PDA

View Full Version : D&D, Systems And Storytelling



Roethke
2007-04-13, 08:35 AM
Folks, due to the recent, spirited discussions on this topic, I figured they deserved their own thread, if only to hamper rampant thread-derailment.

Let's keep this thread 'baggageless' as possible and try not to get it locked. Please respect each others' playstyles. It is a frickin' game, after all. And Please, please, please, no insults. On the flipside, try not to read too much into other posters words. And of course play by the rules.. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1


I'll be back in a bit to post...
------------------------------------------------
So, there's been some contention as to how much mechanics get in the way of Storytelling w/ D&D 3.5 in particular.

This is sort of tangent to that discussion, but I'd venture that in a 'Rules Heavy' system like D&D, the portability of the characters is something that makes some unique types of storytelling possible. I'm thinking Living Greyhawk/Convention type settings. When the gameplay is extremely dependent on the DM, it's harder to move around.

This sort of builds on the idea of D&D as simulation/storytelling game, as opposed to simply a mechanic for storytelling.

jjpickar
2007-04-13, 08:47 AM
Since D&D is an encounter based system there are some problems with trying to tell a story and getting enough encounters so that all the players haver their nice treasure and exp. While its got some glaring flaws as far as pure mechanics go I have so far avoided abuse of the system. I actually never knew that any of these flaws existed until I discovered this particular forum. Still, even with the difficulty of the combat and the roleplaying not meshing well, Ive gotten quite a few stories and fun out of 3.5. I have to, I can't afford to buy another system.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 08:51 AM
Folks, due to the recent, spirited discussions on this topic, I figured they deserved their own thread, if only to hamper rampant thread-derailment.

Let's keep this thread 'baggageless' as possible and try not to get it locked. Please respect each others' playstyles. It is a frickin' game, after all. And Please, please, please, no insults. On the flipside, try not to read too much into other posters words. And of course play by the rules.. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1


I'll be back in a bit to post...
------------------------------------------------
So, there's been some contention as to how much mechanics get in the way of Storytelling w/ D&D 3.5 in particular.

This is sort of tangent to that discussion, but I'd venture that in a 'Rules Heavy' system like D&D, the portability of the characters is something that makes some unique types of storytelling possible. I'm thinking Living Greyhawk/Convention type settings. When the gameplay is extremely dependent on the DM, it's harder to move around.

This sort of builds on the idea of D&D as simulation/storytelling game, as opposed to simply a mechanic for storytelling.

Lately I have begun to regard D&D (and in fact the whole d20 system) as more of a wargame than an RPG.

I'm not a big fan of GNS theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) overall, but D&D is pretty much a textbook example of extreme Gamism. The rules as written have no provisions to encourage narrative or character development*, and they frequently fly in the face of logic (e.g., invisible people flanking). Story and realism alike are sacrificed in the name of a competitive tactical wargame with extra crunch. You can fix these "problems" by house-ruling it all to hell, but that seems like an awful lot of work so that you can, in effect, give personality and background and character development to chess pieces.

Which is fine by me, actually. I like wargames, and I feel a lot happier approaching D&D from that angle rather than trying to shoehorn it into a category where I think it doesn't belong. I'll just keep working on my own homebrewed RPG to take over the "story and character" side of my gaming life.

*Except alignment, which I find is more of a hindrance than a help to developing character personality.

Saph
2007-04-13, 08:59 AM
(Post transplanted from other thread)


Which ones, and why? What does D&D bring to the table that they don't? How does it contribute to rather than detracting from storytelling?

I'm not a game designer. I judge a system based on feel and how much fun I had (since that's all I really care about), rather than analysing the mechanics, so I can't give you a particularly in-depth answer. However, off the top of my head:

I like the fact that D&D doesn't have mechanics for story, because I think the best stories tend to come from the interactions between the players and the random stuff that happens in-game. I've played in a couple of modern-conspiracy-type games and at least one D&D game where the DM focused on trying to 'create a story' and they never worked very well, because the DM was trying to force it rather than grow it.

On the other hand, my old gaming group still cracks up laughing remembering a low-level D&D encounter involving gnolls, horses, a pistol-wielding ranger, and an Entangle spell. I'd say that if you still laugh at something that happened in a RPG five years ago, it must have been pretty good.


I'm not saying you can't. At least, I don't recall saying that. It's possible to do so.
What I'm saying is that when you do so, the system itself isn't helping you. See the Stunting mechanic example--some rules affect gameplay in a positive (for that particular game; you wouldn't want people doing Awesome things in a gritty realistic game) way. D&D's rules don't do that.

I've played in stunting-type games, and I don't think that they help stories, or awesomeness. The trouble with stunt mechanics is that at the end of the day, you're determining your character's effectiveness by how much the DM likes your descriptions. That hurts suspension of disbelief, for me. Devaluation also sets in - a super-acrobatic-death-defying move is impressive in real life because it's difficult and dangerous. When everyone's doing them all the time, it quickly stops being impressive and becomes fluff - yeah, yeah, we're all in awe of how amazing you are, just like the last ten times, can you hurry it up now?

- Saph

Zincorium
2007-04-13, 09:13 AM
Having played and DMed freeform games for some time in addition to D&D, I'd say that it's simply that the two are different but often equal types of fun.

The thing about mechanics is that it can help with balance because there is an objective scheme which determines the overall power level of characters. This isn't always the case with D&D, because it was designed with a lot of other conflicting things in mind, but it's theoretically the goal.

Along with that, there are both visceral (rolling dice and moving around miniatures) and strategic (various combat actions, spell choice) aspects that can be very appealing, since unlike many other games which provide them, RPGs tend to be very fluid and accepting of unique situations. Thus, even people who tend to be lukewarm on pure roleplaying can get into hybrid games like D&D.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 09:13 AM
I like the fact that D&D doesn't have mechanics for story, because I think the best stories tend to come from the interactions between the players and the random stuff that happens in-game. I've played in a couple of modern-conspiracy-type games and at least one D&D game where the DM focused on trying to 'create a story' and they never worked very well, because the DM was trying to force it rather than grow it.

On the other hand, my old gaming group still cracks up laughing remembering a low-level D&D encounter involving gnolls, horses, a pistol-wielding ranger, and an Entangle spell. I'd say that if you still laugh at something that happened in a RPG five years ago, it must have been pretty good.

Well, trying to force the story is always bad. I think it's a mistake to approach it from the position of "trying to tell a story;" I prefer the attitude of "encouraging story."

For example, I don't like it (either as a player or a GM) when a character dies due to bad luck in a minor skirmish. It just feels anticlimactic and annoying. So I like systems that make minor skirmishes more survivable than major clashes.

Similarly, I like mechanics that reward players within the system for pursuing their characters' ideals and goals. I think such things help counter the tendency of many players (me included) to drift toward whatever tactic will maximize the PCs' chances of success, regardless of whether it's in character to use it.


I've played in stunting-type games, and I don't think that they help stories, or awesomeness. The trouble with stunt mechanics is that at the end of the day, you're determining your character's effectiveness by how much the DM likes your descriptions. That hurts suspension of disbelief, for me. Devaluation also sets in - a super-acrobatic-death-defying move is impressive in real life because it's difficult and dangerous. When everyone's doing them all the time, it quickly stops being impressive and becomes fluff - yeah, yeah, we're all in awe of how amazing you are, just like the last ten times, can you hurry it up now?

- Saph

With this I completely agree. Stunt mechanics are a nice concept, but the execution usually just means players wracking their brains for one more over-the-top description so they can scrape out that bonus. Sometimes the game flows better and is more fun when you just say, "I attack. I hit. He takes damage. Bob, your turn."

I prefer a system where you get a small number of "bonus points" that you can spend to improve your odds on a tough roll. I think that does more to encourage cool stunts without making them ho-hum.

