D&D, a role-playing and ....strategy game??

[paurpg]

I have the feeling that alot of people play D&D (myself included) as if it were a strategy/role-playing game whereas the core idea was for it to be a role-playing game. Obviously it is full of strategy elements, but as all the discussions about unbalanced classes, broken rules and cheap builds show, people really feel (myself included) as if the game shouldve been built like a really complex strategy game and tested for balance like most strategy games are. On the other hand, as a fan of strategy games including pc games and board games both classic and new, I realize that making an interesting, balanced and fun strategy game is quite a challenge, and if you add to that the complexity of D&D, it looks like quite a challenge. Just my 2 cents.

[Grinner]

Everyone has their reasons for playing.

D&D caters to all of them.

[Amphetryon]

Basically, the only wrong way to play is the way that is at odds with the rest of your group, or that prevents folks at your table from having fun. There are better character choices and worse character choices, but the better ones only lead to an actually better experience when everyone's using similar options. Having the most amazing character or consistently superior tactics won't automatically ensure that you or your friends have a good time, and that's really the goal.

[paurpg]

I guess what I'm saying is that it might have been better if D&D would have been designed keeping the strategy element in mind.

[Eldest]

I guess what I'm saying is that it might have been better if D&D would have been designed keeping the strategy element in mind.

A better thing would be to say that more exhaustive testing would have been a good idea, which I (at least) agree with. The game originated as a strategy game, and 4th edition was made with the intention of strategy and balance being first, so have you looked at it?

[ericgrau]

It's more like a strategy game with the twist that you only control 1 person. That's the real change D&D added to its strategy game roots. Getting personal with that character was a bonus though.

I'd say if you wanted to focus more on the roleplaying then the issue is that D&D is too rules heavy, and new editions only worsened that. Even when rules got cut the focus on them often increased, in that it became harder to do anything else other than a few specific options.

For example if I wanted a more flexible yet rules light system I might make a lot of things straight ability checks with DCs that the DM sets on the fly with DC 0/5/10/15/20 representing "routine"/"commoner"/"professional"/"legendary"/"impossible". There might be a table of common examples but it wouldn't cover everything.

[paurpg]

I personally feel that d&d is very rules heavy, but I guess if you know the rules very well that's less of a problem. I haven't tried 4e though I've seen many complaints about it.
D&D is marketed as a role-playing game though, not a strategy game. I went to the d&D official page and they say that historically it comes from the wargame tradition, which makes sense but I'm guessing since D&D then tried to expand from that root to cover all types of social situations, magic and so on it got sort of complicated. It probably would've looked very different though if instead of being based on wargames it wouldve been based on a different type of strategy game though.

[Alefiend]

I would say it only looks that way, OP.

You can create a rules framework for roleplay, but there's too much diversity in plots and interactions to do more than swap anecdotes when we talk about it. Success depends on creativity and empathy. To discuss roleplaying techniques is to try and host acting classes on a forum, or to have threads composed of, "...and then I said ..." which would pretty much suck.

On the other hand, combat and and adventuring are a bit more straightforward and mechanical. A well-designed character can survive the physical dangers of adventuring, which allows continued roleplay of that character, whether through in-party interaction, or in social settings.

We build effective characters to deal with the mechanical issues of the game, but we relish the roleplaying by trying to get inside the character's head.

[eggs]

I don't understand this thread.
D&D always was a strategy game.
Look at Chainmail, look at all the grids in Players' Options/3.5, look at 4e.
It was always designed to work as a strategy game.
It just wasn't designed perfectly.

[Gwendol]

Well, sometimes the characters aren't in combat, which accounts for the most of the roleplaying.

[Toy Killer]

If you feel that it's too much of a strategy game, try making a closed setting social game. (I think cityscape and Complete Scoundrel could help with that) one where combat is seldom and devastating.

I think everyone has had a session or two where character sheets weren't even brought out, just because the 'adventure' was primarily social. Just about every investigative 'murder mystery' adventure out there can be done without combat, it's just peppered in for people's taste.

if you don't like the taste, you can easily take it out.

[Amphetryon]

If you feel that it's too much of a strategy game, try making a closed setting social game. (I think cityscape and Complete Scoundrel could help with that) one where combat is seldom and devastating.

I think everyone has had a session or two where character sheets weren't even brought out, just because the 'adventure' was primarily social. Just about every investigative 'murder mystery' adventure out there can be done without combat, it's just peppered in for people's taste.

if you don't like the taste, you can easily take it out.If the adventure is primarily social AND you're not referencing character sheets, you're ignoring CHA skills and the investment therein. I, for one, would be annoyed if I built a character for social encounters and my build choices were less important than my own eloquence.

[Sutremaine]

I personally feel that d&d is very rules heavy, but I guess if you know the rules very well that's less of a problem.
I don't really have a problem with having a lot of rules in the base game. It means that either everyone is on the same page or can get access to that metaphorical page, and if the DM then says 'we're not doing these things' players are more likely to know what those things are. Diplomacy skill aside (because it's very much one of 'these things'), it's much easier to allocate skill points when you know that DCs are going to be consistent from game to game without DM intervention.

