PDA

View Full Version : "You just have a crappy DM"



Rhuadin
2008-09-22, 02:46 PM
Reading posts and talking to people IRL, people always have their favorite complaints about games x, y, and z, or particular classes, or railroading, or whatever. My default thought is "You just have a crappy DM." You are forced down a plot point you don't want? Crappy DM. Your DM doesn't let you play monk or samurai (3.x) because he thinks they're too powerful? Crappy DM.

However, one of my friends told me this complaint recently. He said that gaming has turned into a hack and slash combat fest, with no roleplaying or character development to speak of. I told him it was, surprise surprise, because he had a crappy DM.

He said, no, it's not because the DM is crappy, it's the system, it encourages combat. I asked him what made him think that. He told me that the system encourages combat because it's too streamlined, convenient, and easy to run. Of course, I was floored at this. You're telling me that the system is bad because it's too good at aspects of its ruleset?.

Anyway, my question to you is, what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the DM, and what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the game system itself?

kamikasei
2008-09-22, 02:52 PM
This seems like a false dilemma to me. You can take any situation you don't like and say it's either the fault of the system for not being sufficiently X (or too X) or the fault of the DM for not controlling, compensating for, or moderating it enough.

In other words, if for example encounters swing between "cakewalk" and
"overwhelming" is it the DM's failing in not anticipating their difficulty properly (yes) or the system's failing in making such predictions unnecessarily difficult (in all probability also yes)?

Lycan 01
2008-09-22, 02:52 PM
Arbitrary and pointless plots, scenarious, encounters, et cetra? Crappy DM.

Arbitary and pointless rules, dice rolls, game mechanics, et cetra? Crappy system.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-22, 02:55 PM
Reading posts and talking to people IRL, people always have their favorite complaints about games x, y, and z, or particular classes, or railroading, or whatever. My default thought is "You just have a crappy DM." You are forced down a plot point you don't want? Crappy DM. Your DM doesn't let you play monk or samurai (3.x) because he thinks they're too powerful? Crappy DM.

However, one of my friends told me this complaint recently. He said that gaming has turned into a hack and slash combat fest, with no roleplaying or character development to speak of. I told him it was, surprise surprise, because he had a crappy DM.

He said, no, it's not because the DM is crappy, it's the system, it encourages combat. I asked him what made him think that. He told me that the system encourages combat because it's too streamlined, convenient, and easy to run. Of course, I was floored at this. You're telling me that the system is bad because it's too good at aspects of its ruleset?.

Anyway, my question to you is, what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the DM, and what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the game system itself?

Wait, so he was playing 3rd edition without reoleplaying and he blames the system?
I mean sure combat and spells are most of the PHB in 3rd edition, but that doesn't mean it is the system fault for not forcing you to roleplay.

I blame plot/rulings not covered in books/houserules on as bad DM. Like Houserule banning monk because he thinks that Monks are too powerful. Bad DM maybe. Maybe he had a horror story about them.

Even then, I'm pretty sure someome cheated for a monk to too powerful. Unless the Monk was the only one optimized (hard to believe but possible).

Telonius
2008-09-22, 02:55 PM
Things that suggest there's a problem with the game system:

- It's impossible to model a reasonable situation or character using the rules given.
- The average player would find the method of action resolution to be overly complex, hard-to-manage, or excessively time-consuming.
- The outputs of action resolution seem counter-intuitive or silly to the average player.
- The system doesn't do what it advertises itself as doing.

(Note that there's a certain amount of subjective judgment on each of those items).


Things that suggest there's a problem with either the DM, the players, or communication between the DM and players:

- Just about everything else.

Jayabalard
2008-09-22, 02:58 PM
Personally, I think that all problems are the fault of either the DM, or one of the players.

Matthew
2008-09-22, 03:02 PM
It always comes down to the participants. However, some systems make it easier to be "good" in certain areas. For instance, D20/3e has a reasonable (if often fallible) guide to constructing encounters. That makes it easier to construct encounters that are challenging, but not devastating.