Charity
2007-04-13, 09:24 AM
I can see where Bears is comming from, but I fall on Saphs side of this debate. I have played dozens of different systems, from hunter, that has almost no framework at all, to Rolemaster which has an entirely rigid structure. I have found that the only thing that affects the style of play is the mix of players.
The players make the game (GM included) the system is just there for event resolution.
The thing that does make a differance in my experiance is the players familiararity with the rules. That is where D&D falls down a bit, a lot of folk struggle with the prescribed actions that they can make during a round.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 09:28 AM
I can see where Bears is comming from, but I fall on Saphs side of this debate. I have played dozens of different systems, from hunter, that has almost no framework at all, to Rolemaster which has an entirely rigid structure. I have found that the only thing that affects the style of play is the mix of players.
The players make the game (GM included) the system is just there for event resolution.
The thing that does make a differance in my experiance is the players familiararity with the rules. That is where D&D falls down a bit, a lot of folk struggle with the prescribed actions that they can make during a round.

Huh. I've had the opposite experience. A couple of years ago, I joined a group that was playing Aberrant. Lots of story, character background, complicated intrigues, et cetera. We switched to D&D and things turned into a hackfest. Now we're looking at going back to Aberrant (or some other system), because people are nostalgic for the RP.

Roethke
2007-04-13, 09:33 AM
Lately I have begun to regard D&D (and in fact the whole d20 system) as more of a wargame than an RPG.

I'm not a big fan of GNS theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) overall, but D&D is pretty much a textbook example of extreme Gamism. The rules as written have no provisions to encourage narrative or character development*, and they frequently fly in the face of logic (e.g., invisible people flanking). Story and realism alike are sacrificed in the name of a competitive tactical wargame with extra crunch. You can fix these "problems" by house-ruling it all to hell, but that seems like an awful lot of work so that you can, in effect, give personality and background and character development to chess pieces.

Which is fine by me, actually. I like wargames, and I feel a lot happier approaching D&D from that angle rather than trying to shoehorn it into a category where I think it doesn't belong. I'll just keep working on my own homebrewed RPG to take over the "story and character" side of my gaming life.

*Except alignment, which I find is more of a hindrance than a help to developing character personality.

Huh. I had never heard of GNS theory, or any of the others mentioned in the article. Obviously people put a lot of time effort and thought into how we play. It's interesting, but at first blush seems to be a bit too ambitious to be accurate.

I'm not sure I'm with you on D&D = Competitive Tactical Wargame+fluff.

It definitely leans in that direction (and the history of the game probably shows why) but the only system I've played in which felt vaguely like that was Hackmaster, which is a caricature of D&D (and a fun little system).

I don't think a system has to provide crunchy-encouragements for fluff to be considered good for storytelling. I'm thinking Call-of-Cthulu. (heh. spell-check wants to turn Cthulu into 'Duluth' Now that's funny). The setting itself engenders good storytelling-- if you like Lovecraft, you like long-winded, baroque descriptions. Beyond that, the sheer lethality of combat, along with the assumption that the PC's are not heros, but just slightly odd folk caught up in events make the system lean away from a wargaming approach. The only crunchy-rewards are for when you use your skills, and even then they're not that huge.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-13, 09:37 AM
I'll have a lot more to say on this--and posts to address--later, but for now let me note that CoC's extreme lethality of combat and Sanity rules are mechanics, and they're huge when it comes to influencing gameplay.

I'll also note that stunting doesn't necessarily have to Bring the Awesome, it can just be moderately descriptive (for a 1- or 2-die stunt). It's almost certain to be more descriptive than the "I roll X. Do I hit? Okay, I roll Y for damage" that D&D combat has a huge tendency to become.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-13, 09:37 AM
The problem here, as everywhere, is that the term "story" is essentially meaningless.

White Wolf games strongly encourage Story. They strongly encourage story by providing a system which gives the GM (sorry, storyteller) pretty much absolute power, combined with numerous mechanisms (XP, access to new and cool powers, powerful NPCs) by which the GM can bribe or coerce his players into cooperating with a pre-scripted narrative.

Dogs in the Vineyard strongly encourages Story. It does this by providing the GM with resources which he is mandated by the system to use to present the players with a series of moral dilemmas, the players are then required to confront those dilemmas, make moral decisions, and reflect upon those decisions.

Where GNS theory goes wrong is in saying that White Wolf's definition of "story" is wrong and DitV's definition of "Story" is right. In fact neither of them are right (and I dislike White Wolf games and DitV pretty much equally, almost exactly because they both present a definition of "Story" that I don't care for).

Saph considers "story" to be "a memorable sequence of events" so for her D&D produces stories. I consider "story" to be "a sequence of events which meaningfully changes the lives of characters I care about" so I don't think D&D is particularly set up to produce stories.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 09:44 AM
Huh. I had never heard of GNS theory, or any of the others mentioned in the article. Obviously people put a lot of time effort and thought into how we play. It's interesting, but at first blush seems to be a bit too ambitious to be accurate.

As I say, I'm not a big fan of it. The core concept--that RPGs contain Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist elements--can be useful in clarifying one's thinking about a game, which is why I brought it up in the first place, but their prescriptions for actually using these things in game design seem way off the beam.


I'm not sure I'm with you on D&D = Competitive Tactical Wargame+fluff.

It definitely leans in that direction (and the history of the game probably shows why) but the only system I've played in which felt vaguely like that was Hackmaster, which is a caricature of D&D (and a fun little system).

I don't think a system has to provide crunchy-encouragements for fluff to be considered good for storytelling. I'm thinking Call-of-Cthulu. (heh. spell-check wants to turn Cthulu into 'Duluth' Now that's funny). The setting itself engenders good storytelling-- if you like Lovecraft, you like long-winded, baroque descriptions. Beyond that, the sheer lethality of combat, along with the assumption that the PC's are not heros, but just slightly odd folk caught up in events make the system lean away from a wargaming approach. The only crunchy-rewards are for when you use your skills, and even then they're not that huge.

*shrug* From my point of view, D&D has too many elements that screw with my suspension of disbelief, like the aforementioned flanking+invisibility, or the availability of resurrection-for-cash without dire effects on society and the game world. It also has too many elements that actively punish players for "character decisions," like two-handed weapon fighters being dramatically superior to dual-wielders and sword-and-board. I may think dual-wielders are cool, I may want to play a dual-wielder, but if I do the game will punish me by making me unable to fight effectively. (Or at least it would have, before the Tome of Battle came along.)

Then, too, D&D's non-combat mechanics are shoddy at best and horribly broken at worst. See Diplomancer.

Finally, D&D also inflicts tremendous punishment on players who aren't good at optimizing, if they're playing with others who are. Nobody likes feeling useless. The DM and skilled players can go out of their way to give the un-optimized character a chance to shine, but often that just means the less-skilled player feels both useless and condescended to.

For all these reasons, I think D&D works way better as a wargame than it does as an RPG. I've had many fun campaigns in D&D, but the DM usually had to beat the system down in order to make it that way. I prefer a system that doesn't require beating down.

(What's that you say? Aberrant also requires extensive beating down to be playable? Well, yeah, which is why I'm designing my own RPG from the ground up... but at least Aberrant's mechanics are loose and vague enough that house-ruling them to fix the problems is comparatively easy, and it's usually just a matter of tweaking some numbers. D&D has so many dependencies and ripple effects that it can be very hard to fix one problem without creating half a dozen others.)

Roethke
2007-04-13, 09:50 AM
I'll have a lot more to say on this--and posts to address--later, but for now let me note that CoC's extreme lethality of combat and Sanity rules are mechanics, and they're huge when it comes to influencing gameplay.


You betcha. in a CoC game I was in, the influence of sanity and combat left most of the party in the situation where the characters, role-played properly, would probably decide to go home, hide under their respective beds, and pray to God the cultists forgot about them.