Also, you totally can roleplay in combat. It's easier in PbP, but word choice works too if you're quick enough at finding the one with the right connotations.

[Toy Killer]

If the adventure is primarily social AND you're not referencing character sheets, you're ignoring CHA skills and the investment therein. I, for one, would be annoyed if I built a character for social encounters and my build choices were less important than my own eloquence.

Touche, but not what I meant. I meant it figuratively, as in tracking out HP, AC and BAB and such fun stuff, though combat related. But, I understand the ambiguity, and thanks for pointing that out so I could clear it up. :smallbiggrin:

[bloodtide]

I have the feeling that alot of people play D&D (myself included) as if it were a strategy/role-playing game whereas the core idea was for it to be a role-playing game. Obviously it is full of strategy elements, but as all the discussions about unbalanced classes, broken rules and cheap builds show, people really feel (myself included) as if the game shouldve been built like a really complex strategy game and tested for balance like most strategy games are. On the other hand, as a fan of strategy games including pc games and board games both classic and new, I realize that making an interesting, balanced and fun strategy game is quite a challenge, and if you add to that the complexity of D&D, it looks like quite a challenge. Just my 2 cents.

It's worse then this though.

D&D was created around the idea of a fun role-playing game, with the idea that you would have fun playing a role with some rules to cover some things.

But a lot of players see D&D as a roll-playing game that is all about them building a super character using the rules, showing off, beating everyone else and Winning the game!

Strategy is not quite the right word for this type of player. They are not using strategy, they are just reading the rules. And most often they are outright cheating, or at the very least bending a couple rules.

[Aegis013]

It's worse then this though.

D&D was created around the idea of a fun role-playing game, with the idea that you would have fun playing a role with some rules to cover some things.

But a lot of players see D&D as a roll-playing game that is all about them building a super character using the rules, showing off, beating everyone else and Winning the game!

Strategy is not quite the right word for this type of player. They are not using strategy, they are just reading the rules. And most often they are outright cheating, or at the very least bending a couple rules.

Unless those players are specifically being munchkins (lying about dice rolls, and things like that), it's not uncommon they're simply misinterpreting or misunderstanding the rules simply because they don't know better, or they thought it said X but it actually said Y. Things of that nature. I know I've accidentally built a character idea around a mechanic I didn't fully understand and had it pointed out to me later that it didn't work. That kind of thing just happens.

However making a character mechanically strong doesn't facilitate or exclude roleplaying. I think the belief that mechanical optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive is often called the Stormwind Fallacy.

As far as "roll-playing" goes, it does have its purpose and place. Some people would like be the party face every once in awhile, but they in reality simply don't have the skills to make up an eloquent speech to convince the king that their party needs some royal funding for the sake of the kingdom (random example). In situations like those, being able to just throw a die for a diplomacy check and say "I say something about needing royal funding, it's for the sake of the kingdom or something like that." is much more conducive to a fun a experience for the player in question.

[Amphetryon]

And most often they are outright cheating, or at the very least bending a couple rules.
Hate to do this, but citation needed. If you're going to claim that "most often" characters built "reading the rules" are "outright cheating", I'm going to ask to see the research that brought you to that conclusion.

[eggs]

Just look at where D&D places the weight of its gameplay - swindling the corpulent baron and his cadre of advisers takes maybe a minute of RL time and one or two opposed dice rolls, while wrestling the baron's bear circus takes at least fifteen minutes and a couple dozen dice. Look where the game-based decisions are (the mechanical involvement in the social setting is looking for a circumstance bonus, and getting it, while the mechanical involvement in the strategic wargame is much deeper - looking for those circumstance bonuses, and tactical benefits of higher ground, charges or flanking, avoiding negative status conditions and positional disadvantages).

D&D is designed to breeze through rules in noncombat situations and to prolong combat situations. It can be played as a freeform social game, but that's hardly what it's designed for, and it's a type of play that the system often interrupts (all it takes is one surprisingly high or low roll to separate the game's fiction from its mechanical outcomes - and a d20 is a big die filled with surprisingly high and low values).

You can roleplay in D&D just fine, but the real point of the game is the wargame. If the wargame isn't your cup of tea, I'd recommend dropping D&D/d20 in favor of something less obtrusive.

[bloodtide]

Hate to do this, but citation needed. If you're going to claim that "most often" characters built "reading the rules" are "outright cheating", I'm going to ask to see the research that brought you to that conclusion.

Exhibit A is simply point builds. To pick your ability scores so that you get exactly what you want is bending the rules. It makes the numbers pointless when everyone will always have high scores. Not every character must have a 20+ in their primary ability. You can play a wizard with an intelligence of 12.

Exhibit B is simply when the player makes their own rulings on rules. Does that Fast Thinker feat of +2 initiative stack with Improved Initiative +4 to make +6, well, of course the player says 'yes'. This is the same way the player does things like find something in a book that says something vague like 'doubles your spellcasting' and then says 'oh that means I get to spells each'.