Tormsskull
2008-09-22, 03:02 PM
He said, no, it's not because the DM is crappy, it's the system, it encourages combat. I asked him what made him think that. He told me that the system encourages combat because it's too streamlined, convenient, and easy to run.


I highly doubt the guy used these exact words. This honestly sounds like the guy answered and you're just paraphrasing it. If the guy actually answered in these exact words, he's either having a bad day or perhaps there's just no hope for him.



Anyway, my question to you is, what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the DM, and what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the game system itself?


A boring story, lame NPCs, railroading, forgotten rules, these things can be blamed on a bad DM.

Over/under powered spells/classes/items/abilities/etc can be blamed on the system, assuming that the DM is running them as intended.

valadil
2008-09-22, 03:03 PM
I wouldn't say that D&D encourages combat, but that it focuses on combat. Reading through the rules you get a lot of effects and mechanics that are combat specific. This makes players think "gee, combat must be important if so much of the rulebook is focused on it." It also lures people into combat because they want to play with all those cool rules.

Social situations lack in D&D lack an interesting ruleset. You roll your skill and see how much the attitude shifts. Oh and those rules don't even work all that well.

People who want to play with interesting rules are going to be drawn to D&D combat because that's where all the interesting rules are.

afroakuma
2008-09-22, 03:16 PM
Quite frankly, the system needs most of its "engine," if you will, to be combat-focused.

What happens when you try to apply "system" to roleplaying?

You get 4e's skill thingy, where x successful roles get the story event out of the way.

3.x is good in that it has a consistency of system; players understand how to swim, climb, balance on a precipitous ledge, etc. because it runs off the same mechanic.

At the same time, 3.x also has "social skills" which still rely on the roll of a die. As a DM, I allow them, but force the related roleplaying. A successful Bluff check indicates that the guard is less suspicious than normal, not that you can waltz past him claiming to be a benevolent dragon god in disguise. Sense Motive allows you to catch a bit more inflection from the DM, but he won't use the disguised villain's voice to suddenly say "Why would you ever suspect that I could be anyone but who I claim to be? Because I'm certainly not the evil Moriarty in a none-too-clever disguise."

The only "social skill" I offer blanket results on is Gather Information, because of its stated purpose. If I need to know that the local barmaid has misgivings about her sorcerous lovechild, I still have to roleplay it or I get nothing. If, on the other hand, I need to know that there is a rumor of a sorcerer living in town... I'll use a roll, thanks.

Generally speaking, though, I prefer the streamlined combat engine. It allows a certain amount of equalization of power between player and DM and has enough room for innovation and silliness that it's still fun.

BRC
2008-09-22, 03:31 PM
DnD is definetally combat-centric. It's not like Shadowrun where you could easily do an entire campaign without getting into combat once. Pretty much every class and about 90% of other things are primarily built around a role in combat.

However, it's not impossible to run an adventure without combat. Just because there aren't rules for it doesn't mean it NEEDS rules. The Book Complete Scoundrel really helps with this. Generally, you want to challenge the players themselves, rather than the numbers on their character sheets and their luck with the die. Complete Scoundrel has alot of good stuff to help with this. Some ways to do it from me.
1. Tactics Tactics Tactics: Nothing gets old faster than "You walk into an empty 20x20 room, there is an ogre in it who attacks you". Instead, make your players think. Rather than sending them up against ten goblins, Send them up against ten goblins with Four of them in towers with crossbows, and the others behind cover ready to prevent the PC's from gaining access to said tower. Make the PC's fight smart in order to have a chance of succeding. Force them to use the terrain to their advantage.
2. Roleplaying: Conversations can be FAR more than a simple diplomacy check. Actually roleplay out conversations between PC's an NPC's, making the PC's roll diplomacy checks to convince the NPC on a specific point, with bonuses and penalties given depending on the arguments used. If your group are good enough roleplayers, let the enemy use diplomacy against THEM, if the NPC succeeds on his diplomacy check, the PC must agree with the NPC on that specific point (Also, only use this if you can comfortably not abuse it).