After that, we decided a little more heroism was probably a good idea in CoC PCs.

EDIT (on topic): But I guess the larger point that I missed, is that CoC doesn't really reward Fluff, but it sure as heck penalizes a combat-oriented approach.

Sornas
2007-04-13, 10:02 AM
I'm with Bears in this case (Albiet in a less angry way, hehe). In my opinion, D&D is a very rules heavy system, and that in and of itself detracts from Roleplaying. (See Bear's example about swinging on the rope back in the other thread)

But, that isn't to say I think that D&D isn't good for Roleplaying. While the system itself does very little to encourage people to Roleplay, it isn't a terribly difficult thing to work around, but it DOES involve some houseruling. Things like talking through social situations rather than rolling diplomacy/bluff, or giving people extra skillpoints to spend on Profession skils. (Now, I'm sure I'll get called a powergamer for this, but I know very few people who would put ranks into a profession skill off the top of their head.)

The fact of the matter is, D&D is a game, a game that sometimes involves roleplaying, and sometimes involves dice-heavy combat. If you want to just roleplay, there are much better systems for it, if you want to just fight, then there are much better systems for it, but what D&D offers is the best of both worlds.

There is nothing in the system that makes it so you do more than kill things, take their stuff, and move on, it's the players and DM that make it rise to more than that, but as Bears said, the system does get in the way from time to time, but it's not a hard thing to houserule or roll with, depending on the way the group plays.

Just as an example, one of the DMs I play with is a real hardass on the rules, something I don't like in general, because I do like a more balanced RP/Tactical game, but I was willing to give it a go becauser the guy is a good friend, and a good writer.

The problem came from the fact that my girlfriend, who had always DMed under more lenient DMs, wanted to care for our group's horses. She knew all sorts of tricks for dealing with horses, injuries, and such because she has several horses back home. But she didn't put any ranks into any sort of animal handling skills, so there was no way her character would know these tricks, and the DM went along with that, causing frustration for her, and our group when none of us could properly care for horses.

Now, you could just as eaisly say that due to backstory, she would know how to handle horses, but that would still be a houserule, because her character sheet does not have any ranks in Handle animal, any profession skill, or even Ride. So while it is easy to allow for Roleplaying in D&D, you still need to either houserule it, or the system will get in your way.

Just my two cents plus a shiny nickel I found in the corner. ^_^

The_Werebear
2007-04-13, 10:40 AM
Holy crap...

The rope example made me realize I have been totally penalizing my players for overblown description. *changes ways* It's the true meaning of Christmas...

Anyway, DnD's time where it is most likely to interfere with RP is when there are situations like the above. It is a heroic type game, but since it has such a heavy rules focus, sheer incapability of the characters to DO that heroic stuff that is so common (jumping from rooftop to rooftop, swinging from ropes, effectively fighting with a shield).

As for the comment about knowing OOC things about horses versus non OOC things....1) not all knowledge requires ranks, the very very basics are probably common knowledge that everyone would know. For example, it is assumed everyone in your party can slap together a dead-animal-the-ranger-just-shot stew with no ranks in Profession: Cook. 2) If it is really a problem, ask the DM if everyone can roll a skill check and then the player can tell them some information. In a game I play in, I am a Barbarian and my girlfriend does a wizard. This is her first time actually playing, and if she is stumped about something someone more experienced may have picked up, the DM has her roll knowledge: arcane, and I am allowed to give her minor advice based on how well she did.

Jannex
2007-04-13, 11:05 AM
White Wolf games strongly encourage Story. They strongly encourage story by providing a system which gives the GM (sorry, storyteller) pretty much absolute power, combined with numerous mechanisms (XP, access to new and cool powers, powerful NPCs) by which the GM can bribe or coerce his players into cooperating with a pre-scripted narrative.

Wow. It sounds, from this, as though you've had some negative experiences with White Wolf, which may have been the result of bad STing. I've been playing and running White Wolf for years, and this has not at all been my experience. No part of the Storyteller system requires or encourages forcing players to cooperate with a "pre-scripted narrative." Plotless sandbox games may be a bit of a challenge to run in White Wolf, but the way in which events play out in a narrative is very much determined by the actions of the players. That's been my experience, at any rate.

That said, I find that the way D&D is set up doesn't really encourage roleplaying, and can even make it more advantageous not to roleplay much. D&D tends to reward players for doing what is most tactically sound, rather than what makes sense for a character. The most egregious offender in this regard, in my opinion, is the experience and advancement system. First off, by RAW, you get experience points for killing or otherwise overcoming monsters and enemies, and occasionally for not being killed by traps. There's a suggested, optional mechanic by which DMs might give out a pittance of XP for roleplaying, but it is far outshined by the kill-stuff-get-stuff reward. There's little or no mechanical encouragement for clever ideas, or dramatic moments, or tough ethical choices.

Then, there's what you do with that XP. Levelling up. Rather than allowing a character to focus on a specific ability that he or she considers most important at any given time, and to practice to improve it, D&D forces a character to wait several sessions and then have all aspects of his being improve at once. A character can spend all his free time weightlifting, but until he hits a level divisible by 4, he's not going to profit from the effort, even if weeks or months pass in-game. However, a character who has spent all his spare time practicing tying knots and escaping bonds to gain cross-class ranks in Use Rope and Escape Artist is going to improve his arcane prowess the next time he levels, by... osmosis? Not only does this remove player agency, but I think it also strains verisimilitude.

Also, as I think someone else mentioned, D&D penalizes players who don't optimize, if there are other people in the group who do, or who are better at it than them. If a character is going to be dramatically less effective overall (not just less effective at one thing, but more effective at another, but on the whole) for making choice X instead of choice Y, even if choice X makes more sense for the character, as is often the case in D&D, then players with certain character concepts will either be at a disadvantage or have to play against character. The system is effectively penalizing a player for making character-appropriate choices. Some characters just work better as a sorcerer (or, gods forbid, a bard!) rather than a wizard, or a one-hand, single-sword fighter (or, dare I mention, a TWFer) rather than a THF-Power Attacker. Yet these are "less effective" or "sub-optimal." Certainly, people who make these more "optimized" choices may have character concepts that support these choices, but other characters? They run into problems.

Let's talk about combat. Disregarding for a moment the maze of micromanaging, often-nonsensical rules, there seems to be little or no room for roleplaying or description; everybody wants to get through everyone's actions as quickly as humanly possible. And that's fair; combat can be tedious. But at the same time, for the duration of the encounter, the characters often cease to be individuals with personalities and become computer sprites. "I move here, I attack, I roll X. I hit, I roll Y damage. Your turn." "I cast P spell, it does Q damage." "I full attack, rolling A, B, C, and D. I hit three times, doing E, F, and G damage." Descriptions of attacks, maneuvers, spell effects, sensory details, only bog down combat and waste time, for a lot of people. How often have you finished a combat encounter and been healed, with absolutely no idea of where your character's injuries had been? Not that hit locations actually matter in D&D (another pet peeve; they micromanage everything else, why not hit locations or called shots?), but having a better idea of what a character has just experienced helps to roleplay his reactions. It would also, I think, make combat feel a little more... important? Knowing your character took 73 damage in that last fight means a lot less than watching him get stabbed in the gut, and then use his free hand to try to keep his viscera from spilling out, while dealing the deathblow one-handed to the Big Bad.

I could rant more. I might do so later. That's good for now.

Roethke
2007-04-13, 11:07 AM
...Finally, D&D also inflicts tremendous punishment on players who aren't good at optimizing, if they're playing with others who are. Nobody likes feeling useless. The DM and skilled players can go out of their way to give the un-optimized character a chance to shine, but often that just means the less-skilled player feels both useless and condescended to.



