand that there are groups in which there is friction or disagreement or whatever, and again, you'd probably want to be able to point to somewhere in the rulebook and say "see? it says here X."

I'm curious to hear what others think about this fiat problem, though.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Is it a valid play style, no.  It is something you can do, but you are "not playing."  In the sense of if you are talking while you are playing cards you a "not playing."  In this situation you are generally doing whatever the GM decides, like it or not.  This is called Fiat and fiat is bad.

This is known as playing a role, which is what separated D&D from Chainmail. It isn't like talking during cards. It would be more like acting out the part of a millionaire banker who is buying up large sections of New Jersey while you're playing Monopoly, except that in Monopoly, you're not expected to do that. In RPGs, there's an expectation that you're creating a character with a personality, background, certain ways of talking, and so forth, and this is what these people are doing. They're roleplaying. It's a roleplaying game, it just so happens that there's no explicit rules to control those personalities, certain ways of talking, and so forth, other than perhaps alignment.

That is still not the "game" part of the equation.  Acting and picking what color armor you have is part of the experience, but not part of the "game." 

I don't think you get it.  You DO play a character.  The game and the resolution of the game are handled as they are handled. 

Next, this kind of behavior leads to problems.  People disagree, people bicker and people have problems with the results.  And there is no recourse.

Right, there must usually be an implicit sense of trust in the play group. The folks I know who enjoy playing D&D this way all manage to get along very well, because they have established a set of table rules for this.

Mind you, I can also understand that there are groups in which there is friction or disagreement or whatever, and again, you'd probably want to be able to point to somewhere in the rulebook and say "see? it says here X."

I'm curious to hear what others think about this fiat problem, though.

Trust is a red herring.  This kind of resolution only works when people agree and if you agree what is the point?

This is playing "not DnD."  And if you have systems, then you don't have a lack of systems.  QED. 

I can't speak of your specific case, because I don't know them.  I can tell you that out of the dozens of cases I have seen, they had problems.  And the successes were non-existent.

So on my side is systematic study, logic and common sense.  On the other so far is hearsay.  I'm not saying I'm definitely right, I'm not saying your definitely wrong.  The burden is on you to offer proof.

[Cam_Banks]

That is still not the "game" part of the equation.  Acting and picking what color armor you have is part of the experience, but not part of the "game." 

I don't think you get it.  You DO play a character.  The game and the resolution of the game are handled as they are handled.

It's possible you're hung up on the "game" part of this, where "game" is defined by you as rules set forth in the book. I'm just not sure that this is a universally accepted distinction; I think people have, for three decades and change, been playing games in exactly this way. So, is this not valid? I'm curious as to why it's a problem. 

Trust is a red herring.  This kind of resolution only works when people agree and if you agree what is the point?

What is the point in what? Trust is a great thing in a game group. If you all trust each other to portray your characters in a meaningful sense and don't need a set of specific rules to do so, then you're engaging in a satisfying experience. This could be part of the whole freeform thing an earlier poster was talking about.

I can't speak of your specific case, because I don't know them.  I can tell you that out of the dozens of cases I have seen, they had problems.  And the successes were non-existent.

So on my side is systematic study, logic and common sense.  On the other so far is hearsay.  I'm not saying I'm definitely right, I'm not saying your definitely wrong.  The burden is on you to offer proof.

From what you just said, it's your anecdotal evidence versus mine. And I'm really not interested in that, anyway. I'm more interested in sharing opinions and thoughts about this topic.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

It's possible you're hung up on the "game" part of this, where "game" is defined by you as rules set forth in the book. I'm just not sure that this is a universally accepted distinction; I think people have, for three decades and change, been playing games in exactly this way. So, is this not valid? I'm curious as to why it's a problem. 

The game is the part that has mechanics, book or not.  Length of play is no matter.  I know people who do things wrongly in manufacturing for years. 

Trust is a red herring.  This kind of resolution only works when people agree and if you agree what is the point?

What is the point in what? Trust is a great thing in a game group. If you all trust each other to portray your characters in a meaningful sense and don't need a set of specific rules to do so, then you're engaging in a satisfying experience. This could be part of the whole freeform thing an earlier poster was talking about.

Trust is awesome.  So is pie. And it is as relevant.  Trust does not create non mechanic mechanics.

I am going to remind you that IF we lived in a world where the experience was satisfying you might have a point here.

I can't speak of your specific case, because I don't know them.  I can tell you that out of the dozens of cases I have seen, they had problems.  And the successes were non-existent.

So on my side is systematic study, logic and common sense.  On the other so far is hearsay.  I'm not saying I'm definitely right, I'm not saying your definitely wrong.  The burden is on you to offer proof.

From what you just said, it's your anecdotal evidence versus mine. And I'm really not interested in that, anyway. I'm more interested in sharing opinions and thoughts about this topic.

Of course you are.  Logic and truth don't support the side you arbitrarily choose.  So the best you could hope for is to obfuscate the issue.  Same tactics as Creationists, Holocaust deniers and moon landing hoaxers. 