Actually, thinking about it. So many fun things arn't covered by the rules, because if there were rules for them, they wouldn't be fun. Imagine if planning an assault was a "Tactics Check", solving a mystery was just "Make an int check, if you succeed, I tell you whodunit".

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-09-22, 03:41 PM
You know, railroading isn't alwasy a bad thing. If it weren't for DM railroading we'd go entire sessions without accomplishing anything other then selling a few items, being thrown out of several bars and having sexual harrasment charges thrown at us by random NPCs. Seriously, our characters have no work ambition.

Do you have a traumatic experience with a DM? Cause it seriously seems that every problem D&D will ever have is the fault of the DM from your standpoint.

TheCountAlucard
2008-09-22, 03:46 PM
Roleplaying: Conversations can be FAR more than a simple diplomacy check. Actually roleplay out conversations between PC's an NPC's, making the PC's roll diplomacy checks to convince the NPC on a specific point, with bonuses and penalties given depending on the arguments used. If your group are good enough roleplayers, let the enemy use diplomacy against THEM, if the NPC succeeds on his diplomacy check, the PC must agree with the NPC on that specific point.

Last Friday's game had an interesting bit of roleplaying. The PCs somehow ended up talking to Orcus, Demon Prince of the Undead. Not a single die was rolled, either.

The New Bruceski
2008-09-22, 03:56 PM
Personally, I think that all problems are the fault of either the DM, or one of the players.

I got fired from my job. It's because I have a bad DM.
Wild dogs? Socially-inept party member.
Meteors falling from the sky? Man, my gaming group needs to learn to play.

afroakuma
2008-09-22, 03:59 PM
Poor Orcus. He's probably still a little addled from

his short time as an undead semigod with the immortal soul-chewing power of the last word. Oh yeah, and from subbing for Primus.

Winterwind
2008-09-22, 04:03 PM
It always comes down to the participants. However, some systems make it easier to be "good" in certain areas. For instance, D20/3e has a reasonable (if often fallible) guide to constructing encounters. That makes it easier to construct encounters that are challenging, but not devastating.This.

There is no problem in roleplaying that is not the fault of either the gamemaster or one of the other players (which it is has to be decided on a case-to-case basis). Some systems are better for certain styles of playing however - a player who particularly enjoys a meticulous character creation with lots of planning will likely have more fun in a rules-heavy system, whereas a storyteller who only wants the mechanics to get as little into her/his way as possible will enjoy a rules-light system more. Both will likely have fun in just about any roleplaying game though, as long as the participants are fine.

Chronos
2008-09-22, 04:22 PM
Some problems can be blamed on the system. A complaint of "Whenever we get into combat, the wizard takes care of everything before anyone else even has a chance to act", for instance, is at least partly the fault of the system (and partly the fault of the wizard's player, of course, but the system makes it possible and in fact easy).

However, there is no way to blame the system for "This is all just hack-and-slash; there isn't enough roleplaying". That's either the players' fault (in which case, why are you complaining, if that's what you choose to do?), or the DM's. You can role-play in any system whatsoever. Heck, I've seen folks who role-play in Diablo II, of all things (and if there was ever a game that was "pure" hack-and-slash, that's it).

BRC
2008-09-22, 04:25 PM
It's the DM's fault for not giving the players an opportunity, it's the players fault for not taking it.


For example, if all the DM does is have the players walk from one otherwise empty room with an evil monster in it to another room with an evil monster in it, that's the DM's fault for not giving the players anything to do besides kill things. The players can't exactly stratigize or role play when all that happens is they walk into a room and somthing tries to eat their faces off.