I think this is from where many of the problems spring-- Differing expectations for the game. Part of it has to do with how D&D is often the default RPG System, since it's the one everyone knows/owns. Other systems probably bring a less diverse group of folks to each table-- CoC, everyone goes into it expecting a Horror/Lethal/Storytelling campaign. Champions, it's a bang-em-up superhero experience. Shadowrun, squad-based stealth game.

But with D&D, you often have wargamer sitting down next to storyteller, and it takes some fine DM management to make it work.

Saph
2007-04-13, 11:18 AM
I think this is from where many of the problems spring-- Differing expectations for the game. Part of it has to do with how D&D is often the default RPG System, since it's the one everyone knows/owns. Other systems probably bring a less diverse group of folks to each table-- CoC, everyone goes into it expecting a Horror/Lethal/Storytelling campaign. Champions, it's a bang-em-up superhero experience. Shadowrun, squad-based stealth game.

But with D&D, you often have wargamer sitting down next to storyteller, and it takes some fine DM management to make it work.

This might explain a lot of it. I've often wondered at the . . . well, nitpickyness of a lot of the complaints about D&D. Like the invisible-flanking thing Dausuul was complaining about - that seems so minor to me that I have to think hard to even get into the state of mind where it might bother me. Ditto for a lot of the overpowered things - players spend hours upon hours paging through supplements to come up with the most powerful build they can think of, then complain that it's overpowered!

It makes a lot more sense if you take into account the defaultness of D&D. No-one who hates horror is going to play Cthullu, but with D&D you get both people who dislike combat-heavy and people who dislike story-heavy games.

On the other hand, that bring-everyone-togetherness of D&D is one of the things I like about it. It's fun having such a weird assortment of players all in the same group.

- Saph

Black Hand
2007-04-13, 12:05 PM
I like adding the aspect of Story in my games, but again as someone had mentioned before it's best if the characters help "grow" it.

I've found that having an established story can get railroaded by PC's, and so many of my stories go with the type of formula where there are "events" taking place that could or could not have the PC's involved. I generally leave the hook for them and whether they decide to go along with it or not is up to them. Either way the events will play out for good or ill. ((usually more ill if the involvement from the PC's in the main story was at a minimum. Then they get to deal with the fallout after. Eg. The party didn't save the princess, now the evil wizard used her as hostage and now runs the kingdom under his heavy hand...))

A good way of doing this is by having your "primary" story, and several other possible "side treks" that in the end could end up working with the primary at the end. And again It doesn't take much planning besides the events of the primary. I tend to leave my "side Treks" as just basic encounters that will develop depending on how the PC's deal with the issues.

Poison_Fish
2007-04-13, 12:41 PM
Wow. It sounds, from this, as though you've had some negative experiences with White Wolf, which may have been the result of bad STing. I've been playing and running White Wolf for years, and this has not at all been my experience. No part of the Storyteller system requires or encourages forcing players to cooperate with a "pre-scripted narrative." Plotless sandbox games may be a bit of a challenge to run in White Wolf, but the way in which events play out in a narrative is very much determined by the actions of the players. That's been my experience, at any rate.

I'm going to echo this sentiment. I've been running the story teller system (Specifically Exalted 1E) pretty intensely for the last few years, and the closest I've found to "bribing" per say is through my own action, not anything inherent in the system.

On the note of "bribing", I view my rewards for: Well written backstory/stunts/etc. as holding a very good purpose. It's positive reinforcement for creative effort. Now, I'm sure that most GM's don't consider that when running their games, as their first objective is to have a fun time (That's mine as well, in most cases). But coming from my experience, the system I ran before really moving on was a summer program that's goals were development of the individual along with tutoring and educational purposes. I like it when people are excited about their character, be it "Oh man, I totally just did an awesome athletics thing" to actually writing some stories (Granted, I have a very touchy spot if the story comes across as if it were something from Eye of Argon, retching comes to mind).

So, if a player gives you a 3 page story he wrote, what do you do with it? Do you say "That's nice bub, back to the game"? Do you give him some reward? Do you try to find plot hooks in the story they wrote? Those are all pretty interesting questions actually.

But that's besides the point. I don't see anything in the story teller systems saying I need to force my players to write good back stories. That's myself saying it.

To touch on a note in a thread about swords and boards.


Any DM that lets the mechanics of the rules get in the way of a good story doesn't deserve to be a DM.

I wave my hands at rules all the time if I am having an issue with them, this is true, but I disagree with this sentiment. The reason rules are in place are to provide a commonality of understanding between the GM/ST/DM what have you and the players.

To echo back to some of the gaming I did before, what happens if one of the purposes of your system is to teach physics? Well, we can't exactly tell Gravity "Ok, stop getting in the way of my character, I'm trying to fly". Now, if it results in something I don't want, I'm sure I'll set it in a way to fix itself, but I can't put a dunce cap on Gravity and tell it to go to it's room.

I suppose I am bouncing from place to place here and touching lightly on the subjects. I blame early morning classes for that. But that's a few of my thoughts to those subjects in particular.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 12:54 PM
This might explain a lot of it. I've often wondered at the . . . well, nitpickyness of a lot of the complaints about D&D. Like the invisible-flanking thing Dausuul was complaining about - that seems so minor to me that I have to think hard to even get into the state of mind where it might bother me.

Most of these issues are quite minor, yes. But there are just so many of them that the cumulative weight gets pretty burdensome for me.

Say you have Cleave. If you miss an incorporeal creature due to the 50% miss chance (presumably indicating that your weapon passed right through it with no effect), why can't you Cleave and hit its buddy hovering next to it?

For that matter, while we're on the subject, what exactly does that 50% incorporeal miss chance mean? How come 50% of the time your weapon phases through the spectre and does nothing, and the other 50% it does full damage? When I'm describing the effect of a hit, as I like to do, how do I describe the miss and how do I describe the hit?

Natural healing. Why does a guy with Con 8 take less time to recover from being in negative hit points than a guy with Con 16?

Coup de grace. Why is it that a wizard with a dagger needs over a minute to slit the throat of a high-level fighter?

Stat bonuses on attack rolls. Why does Strength govern your ability to hit things with a dagger? A greatsword, okay, you're bashing aside their defenses with brute force, but a dagger? And how exactly are you applying that +10 Strength modifier to your dagger damage, anyhow?

I could go on and on. It bugs me that when I sit down and really think about what's happening in the game world, a lot of it just makes no sense at all. All RPGs have problems like this, of course, but D&D seems to positively revel in them. Half the special abilities and feats have skimpy, unhelpful descriptions of "what you're actually doing when you use this ability," and the other half have no description whatsoever.


Ditto for a lot of the overpowered things - players spend hours upon hours paging through supplements to come up with the most powerful build they can think of, then complain that it's overpowered!

That's a fair complaint, but I've had problems where a character I thought was just reasonably well-designed turned out to be way overpowered compared to the other party members.


It makes a lot more sense if you take into account the defaultness of D&D. No-one who hates horror is going to play Cthullu, but with D&D you get both people who dislike combat-heavy and people who dislike story-heavy games.

This is true. But I feel that D&D caters rather too much to the latter at the expense of the former.

For an RPG, anyway.

grayburst
2007-04-13, 01:19 PM
Alright, my problem as a long term D&D player with 3.5 has nothing to do with story versus wargaming. Instead my real complaint comes from the very optimalization skills required to build and advance a character. Pure class/level systems tend to linearize a character so its predictable down a specific path of advancement what will happen. A character point build system tends to be a bit open so a player can take several ways to get the effect he wants out of his character. The 3.5 system overdoes it on the Feat reliance as a mechanic I think. It takes players either great familarity with the system or long hours of research to figure out what feats give them the combinations they need. Then combat suddenly goes from a flowing stream of events and actions to a fragmented stop and go as each feat proves the exception to the rule. I've got a gaming group that are fairly experienced gamers with experience in any number of systems. After playing 3.5 for awhile we've had to introduce the house rule of Retconng, meaning that every 5 levels a player gets the right to overhaul his character sheet from top to bottom as some other quirk of optimalization pops its head up because it was not obvious from the beginning. Its bad when you have a group claiming Rolemaster and Champion superhero games are easier to make characters for than 3.5. My whole complaint against the system is there is no elegance in it. It is complicated without being complex, complex meaning the mathematical definition where a system of interaction is balanced within itself with symmetry and dynamic equilibrium.