The real question is are people having fun doing this?  I've seen people with games where they claimed they were having a good time after one of their players got so upset and frustrated that he left. 

So are they having fun?  Are they completely freeform? and Could they be having more fun?  A person interested in knowing the truth asks these questions. 

[Brainpiercing]

[Josh]

Ok, Josh, but it's all a compromise, right?

Heh, no.  Compromise is lose-lose.  You need to think win-win.

Like 8 lp Burning Wheel? 

In my epic D&D group my necromancer has created a little country for himself. In there he has people, industry, mining operations, etc. This SHOULD by all means create some sort of revenue, but in the weird mechanical limitations of D&D this just does not work. That, quite frankly, sucks.

That's because DnD is about adventuring, not running countries.

There is a lot to like in BW, I went through a few things again in my head yesterday. But the setting just isn't what I want. And the mechanics don't at the moment support the kind of setting I want. I have to take a look at the monster burner to see whether I couldn't create a high-power setting, or at least a different setting. But it would be a lot of work, due to the way the rules are set up.

What do you mean by "high powered" 

Honestly the easiest thing I can imagine is just taking mechanics from these games that offer them and integrating them into an AA-game of my choice. Because for instance, D&D HAS all the social stats. I could easily write a DOW for D&D. But it's pretty hard to translate the gazillion sourcebooks of D&D into BW.

And then there is the further problem of PbP: Gamey mechanisms probably work best at a table.

Actually DnD translates into BW easily.  And putting a DoW into DnD is only a start, circles and resources need in as well.

[Talen Lee]

D&D is a game about Killing Shit And Taking Its Stuff. Seriously. If you use D&D for anything more expansive than that, be aware that the game is going to creak at the edges.

Me, I run games about Killing Shit And People Conspicuously Give You A Certain Value Of Stuff Appropriate To Your Wants. The system doesn't like it much and there are times where this fails to handle well (expendables, for example, which really are kinda balanced based on being thrown up by the RNG frequently). But it works. It's fun! I enjoy running it, and the lures of the rest of the system work.

But D&D is not a game designed to handle you doing anything other than permutations of Killing Shit And Taking Its Stuff.

[Brainpiercing]

Heh, no.  Compromise is lose-lose.  You need to think win-win.

That depends on the investment. For new campaigns I fully agree. For existing campaigns I don't. Simply because it'll be FAR too much hassle to translate an existing campaign. (For instance, we wouldn't have the lifepaths to recreate our epic D&D characters. Oh well, I guess we COULD make them.
[spoiler]
Lifepath: Epic Adventurer
Adds an arbitrary number to stats, freely distributable, MUST put at least two stats into the white scale. May put all stats into the white.
Adds an arbitrary number to all skills.
Adds shitloads of resources and magic items.
Time: 30-1000 years
Leads to all positions of power.[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]

Like 8 lp Burning Wheel?

While I can't estimate the scale of mechanical power aquired by this, I don't think it can fit with something like D&D, because D&D's power scale is near exponential, not linear.

What do you mean by "high powered" 

I'm talking about where a single character can take out an army of lower levels. In BW I don't think this works. You only get so many blocks per volley, can you even block more than one attack in the first action? You could just strike all the time, but you'd probably be seriously wounded by second or third volley even with 7D armour. Or maybe I didn't understand how combat vs. several enemies works in BW.

All in all I think it's harder to replicate D&D combat in BW than BW roleplaying mechanics in D&D. But you are at any time free to enlighten me.

D&D is a game about Killing Shit And Taking Its Stuff. Seriously. If you use D&D for anything more expansive than that, be aware that the game is going to creak at the edges.

As long as it only creaks and doesn't fall apart completely I'm generally willing to take that risk. I've changed a lot of the world mechanics (well, ONE mechanic, but as a result a lot of the game world itself) for my campaign on this board. So far I'm not unsatisfied with the results. It still can't deal very well with generating wealth without killing shit and taking its stuff, but I'm closer to that than previously.

[InnaBinder]

No.  Games should be played the way they should be played.  BW does it one way, dnd does it another.  If one is what you are looking for, do that.  DnD focuses on round by round tactical combat.  BW does not.

It's probably just the way I'm parsing it, but that comes across a bit like a notion that a group that emphasizes roleplaying while enmeshed in a DnD game is 'doing it wrong'.  I'm sure that's not the intent, as it butts right up alongside Stormwind Fallacy.

First off Stormwind Fallacy is bad jargon, so say what you mean.   And given that the STF is a rip off of my statement "Just because you make your character well does not mean you will play it poorly" I don't see how it applies.

"Roleplaying" is also bad jargon.  What do you mean specifically?