On the other hand, if the PC's have to get somthing from the ducal palace, and all they do is kick down the front door and slaughter everbody inside, then the players can't complain about the game being hack-n-slash

JMobius
2008-09-22, 04:39 PM
He said, no, it's not because the DM is crappy, it's the system, it encourages combat. I asked him what made him think that.

The fact that the system rewards combat. See the fact that the system seems to be designed for "kill it and take its stuff" as the primary source of both wealth and XP. If the system implies that rewards and incentives are generally available for combat, that is encourament, and typically all that most players need.

Compare this to a system such as Shadowrun, in which combat is generally undesirable, and is just going to cost you resources (if not your life).

Knaight
2008-09-22, 05:06 PM
Yes, but it being streamlined is kind of a ridiculous claim for encouraging combat.

JMobius
2008-09-22, 05:09 PM
Of course, which is why as Tormskull pointed out it is likely a (slightly biased) paraphrasing, rather than a direct quote.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-22, 05:14 PM
I got fired from my job. It's because I have a bad DM.
Wild dogs? Socially-inept party member.
Meteors falling from the sky? Man, my gaming group needs to learn to play.

No, I think the fired part was the players fault.

I agree that wild dogs were from the party member

Meteors: Totally a DM fault. Why did he even put them up there!

In fact, every World War (that's two for those reading) is the fault of a DM. But he does create good plotlines.

Jayabalard
2008-09-22, 05:36 PM
I got fired from my job. It's because I have a bad DM.More likely you're a bad player.

Wild dogs? Socially-inept party member.I'm not sure what the problem you're referring to here.

Meteors falling from the sky? Man, my gaming group needs to learn to play.This one is probably the Big DM in the sky's fault.

Sholos
2008-09-22, 07:54 PM
Quite frankly, the system needs most of its "engine," if you will, to be combat-focused.

What happens when you try to apply "system" to roleplaying?

You get 4e's skill thingy, where x successful roles get the story event out of the way.

3.x is good in that it has a consistency of system; players understand how to swim, climb, balance on a precipitous ledge, etc. because it runs off the same mechanic.

At the same time, 3.x also has "social skills" which still rely on the roll of a die. As a DM, I allow them, but force the related roleplaying. A successful Bluff check indicates that the guard is less suspicious than normal, not that you can waltz past him claiming to be a benevolent dragon god in disguise. Sense Motive allows you to catch a bit more inflection from the DM, but he won't use the disguised villain's voice to suddenly say "Why would you ever suspect that I could be anyone but who I claim to be? Because I'm certainly not the evil Moriarty in a none-too-clever disguise."

The only "social skill" I offer blanket results on is Gather Information, because of its stated purpose. If I need to know that the local barmaid has misgivings about her sorcerous lovechild, I still have to roleplay it or I get nothing. If, on the other hand, I need to know that there is a rumor of a sorcerer living in town... I'll use a roll, thanks.

Generally speaking, though, I prefer the streamlined combat engine. It allows a certain amount of equalization of power between player and DM and has enough room for innovation and silliness that it's still fun.

What do you do with a player who's not all that socially adept (a D&D player who's not social? Perish the thought.) but has a character who's supposed to be the life of the party?

Rhuadin
2008-09-22, 08:03 PM
It always comes down to the participants. However, some systems make it easier to be "good" in certain areas. For instance, D20/3e has a reasonable (if often fallible) guide to constructing encounters. That makes it easier to construct encounters that are challenging, but not devastating.

Personally, I think that all problems are the fault of either the DM, or one of the players.

This seems like a false dilemma to me. You can take any situation you don't like and say it's either the fault of the system for not being sufficiently X (or too X) or the fault of the DM for not controlling, compensating for, or moderating it enough.