Black Hand
2007-04-13, 01:28 PM
Actually that's a good idea Greyburst.

For me, I've noticed that you need a feat for too many things now, restricting the PC from coming up with any 'intuitive' actions based on the situation they're facing. Because of which I've come upon many situations where I would have to say " Sorry you can't do that, you don't have the feat for what you want to try do "

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-13, 01:47 PM
Wow. It sounds, from this, as though you've had some negative experiences with White Wolf, which may have been the result of bad STing. I've been playing and running White Wolf for years, and this has not at all been my experience. No part of the Storyteller system requires or encourages forcing players to cooperate with a "pre-scripted narrative." Plotless sandbox games may be a bit of a challenge to run in White Wolf, but the way in which events play out in a narrative is very much determined by the actions of the players. That's been my experience, at any rate.

I was, I admit, overstating a little for effect. I essentially didn't want to sound like I was saying "these games are better than D&D".

WW does, however, strongly define "Storytelling" as "The Storyteller telling a story to the players," it assumes that it is the ST who will design the setting, set the theme and mood for the Chronicle, will decide what sorts of character concepts are suitable, and will decide what major events are going on in the gameworld. A lot of the Storytelling advice actually does seem to assume that you're going to work out what's going to happen in advance as well.

Grr
2007-04-13, 02:40 PM
I wave my hands at rules all the time if I am having an issue with them, this is true, but I disagree with this sentiment. The reason rules are in place are to provide a commonality of understanding between the GM/ST/DM what have you and the players.
And you'd be wrong to disagree. DM's are encouraged to cheat, if it makes the game more fun for everyone. Every game says that. To let the fate of the PC's hinge upon die rolls and only die rolls at every point in the game is ridiculous and gets in the way of a good story.

The rules are there as tools for the DM to create a consistent campaign setting, based upon how they choose to implement them. Regardless of the rules system used. They are also there to create a consistent system by which the players create their characters and level up. Nothing more.

The reason there are no rules other than Rule Zero for storytelling in D&D, is that they're not required. It's impossible in fact, to create rules other than Rule Zero, for good storytelling. There are plenty of guidelines and suggestions to facilitate a good story and methods by which you can reward and encourage players to participate, such as giving them a situational modifier based upon how well they describe their actions.


WW does, however, strongly define "Storytelling" as "The Storyteller telling a story to the players," it assumes that it is the ST who will design the setting, set the theme and mood for the Chronicle, will decide what sorts of character concepts are suitable, and will decide what major events are going on in the gameworld.
So does D&D. Read the DMG. Re-read it. Especially the first chapter about being a DM and the chapter about world building. It's the same as what Whitewolf has said about being a Storyteller.

Running a D&D game without a campaign setting isn't an RPG. It's a glorified board game with spreadsheets. That kind of D&D "game" wouldn't even require a DM. Just a chart of likely NPC actions and reactions in combat.

Were-Sandwich
2007-04-13, 02:42 PM
Running a D&D game without a campaign setting isn't an RPG. It's a glorified board game with spreadsheets. That kind of D&D "game" wouldn't even require a DM. Just a chart of likely NPC actions and reactions in combat.
We tried that once. It was fun.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-13, 02:47 PM
Running a D&D game without a campaign setting isn't an RPG. It's a glorified board game with spreadsheets. That kind of D&D "game" wouldn't even require a DM. Just a chart of likely NPC actions and reactions in combat.

"XYZ Isn't an RPG" is a meaningless accusation. There is no single element, or set of elements, which can be used to define an RPG that does not either (a) exclude many things which clearly *are* RPGs, or (b) include many things which clearly are *not* RPGs.

Grr
2007-04-13, 02:51 PM
We tried that once. It was fun.
Never said it couldn't be fun. Just don't expect me to agree that it's an RPG.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-13, 03:01 PM
On the note of "bribing", I view my rewards for: Well written backstory/stunts/etc. as holding a very good purpose. It's positive reinforcement for creative effort. Now, I'm sure that most GM's don't consider that when running their games, as their first objective is to have a fun time (That's mine as well, in most cases). But coming from my experience, the system I ran before really moving on was a summer program that's goals were development of the individual along with tutoring and educational purposes. I like it when people are excited about their character, be it "Oh man, I totally just did an awesome athletics thing" to actually writing some stories (Granted, I have a very touchy spot if the story comes across as if it were something from Eye of Argon, retching comes to mind).

But that's exactly the point. "Positive reinforcement for creative effort" - bribes. Or cookies if you'd rather. The "good roleplayer, have a biscuit" method of GMing.

Some games view players as people that have to be encouraged to make a creative effort by a combined carrot and stick approach. Some view them as creative people who are actually going to make a creative effort as standard.


So, if a player gives you a 3 page story he wrote, what do you do with it? Do you say "That's nice bub, back to the game"? Do you give him some reward? Do you try to find plot hooks in the story they wrote? Those are all pretty interesting questions actually.

Mostly, I say "thanks, but I've got a lot going on at work so I don't really have time to read this."

Roethke
2007-04-13, 03:18 PM
Never said it couldn't be fun. Just don't expect me to agree that it's an RPG.

Okay, so maybe your definition of an RPG is different than most folks here--

Take an extreme example.

Say, the good old Neverwinter Nights PC game. There was a great module-builder that let a designer script all sorts of events, and create a pretty detailed world that ran according to D&D rules.

Now the PC's could go one adventures in this world, talk with each other and Role-Play, just like in a regular D&D game, but all the mechanics were handled automatically by their computers. In at least some of the settings in which I played, there were 'DM' beings that could interact with the players and change the world.

Even if the number cruncher is a glorified spreadsheet, I'd definitely call this a role-playing game. There's a setting, often a detailed adventure, and players using their creativity to figure out solutions to problems set up for them by the creator. (of course the possible solutions were more limited than in Pen&Paper D&D).

And if it's not a role-playing game, what is it? The PC's are taking on roles of adventurers, developing characters, interacting with each other, and the world to tell or take part in a story.

Of course this is an exaggeration of how folks often play tabletop (or PbP) D&D, it's harder (though not impossible) to implement rule zero here. But if this qualifies as an RPG, then even 'wargamey' D&D should.

Counterspin
2007-04-13, 03:24 PM
I've been in a D&D game without either a DM or a setting, and there was plenty of roleplaying. We were an unsightly mishmash of demons and other evil neutral folk (Azer, Succubus, Djinni, Fire Giant, Vrock. When are they going to 3.5 Savage species, by the way? *grin*) Those of us who were (Demons/devils I can never remember which is which) were on the run from the blood war. We'd had enough, and so we'd dodged the press gang and gone on the run to the material plane. Round robin GM, with one focusing on the ongoing plot and the other essentially running episodic content. Rules decisions by concensus.

I would say that the majority of roleplaying goes on outside of the realm of crunch. Though our ragtag group did combat under the mechanics of D&D, our hairbrained schemes and party banter were free of any such restraint.

The primary thing the rules restrict, I would say, is the level of competance which you can claim for yourself. D&D starts at a really low level of competence. A single fighter can easily be downed by a group of enraged farmers with pitchforks(Fear my three pronged AoO!). Not very heroic. Of course it scales all the way up to "Oh my god, it is he, the one venerated by the very gods themselves, the one, the true PC!"