I'll try.  The way I've been parsing your commentary on this topic, is that people who spend an entire D&D session immersed in in-character dialogue with the high priest Zejomeg ferreting out information on a an ancient curse which is coming to pass are somehow not maximizing their fun.  If they spend their entire session without rolling initiative - or, in some cases, without rolling dice because their skill checks + circumstance bonuses for roleplaying (portraying their character's actions without breaking the 4th wall is my working definition of this use of this term) are unable to be overcome by a high priest disinclined to attack them - I'm reading your comments as saying 'then D&D is not the game they should play'.  It reads to me that people who choose this level of in-character interaction are doing it wrong by playing D&D and not BW.  Even if everyone is enjoying themselves immensely.  Even if they live in Bumphuc, Wyoming, Population 106, where BW would require them to order it unread and unseen from their FLGS clerk, Cletus, because that new-fangled internet thingy hasn't made it out this far yet.

That reading, to me, sounds like saying 'people who prefer an immersive level of RP in their fantasy gaming experience shouldn't play D&D.'  It is not, as I tried to indicate, equivalent to SWF, but it reads as similar to the notion that a character built for tactical round-by-round combat - what you've called D&D's strength - is not built to be played in this way.  I think that's untrue, just as I think it's untrue that you will play a well made character poorly.

[Cam_Banks]

Of course you are.  Logic and truth don't support the side you arbitrarily choose.  So the best you could hope for is to obfuscate the issue.  Same tactics as Creationists, Holocaust deniers and moon landing hoaxers.

Are you sure you want to go there?

The real question is are people having fun doing this?  I've seen people with games where they claimed they were having a good time after one of their players got so upset and frustrated that he left.

I've seen people with games where they claimed they were having a good time and nobody got upset and frustrated and they spent a whole session hardly rolling any dice, too. 

So are they having fun?  Are they completely freeform? and Could they be having more fun?  A person interested in knowing the truth asks these questions.

They are the ones who get to decide this. I think that you can personally only speak to whether you would be having more fun if you were in their seat at the table. You can offer your insights into how you have more fun, and that is more helpful than telling people they're doing it wrong. It is in offering and sharing of insights, observations, etc that you bring value.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Of course you are.  Logic and truth don't support the side you arbitrarily choose.  So the best you could hope for is to obfuscate the issue.  Same tactics as Creationists, Holocaust deniers and moon landing hoaxers.

Are you sure you want to go there?

Are You sure you want to be there?

The real question is are people having fun doing this?  I've seen people with games where they claimed they were having a good time after one of their players got so upset and frustrated that he left.

I've seen people with games where they claimed they were having a good time and nobody got upset and frustrated and they spent a whole session hardly rolling any dice, too.

Have you?  I don't know what you saw, because I was not there. 

I also know you don't know what you saw.  Confirmation bias,  false memory  and such.  Observation is very difficult, and analysis more so.  With the internet I discovered that there are others who figured out the same things as me, and with the internet I found out that no one has any better ideas either.

So are they having fun?  Are they completely freeform? and Could they be having more fun?  A person interested in knowing the truth asks these questions.

They are the ones who get to decide this. I think that you can personally only speak to whether you would be having more fun if you were in their seat at the table. You can offer your insights into how you have more fun, and that is more helpful than telling people they're doing it wrong. It is in offering and sharing of insights, observations, etc that you bring value.

There is no deciding.  People enjoy or do not.  And I(and many others) can tell them how to have more fun.  And they can choose to have more fun or not.

And I always ask "was I right?"  "could I have been better?" Truth is a harsh mistress. 

[Brainpiercing]

Have you?  I don't know what you saw, because I was not there.

I also know you don't know what you saw.  Confirmation bias,  false memory  and such.  Observation is very difficult, and analysis more so. 

That's blatant negativism. Those sessions and those groups do exist. (With whatever games. AND, Mr. Cam_Banks, that won't be a selling point of YOUR game. You can't sell not rolling, at that point you can only sell fluff.) The real problem is though, that it gets old. Because at some point situation resolution, even in those groups, will either become trivial (the players always win) or completely arbitrary (the DM is fed up with the players always winning.) Both of which is, if not bad, then at least not optimal.

And I(and many others) can tell them how to have more fun.

But you still haven't told anybody how to do it better than cherry-picking game mechanics from different games and then finding they won't fit together. (Like a Resources stat in D&D. I once suggested it to the DM of our epic group to simplify the game. Unfortunately though, even with an exponential Resources stat game balance goes out of the window. Actually, it might not even, but he was scared it would. I also didn't correctly think it through.)

[AfterCrescent]

But you still haven't told anybody how to do it better than cherry-picking game mechanics from different games and then finding they won't fit together.

I don't think he's done that for two reasons.

A) This thread is for the arguing of whether there is a reason to not have more fun or not. The BGs are trying to show that if you can find a game that is more fun (whatever you define fun as) then you should play it (assuming costs don't outweigh the benefits).

B) He can't tell everyone how to play a more fun game. He may be able to tell each individual person, but not all of them at the same time. And if you wanted a specific type of fun, I'm sure Josh would offer his opinion if you asked how to have more fun with your idea of fun.