I agree with the above, the 3rd quote is more towards what I'm going for. To clarify why I posted, here is my point of view: An excellent DM will be able to run a game with a bag of rocks and a blank notebook, or FATAL for all I care, (s)he's so excellent that the sheer skill of DMing overcomes any inherent weaknesses in the system. On the other hand, someone with negative points in perform(DM a campaign) wouldn't be able to DM their way out of a paper bag even with the PerfectSystem(tm). The average DM falls somewhere in between this spectrum, with their own shortcomings and strengths. So with that in mind, at what point do we expect the system to make up for DM shortcomings (and thus the system is at 'fault' if it doesn't)?


Wait, so he was playing 3rd edition without reoleplaying and he blames the system?... Like Houserule banning monk because he thinks that Monks are too powerful. Bad DM maybe. Maybe he had a horror story about them.

Sorry I didn't make this more clear, I meant the monk and the railroading as examples of clearly crappy DMing, and to consider the friend's case as the situation at hand (which I deliberately left system-agnostic).


I highly doubt the guy used these exact words. This honestly sounds like the guy answered and you're just paraphrasing it. If the guy actually answered in these exact words, he's either having a bad day or perhaps there's just no hope for him.
I'm paraphrasing. He said something like this:

... you get a lot of effects and mechanics that are combat specific. This makes players think "gee, combat must be important if so much of the rulebook is focused on it." ... Social situations lack in D&D lack an interesting ruleset.
People who want to play with interesting rules are going to be drawn to D&D combat because that's where all the interesting rules are.
I agree that my paraphrasing is probably biased, but the context of the conversation was that it seems like more combat is happening in the (fixed time-length) sessions, to which I pointed out that the system's combat rules are streamlined and thus combat doesn't take as long... to which he said that the DM was using streamlined combat as an excuse to throw us into more combat. But that it was the system's fault, not the DM's.

You know, railroading isn't alwasy a bad thing. If it weren't for DM railroading we'd go entire sessions without accomplishing anything other then selling a few items, being thrown out of several bars and having sexual harrasment charges thrown at us by random NPCs. Seriously, our characters have no work ambition.

Do you have a traumatic experience with a DM? Cause it seriously seems that every problem D&D will ever have is the fault of the DM from your standpoint.
See, but what if you wanted to play a character with no work ambition? If that's the kind of characters your group wants to play, your DM shouldn't force all of you into his storyline. But I agree that in some cases railroading is acceptable, I was just using it as an example.

As far as traumatic experiences, yes, but I've also had absolutely amazing experiences. They were with the same game system *and* with the same players, so the only variable there was the DM. (The DM of either game was a player in the other, so it really was the same players)



There is no problem in roleplaying that is not the fault of either the gamemaster or one of the other players (which it is has to be decided on a case-to-case basis). Some systems are better for certain styles of playing however - a player who particularly enjoys a meticulous character creation with lots of planning will likely have more fun in a rules-heavy system, whereas a storyteller who only wants the mechanics to get as little into her/his way as possible will enjoy a rules-light system more. Both will likely have fun in just about any roleplaying game though, as long as the participants are fine.

I agree that some systems are better for certain styles of playing than others. However, I'd like to abstract that train of thought away from this discussion, because of your last sentence. I would hardly say that the non-specificity of a system that is adaptable to many playstyles or a campaign run by a DM who can't cater to all his players is the fault of either.


Some problems can be blamed on the system. A complaint of "Whenever we get into combat, the wizard takes care of everything before anyone else even has a chance to act", for instance, is at least partly the fault of the system (and partly the fault of the wizard's player, of course, but the system makes it possible and in fact easy).

However, there is no way to blame the system for "This is all just hack-and-slash; there isn't enough roleplaying". That's either the players' fault (in which case, why are you complaining, if that's what you choose to do?), or the DM's. You can role-play in any system whatsoever. Heck, I've seen folks who role-play in Diablo II, of all things (and if there was ever a game that was "pure" hack-and-slash, that's it).
Your first paragraph is pretty much the kind of thing I'm looking for. Sure, the DM could rule to totally gimp the wizard -- but if that would just lead to resentment and possibly more problems, then I could see how that is a system problem, not a DM problem. As far as your second paragraph goes, he feels like the system quashes attempts at roleplaying.