Comparatively Unknown Armies has a very high level of presumed confidence. If you have a skill, and you're not in combat, you succeed. It is only a matter of time before you pick that lock, because you're a lockpicker. It's only a matter of time before you score an illegal machine gun, because you're hooked up with the mob (being hooked up with the mob is indeed a UA skill).

D&D can often seem weird to me because, despite being a level based system, there's no concept of universal competance. A 10th level warrior may be an unceasing death machine in a tin can, but if he doensn't have any swim skill, he's going to the bottom just like a 1st level warrior in the same predicament, and he's going to miss that 10 foot running jump too.

Poison_Fish
2007-04-13, 03:46 PM
But that's exactly the point. "Positive reinforcement for creative effort" - bribes. Or cookies if you'd rather. The "good roleplayer, have a biscuit" method of GMing.

Some games view players as people that have to be encouraged to make a creative effort by a combined carrot and stick approach. Some view them as creative people who are actually going to make a creative effort as standard.



Mostly, I say "thanks, but I've got a lot going on at work so I don't really have time to read this."

See, I'm going to disagree because the sentiment your putting on it is trying to cast it in a negative light, ignoring the fact that positive reinforcement as a method has proven to be very effective for developing characters/future roleplayers. Granted, everyone does have to learn that at a certain point, your not going to get the same returns, just as I don't give out a billion freebies if your produce more and more work. Let's try not to think in extremes here though, since we are mostly theory crafting. I do find a moderate amount of reinforcement as something that is supportive of my games. I'm not saying it's better, but so far, it's been useful for me.

Bribing, on the other hand, is just slapping the wrong connotation to it. Unless somehow, a player getting a small sliver of an XP or a new potential plot hook is somehow associated with corruption. Hence, while I'll say not to use that word.


And you'd be wrong to disagree. DM's are encouraged to cheat, if it makes the game more fun for everyone. Every game says that. To let the fate of the PC's hinge upon die rolls and only die rolls at every point in the game is ridiculous and gets in the way of a good story.

The rules are there as tools for the DM to create a consistent campaign setting, based upon how they choose to implement them. Regardless of the rules system used. They are also there to create a consistent system by which the players create their characters and level up. Nothing more.

The reason there are no rules other than Rule Zero for storytelling in D&D, is that they're not required. It's impossible in fact, to create rules other than Rule Zero, for good storytelling. There are plenty of guidelines and suggestions to facilitate a good story and methods by which you can reward and encourage players to participate, such as giving them a situational modifier based upon how well they describe their actions.

Which then gets into the question of fate/rail roading/what have you. Then again, your using an extreme to try and counter what I was saying earlier. I could easily just as much say that with a GM controlling each and every action, including who succeeds or not directly, isn't roleplaying. It's a power trip.

There is a saying that I've seen for quite some time. The dice can tell a story of their own. Now, it is our job as a GM to facilitate just what these rolls might mean, how NPC's react according to how we think they should, and so on. But, even having that random element at least provides the illusion or feeling that not everything is in one persons hands. So, getting past the extreme examples, what is the point of a system to story telling? I'd just say as much say that it's another method, if a little more complex of telling a story. Having the mechanics around is a way for players to help feel involved in a story, rather then just a straight book.

Now, I won't make the claim that running a game is like writing a book. They are very different, in fact, since your going through another meta beyond just your own thoughts for writing the story. I don't know if you follow this view, but I view a roleplaying game as the combination of a choose your own adventure (That is constantly evolving) where a player can choose many possibilities of what to do, but also the random of the mechanics and the characters abilities help ensure that the same result will not always apply. Now the "random" could be the Storyteller just deciding what happens. Or it could be the mechanics and the Storyteller. In a way, it could even be just the mechanics helping to decide. Ultimately though, it's all a series of events that are connected that are influenced by a player taking a role.

Fhaolan
2007-04-13, 03:48 PM
I have a weird question for everyone, that I hope is relevant to this thread. (If not, I'll post it separately.) It takes a bit of build-up, so bear with me.

Whenever I read discussions on fluff vs crunch, storytellers vs wargamers, and whatnot with respect to D&D, all the strange RAW rule loopholes get brought up.

Has anyone ever played a pure RAW D&D 3.5 game? Where *all* the official rules are used and *no* houserules (or handwaving away if the rules are inconvenient) are allowed? Is it feasable to run D&D 3.5 as a unaltered rule-set?

I've never done it, myself. The last time I played D&D as a pure un-houseruled ruleset was back in the time of the blue-book Basic D&D time. When we upgraded to Advanced D&D, we didn't apply all the rules because nobody in the game group could decipher Gygax's writing style in the DMG. We were constantly finding new rules we never knew existed in there. From there we had gathered up so many houserules that each time we upgraded, we would decide which houserules to keep and which to discard. We never played without at least some houserules.

Dausuul
2007-04-13, 04:07 PM
I have a weird question for everyone, that I hope is relevant to this thread. (If not, I'll post it separately.) It takes a bit of build-up, so bear with me.

Whenever I read discussions on fluff vs crunch, storytellers vs wargamers, and whatnot with respect to D&D, all the strange RAW rule loopholes get brought up.

Has anyone ever played a pure RAW D&D 3.5 game? Where *all* the official rules are used and *no* houserules are allowed? Is it feasable to run D&D 3.5 as a unaltered rule-set?

I've never done it, myself. The last time I played D&D as a pure un-houseruled ruleset was back in the time of the blue-book Basic D&D time. When we upgraded to Advanced D&D, we didn't apply all the rules because nobody in the game group could decipher Gygax's writing style in the DMG. We were constantly finding new rules we never knew existed in there. From there we had gathered up so many houserules that each time we upgraded, we would decide which houserules to keep and which to discard. We never played without at least some houserules.

Straight up, no houserules whatever? No, don't think I've ever played one of those.

The problem, though, is that there are so many strange RAW rule loopholes that finding and closing them all would take months if not years. I keep happening across such issues in play; and each time I do, it's a minor but accumulating annoyance. One more house-rule to make and hope I remember later; or, if I decide not to house-rule this one, one more flaw in the simulated reality to deliberately overlook. Either way, it's one more distraction from the effort to imagine a world where magic works and heroes do battle with the forces of Evil (or, in some cases, Good).

Plus, the game is built on a very rigid framework of interconnected rules, such that house-ruling one to make sense inevitably affects others. Do you think the 50% miss chance on incorporeals is stupid, so you change it to say that incorporeals take half damage from all physical effects? Well, then, being invisible and incorporeal just got a lot better, since now the 50% miss chance from invisibility stacks with the half damage from incorporeality. Suddenly ghostform and invisibility together effectively quadruple your hit points instead of doubling them. This may not be a bad thing--conceptually, actually, it makes a lot of sense--but it does change the balance of power, and strengthens casters to some degree, and that's something one has to keep in mind.

It's just tiresome. It's work; it's not fun work; and it feels like it shouldn't be necessary.

Saph
2007-04-13, 04:08 PM
I have a weird question for everyone, that I hope is relevant to this thread. (If not, I'll post it separately.) It takes a bit of build-up, so bear with me.

Whenever I read discussions on fluff vs crunch, storytellers vs wargamers, and whatnot with respect to D&D, all the strange RAW rule loopholes get brought up.

Has anyone ever played a pure RAW D&D 3.5 game? Where *all* the official rules are used and *no* houserules (or handwaving away if the rules are inconvenient) are allowed?

I'm not sure if it's even possible to run a game of any system where everything is decided by RAW. Which setting do you use? Who are the NPCs? How are you going to adjudicate any action that isn't covered by skills or actions in combat? Heck, how do you even decide where the PCs are, what they're supposed to be doing, or where they're going? That stuff is all DM's call.

It is possible to run a game which is as RAW as possible, though, which I'm guessing is what Silvanos is doing at the moment in the Core Class Battle. You follow the rules for everything that the rules cover, and only use DM's call for stuff that's clearly outside the rules (like deciding what the adventure's supposed to be).