Next we have all the stuff that the player simply tries to slide past the DM. Like they are a spellcaster with a large shield and a weapon. They say 'oh, tee hee, i'll put my weapon away before I cast a spell', but once the game starts they simply automatically switch from weapon to spell any time they want to, even between rounds when they would have no chance to put the weapon away.

[paurpg]

I do like combat based d&d, and ive read a bunch of valid points. I just wanted to point out that if you go to the official d&d page, it says D&D is a fantasy role-playing game, and that the essence of it is story-telling. (They do mention it's historical origins as coming from the wargame world, but the way the put it, it is something else than a wargame).
And it's not that I think that D&D is too much of a strategy game, I love strategy games and I am or have been an avid player of all types of strategy games including chess, go, risk, agricola, civilizations, magic the gathering, to name my favorites. But as someone pointed out, if someone were to play D&D strictly as a strategy game, it is certainly lacking. Since there are a huge amount of classes, items, and rules, it might seem deeper than it really is, but strategically it basically comes down to "reading the rules" as someone else pointed out. I'm really just trying to be constructive when I say that since there are so many people who need and enjoy the strategy element in D&D, along with the fantasy role-playing, maybe the mechanics of the gameplay of D&D could find inspiration in the wider world of strategy games.

[Amphetryon]

Exhibit A is simply point builds. To pick your ability scores so that you get exactly what you want is bending the rules. It makes the numbers pointless when everyone will always have high scores. Not every character must have a 20+ in their primary ability. You can play a wizard with an intelligence of 12.

Exhibit B is simply when the player makes their own rulings on rules. Does that Fast Thinker feat of +2 initiative stack with Improved Initiative +4 to make +6, well, of course the player says 'yes'. This is the same way the player does things like find something in a book that says something vague like 'doubles your spellcasting' and then says 'oh that means I get to spells each'.

Next we have all the stuff that the player simply tries to slide past the DM. Like they are a spellcaster with a large shield and a weapon. They say 'oh, tee hee, i'll put my weapon away before I cast a spell', but once the game starts they simply automatically switch from weapon to spell any time they want to, even between rounds when they would have no chance to put the weapon away.
Point buy is explicitly allowed within the rules, within the DMG. Calling something explicitly allowed within the rules "bending" the rules is simply wrong on its face.

As to the second point, the type of bonus is also expressly spelled out with feats; the cheating you're apparently attempting to describe is not equivalent to "reading the rules", and is predicated on the DM not reading the rules either.

As for sliding stuff past the DM? Again, that's in no way predicated on "reading the rules", and is again predicated on the DM not reading the rules.

Incidentally, in none of the above cases did you provide statistical evidence to back up the claim that any of the above issues happen "most often" - in other words, with a majority of characters made "reading the rules". (I'd also be fascinated by an approach to making competent characters that didn't involve reading the rules, but I digress).

[Toy Killer]

Exhibit A is simply point builds. To pick your ability scores so that you get exactly what you want is bending the rules. It makes the numbers pointless when everyone will always have high scores. Not every character must have a 20+ in their primary ability. You can play a wizard with an intelligence of 12.

Exhibit B is simply when the player makes their own rulings on rules. Does that Fast Thinker feat of +2 initiative stack with Improved Initiative +4 to make +6, well, of course the player says 'yes'. This is the same way the player does things like find something in a book that says something vague like 'doubles your spellcasting' and then says 'oh that means I get to spells each'.


... So... Making logical decisions regarding your character is playing into the rules? I'm sorry, yes, as players we do tend to make decisions based on what will help our character perform as we want, but that doesn't make us 'roll-players'. It simply means we understand that the characters we make are based in a fictional universe governed by rules which must be interpreted and occasionally waived. waiving is typically done by the DM, and can be done on the spot if necessary, so not letting your DM know you plan to make wights with Fell drain, (despite the DMG ruling on what happens when something dies of level loss,) he retains the right to say 'No, you don't get to make wights like that.'

This is cooperative story telling, and we want to be able to make a character that will see the end of his story unfold. I wouldn't make a wizard with an intelligence of 12, not because I want to 'Win the Game!' but because... well... he's not going to live long without a higher intelligence score, and even if he does, he will be weighing down the party.

I fail to understand how that takes any matter out of role-playing itself...

[deuxhero]

Everyone has their reasons for playing.

D&D caters to all of them.

Except those that want something realistic or low fantasy...

[eggs]

Exhibit B is simply when the player makes their own rulings on rules. Does that Fast Thinker feat of +2 initiative stack with Improved Initiative +4 to make +6, well, of course the player says 'yes'. This is the same way the player does things like find something in a book that says something vague like 'doubles your spellcasting' and then says 'oh that means I get to spells each'.I see you are of the school of thought that every game should be Mao.

[Grinner]

Except those that want something realistic or low fantasy...

You can. It just takes a ton of work on the DM's part. Implementing variant rules, dealing with munchkin antics during character creation, etc.

Frankly, you're better off with something else entirely, but people do have their brand loyalties.