Raum
2008-09-22, 08:27 PM
Reading posts and talking to people IRL, people always have their favorite complaints about games x, y, and z, or particular classes, or railroading, or whatever. My default thought is "You just have a crappy DM." You are forced down a plot point you don't want? Crappy DM. Your DM doesn't let you play monk or samurai (3.x) because he thinks they're too powerful? Crappy DM.I have to ask, what does "crappy DM" mean to you? It seems to be a catch all answer which avoids answering anything specific. Have you considered attempting to suggest specific methods of correcting behaviors you and others dislike? Saying the problem is "a crappy DM" only polarizes sides.


However, one of my friends told me this complaint recently. He said that gaming has turned into a hack and slash combat fest, with no roleplaying or character development to speak of. I told him it was, surprise surprise, because he had a crappy DM.

He said, no, it's not because the DM is crappy, it's the system, it encourages combat. I asked him what made him think that. He told me that the system encourages combat because it's too streamlined, convenient, and easy to run. Of course, I was floored at this. You're telling me that the system is bad because it's too good at aspects of its ruleset?.Different systems do encourage different things. Not sure I understand your friend's point, but you haven't mentioned what system he's referring to either. If it's D&D I'll agree with his premise but am boggled by his reasoning. :smallwink:


Anyway, my question to you is, what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the DM, and what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the game system itself?I try to"assign responsibility" instead of "blame". And that's fairly easy. The system is responsible for mechanical problems.
The system and the players (including DM) share responsibility for game tone and play style issues.
The players (including the DM) are responsible for interpersonal issues.
The players and / or DM (based on share of narrative power) are responsible for story issues.

Tormsskull
2008-09-22, 08:34 PM
This one is probably the Big DM in the sky's fault.

And boy is he a railroader. He simply refuses to let me make the character I really want.

Ralfarius
2008-09-22, 08:38 PM
This one is probably the Big DM in the sky's fault.
... Gary Gygax?

Yahzi
2008-09-22, 08:54 PM
The fact that the system rewards combat.
In fact, that's about all it rewards...

I always ask DMs, "How do NPCs gain levels in your world?" Because they certainly don't go around killing monsters. There just aren't enough monsters for that.

Usually the DM says something like, "Through study and practice."

Then I say, "Can I do that?"

"No!"

:smallbiggrin:

Mushroom Ninja
2008-09-22, 09:04 PM
In fact, that's about all it rewards...

I always ask DMs, "How do NPCs gain levels in your world?" Because they certainly don't go around killing monsters. There just aren't enough monsters for that.

Usually the DM says something like, "Through study and practice."

Then I say, "Can I do that?"

"No!"

:smallbiggrin:

That really depends on the DM. Many DMs give out experience based on the furtherance of the plot, not only combat.

TheElfLord
2008-09-22, 09:34 PM
That really depends on the DM. Many DMs give out experience based on the furtherance of the plot, not only combat.

While that is possible, the rules are set up to reward combat. Rewards for other things are secondary at best. To Quote the 3.0 DMG on roleplaying awards:

The awards should be just large enough for the player to notice them, probably no more than 50 XP per character level per adventure

Now that statement is open to interpretation, but the way I read it, you are suposes to get most of the xp from combat, and role playing is just the cherry on top. It's something you notice momentarily, but it doesn't make a big impact.

afroakuma
2008-09-22, 09:47 PM
As far as a socially unskilled player as the party "face" :

Either a) he's considered socially adept because his obvious discomfort and nervousness is disarming.

Or b) I suggest that he avoid picking "bard."

I encourage roleplaying as DM. I am willing to help my players reach that goal, but I won't run a slow, environmentally horrid MMORPG because one player isn't willing to at least make an attempt.