In that sense, yes, I've played and run 'pure' RAW games. I know everyone likes to bring up the problems and loopholes in D&D rules, but honestly, I just don't think they're that big an issue unless you go specifically looking for them. And even playing as rules-heavy and RAW as possible, the DM still determines an awful lot of what happens (unless you're playing pure combat).

- Saph

C Harnryd
2007-04-14, 12:28 AM
I picked your post to use as a starting point, Counterspin, not because it was particularly strange. :smallsmile:



The primary thing the rules restrict, I would say, is the level of competance which you can claim for yourself. D&D starts at a really low level of competence. A single fighter can easily be downed by a group of enraged farmers with pitchforks(Fear my three pronged AoO!). Not very heroic. Of course it scales all the way up to "Oh my god, it is he, the one venerated by the very gods themselves, the one, the true PC!"

Comparatively Unknown Armies has a very high level of presumed confidence. If you have a skill, and you're not in combat, you succeed. It is only a matter of time before you pick that lock, because you're a lockpicker. It's only a matter of time before you score an illegal machine gun, because you're hooked up with the mob (being hooked up with the mob is indeed a UA skill).


I must say I think the DnD approach is more conductive to storytelling. A character begins like a normal, inexperienced person. She is a victim of circumstance and can't do much beside reacting to the situations she is presented with.
But as time goes by, she becomes more and more powerful. She starts having greater and greater impact on the world. Her choices matter more and more.
And of course, nothing prevents a DM from allowing you to begin play at a higher level, where you will pick that lock because you're a lockpicker.

This isn't storytelling in the sense that a GM can decide the outcome of every situation without ignoring the RAW. But it can potentially lead to great stories, because the characters, their actions, and their consequences are in focus.



D&D can often seem weird to me because, despite being a level based system, there's no concept of universal competance. A 10th level warrior may be an unceasing death machine in a tin can, but if he doensn't have any swim skill, he's going to the bottom just like a 1st level warrior in the same predicament, and he's going to miss that 10 foot running jump too.
Hm, usually people complain about the opposite: compared to a real life person, every 10th level character will be good at surviving both battles (through hps and attack bonus) and unexpected dangers (through saving throws). And while swimming is a telling exception, the experienced character who've never been interested in jumping might very well miss a long jump, but he will probably survive the fall and be in a position to try again eventually.

As for optimization: I don't know any game that can't be optimized. I know a lot of games, though, were your character will be worthless unless you optimize heavily. In DnD, compared to normal people your character will quickly become formidable, without any effort from your part.

belboz
2007-04-14, 12:51 AM
This may or may not be relevant, but it seems to me a point worth making: I don't, exactly, think roleplaying and storytelling are the same thing.

It's possible to roleplay extensively in the almost complete absence of a story. What you have then is, essentially, a set of interesting stock characters that take part in one improv skit after another.

Stunt-type systems may or may not be good for roleplaying (I haven't had much direct experience with them), but I don't really see how they help tell a story. A series of vividly, even beautifully, described heroic actions do not a story make.

Storytelling in the context of an RPG is tricky, because it requires that the DM respect a careful balance between encouraging a coherent plot and avoiding railroading. Not penalizing players for creating varied and interesting characters is an important part of it, because good stories need to be peopled interestingly, but it's far from all of it.

D&D has, IMO, some "brokennesses" that do sometimes penalize people for not going with the tried-and-true; these require house-rules to redress. But other than that, I don't really see the mechanics getting more in the way of storytelling than does the simple fact that players will (and should) persist in trying the unexpected.

PnP Fan
2007-04-14, 08:24 AM
I have lots of things I'd like to add to this thread, but I'm running a little short on time at the moment.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that 'the game', whatever game it might be, doesn't make you do anything. If you've had poor RP experiences in a game, it's because RP wasn't a priority for you and the people you were playing with. I've been in games where White Wolf was used as a tactical game. I've been in and run games where D&D was focused on the story, with combat taking a secondary role (actually this is how most of my games go, enough combat to keep the combat monkeys happy, and plot to keep the plot monkeys happy).
As far as the RAW, there are about 4 pages in the 3.5 DMG describing things to award xp for, only one section of which is for killin' stuff (technically it's not even that), the rest of it is about story awards, goal awards, and yes, RP awards. So, to say that D&D doesn't encourage RP/Story is a misconception.
A lot of this stuff is (IMO) a function of the people you play with, especially the DM, since he controls the environment the PCs interact with, but everyone at the table has a role in determining how much story/RP/tactical gaming goes on in any one session/campaign.
I have more to say about this topic, but I'm off to run a game with my buddies.

Counterspin
2007-04-14, 09:40 AM
I've played plenty of games that required no house ruling. If the characters are self policing, or interested in helping you maintain the balance of the game, it's easy.

Indon
2007-04-14, 11:14 AM
Compared to other systems, I've noticed a few things that set D&D as it is apart:

-D&D has a lot of potential for varying power levels in games (not itself unique, but bear with me). I feel this can facilitate a very 'heroic' feeling potentially, but a GM who doesn't watch the power level of his players compared to his game can be in for some trouble.

-D&D encourages logical models. By putting into rules form more things than many other game systems, it provides a large variety of effects that can be expressed in terms of classes, abilities, feats, etc. This is a facet of the game which provides a great deal of material and potential material (or in other words, it's pretty easy to homebrew things 'cause there's so much rule structure to work with)

-D&D tries for a larger scope of ideas than many other games. The only game I can think of which comes close is World of Darkness, which introduced or elaborated on many character concepts that weren't often seen before (were-spiders come to mind). D&D, with its' vast array of classes, prestige classes, races, feats, spells, does this on a vast scale. This provides strong opportunities for RP and immersion, as a DM can introduce his players to things they've actually never seen or contemplated before (a good example for earlier D&D would be the gelatinous cube, I'd say). The downside to this is that these crazy things have rules attached to them (due to the logical model facet), which can easily be used by an ambitious player to screw with the game's power level.

-Finally, the ultimate result of all these vastly varied mechanics and game scopes: D&D mandates creativity. You're going to houserule, homebrew, and generally break the rules of the game to get where you want to go, see all the things you want to see. This is important because this sort of thing is an important part of every tabletop RPG; D&D, however, brings it to the forefront. I feel this makes it a surprisingly good system for beginner roleplayers, particularly those with an interest in DM'ing. The downside to this is, of course, that you're learning to discard the rules because you find you need to discard rules.

Diggorian
2007-04-14, 04:16 PM
*rubs sore eyes after catching up*

I dont think D&D discourages roleplaying as much as has flaws ("brokennesses", right Belboz? :smallwink:) that hurt roleplaying aspects of the game, as there are mechanical flaws. You cant please everyone all the time, and neither can 3.5.

Really, like others have said before, it's what you make of the game. The rules truely are guidelines, if they dont give what you want change them a little and see what that does for ya. The more you experiment with variants, the better you become at game design. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Eberron all began as a list of houserules and original non-RAW ideas.

I've played only one or two straight RAW D&D games. The online Freeport game was decent, low level and short term. The DM was good about allowing character interaction and describing the environment.

Another DM who ran Ptolus tabletop for a year wasnt good at description nor character Rping and favored published adventures. The game was drab and long. You could count your four daily encounters, plainly know which NPC ya had to talk to, circumstance always lead you back to the prescribed plotline. It was like a sucky side-scrolling video game with no graphics.

Counterpower
2007-04-14, 04:41 PM
This may or may not be relevant, but it seems to me a point worth making: I don't, exactly, think roleplaying and storytelling are the same thing.

It's possible to roleplay extensively in the almost complete absence of a story. What you have then is, essentially, a set of interesting stock characters that take part in one improv skit after another.

Stunt-type systems may or may not be good for roleplaying (I haven't had much direct experience with them), but I don't really see how they help tell a story. A series of vividly, even beautifully, described heroic actions do not a story make.

Absolutely true. Right now, my campaign isn't in storytelling mode yet, but that might have something to do with the fact that we haven't gotten through much yet. Creative descriptions are not absolutely essential to roleplaying or storytelling, IMO, since there isn't a whole lot of room for playing a role in a fight to the death other than what tactical decisions you make. The RPing and/or STing can stay outside of combat for my group.


Storytelling in the context of an RPG is tricky, because it requires that the DM respect a careful balance between encouraging a coherent plot and avoiding railroading. Not penalizing players for creating varied and interesting characters is an important part of it, because good stories need to be peopled interestingly, but it's far from all of it.

D&D has, IMO, some "brokennesses" that do sometimes penalize people for not going with the tried-and-true; these require house-rules to redress. But other than that, I don't really see the mechanics getting more in the way of storytelling than does the simple fact that players will (and should) persist in trying the unexpected.

Of course, they'll almost always wreck your complex plot by just making one decision differently. My trick there is to be somewhat adaptable.

Notice to my players: open the spoiler, and you will regret it. Campaign secrets, and all that.

Their next adventure, after we finish the current one, will be a return to a city and a kingdom that sent spies onboard the airship they traveled on. They uncovered those spies. Long story short, they took three of the five prisoner and killed the other two. This kingdom......... um, doesn't like having its spies killed. Thus, on their return to the city, they will be confronted by a weak (EL 4, they're all 8th level) guard patrol who'll demand their surrender. I don't expect those guards to live. Then comes the stronger guards with countermages ready, since the ones who'll want to resist are the bard and warmage. Should they defeat them, well......... then they have a chance to escape the city (maybe) followed by the strongest assault the authorities can call in, at EL 14. And I make plans for both escaping the city and getting captured. Is it railroading? To some extent, but calling in the elite EL 14 guards is what the authorities would do at that point.

I also have an entire campaign outline that details the general plot. There's plenty of room for improvisation on the part of the players. At one point, they can do any one of up to 10 different missions, and can leave some of them in the middle to go do other ones.

I don't really care about my character's backstories. I can build off of the two page backstory that my half-dragon wrote and just ignore the warmage who doesn't even have a name when the story develops.

PnP Fan
2007-04-15, 12:51 AM
Okay, I've got a little more time to address a couple of things that I didn't have time for this morning. . .
1. What do folks mean by the phrase "Story Mechanics". I don't think I've ever seen a system that actually provided mechanics to determine the story, other than maybe a random encounter table, but that's hardly a story. Lots of "event resolution" systems out there (nearly 100% of games have this), but never a game mechanic that actually allowed the players to influence the story, except the fact that the players have free will and, typically, complete control of their characters choices (including the ability to do things on their own, like start a band, or a women's shelter, regardless of the adventure). So, if someone could explain what Story Mechanics are, I'd appreciate it.
2. Stunting: I'm in the middle on this. If you have folks at the table who are good speakers, or know how to describe things well, it can be neat. Not every group has this luxury, and its not a lot of fun if your player that doesn't have the talent/education to do so, is constantly getting beat up because he's not as good a wordsmith. (I regularly play game with one fellow who has mild dyslexia, and one fellow who is slightly mentally challenged. Wordsmithing is not their strong suit.) There is also the time devouring aspect of it, but since my groups generally only do 1 combat per session, this probably isn't much of an issue for us.
3. CoC/Vampire/Cyberpunk and other games involving "slow descent into madness". I'm not sure that reacting to a game mechanic is really what you can call role-playing. They do an excellent job of establishing atmosphere, but I'm not sure that it's really role-playing inducing. What you get is people reacting to "encounters" in a fashion where they have one more thing to maintain (San pts/Humanity/and the Cyberpunk equivalent) besides hit points. When they run from an encounter, it's not necessarily because the "spunky reporter" is roleplayed well, it's because the player of said "spunky reporter" is trying to conserve the character's SAN score, which is just another flavor of hit points, basically. Similarly, the "anarchist biker" character in Vampire might suddenly become a lot nicer when he realizes that he's just lost a Humanity point, in hopes of saving his humanity or conserving what he's got left. Neither of these behaviors is really role-playing, it's carrot-stick conditioning. I'm not saying that you can't get fantastic role-play out of these games, because you certainly can! But I'm not entirely convinced that these mechanics actually enhance/improve role-play.
4. Dan Hemmens: "I consider "story" to be "a sequence of events which meaningfully changes the lives of characters I care about" so I don't think D&D is particularly set up to produce stories."
I won't argue with your definition. I think it's a reasonable one, perhaps a little on the lofty side (some of the greatest fiction out there doesn't necessarily involve a dynamic character), but reasonable. My only question is what mechanic out there actually creates a change in character personality, that isn't completely artificial? For example, one might argue that Humanity in Vampire can drive the development of a character, except that's usually the player realizing his Hum score is getting lower, and he's trying to protect his character. Thus the change in personality arises not from the character recognizing the error of his ways, but from the player wanting to protect his favorite character. Most of the "character evolution" I've seen at the table has been from story elements that were completely independant of the game mechanics (PC's falling in love with each other, for example). I guess what I'm getting at is that all RPG games are simultaneously designed to both meet and not meet your definition. It's all in how you decide to use the system.
5. I think that D&D has kind of a bad rep from the "good old days". My groups included. Once upon a time, in a land called 1st ed, characters became wiser, and more powerful, only by killing things. Even in 2nd ed, the experience pts for "rp activities" were limited to class activities. So for many years, D&D got the rep as being the "kill stuff" game, and that's how folks played it. Nothing inately wrong with this, unless you're a story person. Then along comes WW "Games for Mature Minds" i.e. a marketing ploy that appeals to snobbery (because, y'know sitting around and playing pretend is soooooo mature ;-). Yes it had some inovative ideas, and yes, it did give awards for nebulous things like "good rp". These are good things. And the folks at WotC listened and learned. Now there are allowances for story/rp awards. Not everyone uses them, but you can hardly blame the 3.5 system for that. It's not the book's fault that some people don't read that chapter more thoroughly. It still all comes down to the people at the table (virtual or real).

PaladinBoy
2007-04-15, 10:45 AM
I think that the game can be whatever you make it. Want to do RPing? It's possible. Want combat? It's possible. Admittedly, the combat gets more rules coverage, but I think it probably needs more. Who needs rules to hold a conversation?

And yes, some character concepts are not as good as others. And? My sig shows my current character. Yes, I'm sacrificing caster levels, try not to faint. My character concept is a horrible wizard, particularly give that there's a warmage/wizard in the party who, after multiclassing to ultimate magus, will be able to do exactly the same things I do. And he'll have warmage spellcasting. He doesn't have the abilities that my character does, and even if his warmage spellcasting turns out to be more useful in more situations than my other abilities, I'll survive; after all, my other abilities will be used. (Hear that, Counterpower? Give me situations that use my other abilities!)

Matthew
2007-04-15, 01:25 PM
Dungeons & Dragons is a very flexible and durable RPG. As written, it is geared towards supporting a more combat orientated game than anything else, but there are plenty of variant rules (not to mention House Rules) available that allow you to custom build the game to support other modes of play. You just about have to alter the rules set here and there to keep the game balanced over time.

Other RPGs use similar rules sets, some more than others, and they are written to support a certain type of game play. Some are more flexible than others and some are more combat orientated. Ars Magica is an example of a more cooperative story based RPG, but it also supports a reasonable combat system.

However, most other RPGs are heavily tied into their settings and are more difficult to adapt to other styles of gameplay than what was intended (not all, mind you). Saying that, there are certain aspects of D&D that are very hard to remove without the system tumbling down and you usually have to be very familiar with the rules to successfully alter them. All the same, it is a very durable game.