No amount of stats or luck are an excuse for roleplaying. If I have such a player and they're willing to work on coming out of their shell within the game, that's excellent. If they insist that Diplomacy was invented so they'd never have to say anything more complex than "Full attack the ogre," they're already looking for a different role in the party - or more likely, a different playing group. It's not that I don't like such people, nor would I banish them from my game. That being said, if that is really what they're looking to do, they're not in the right environment.

The Glyphstone
2008-09-22, 10:11 PM
And boy is he a railroader. He simply refuses to let me make the character I really want.

Yeah, it was unreasonable of him to ban the Ninja class simply because it "didn't fit the setting'. Lame.

Chronos
2008-09-22, 10:19 PM
While that is possible, the rules are set up to reward combat. I've never understood where people get this idea. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the primary source of XP is combat. The primary source of XP is overcoming challenges. Yes, combat is one way of overcoming some challenges, but it's not the only way, and some challenges can't really be overcome by combat at all. If you choose not to use non-combat methods to overcome challenges, then you shouldn't complain about there being too much combat.

turkishproverb
2008-09-22, 10:39 PM
As far as a socially unskilled player as the party "face" :

Either a) he's considered socially adept because his obvious discomfort and nervousness is disarming.

Or b) I suggest that he avoid picking "bard."

I encourage roleplaying as DM. I am willing to help my players reach that goal, but I won't run a slow, environmentally horrid MMORPG because one player isn't willing to at least make an attempt.

No amount of stats or luck are an excuse for roleplaying. If I have such a player and they're willing to work on coming out of their shell within the game, that's excellent. If they insist that Diplomacy was invented so they'd never have to say anything more complex than "Full attack the ogre," they're already looking for a different role in the party - or more likely, a different playing group. It's not that I don't like such people, nor would I banish them from my game. That being said, if that is really what they're looking to do, they're not in the right environment.

Ok, This is shounding a little harsh, depending on how it is meant. I mean really the fact is the diplomacy rules and such are there to llow someone to play a person more charismatic than themselves. Do you also require the party fighter to be able to cleave through large animals in a couple blows? I understand the need to roleplay things, but you have to remember people who play bards ARENT BARDS. Personally though, i agree with you on the they should at least try thing. I usually force my players to RP it and then roll in addition. If they don't seem like they're trying, I give a huge negative modifier, if they are, i give them the roll, and if they do surprisingly well based on what I've seen them do in normal conversation, a modest bonus.

BRC
2008-09-22, 11:08 PM
The way I see it, Diplomacy and Charisma are only partially what you say, they are more how you act. Alot of communication is body language and inflection. The way I see it, Roleplaying is what the PC's are saying. Even if the player says it in an awkward and unconvincing way, a good diplomacy roll means the PC said it in a way that made them seem likable. Maybe they switched a couple words around, but the meaning remained the same. There are so many different ways to say "Let me through this door" afterall.

Reinforcements
2008-09-22, 11:20 PM
I always ask DMs, "How do NPCs gain levels in your world?"
The RIGHT answer to that question is: "levels" and "experience" are entirely game constructs designed to give characters a way to increase in power as they play and thus have no bearing on an NPC.

And as usual, I pine for the day when people stop acting like "roleplaying" is what you do when you're not in combat.

horseboy
2008-09-23, 12:48 AM
The biggest "system" problems for me are when the system gets in my way of expressing character concepts.
As far as "a DM can fix any problem" concept I'm reminded of the old adage "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

Thrud
2008-09-23, 01:09 AM
I've always found that the most amount of roleplaying happens in skill based systems that do not especially reward players for combat. This was why I thought 3rd ed was a step in the right direction from 2nd ed. Anything that made the system skill based was a good thing as far as I was concerned. Shadowrun, Hero System (Champions), Storyteller system(Mage, Vampire, etc) and other similar systems, give a huge assist to roleplaying because when the player's knowledge breaks down there are dice rolls to help back them up.

Other games, without detailed skills systems and/or some sort of perks and flaws system start out at a disadvantage. Plus the way characters gain experience is hugely important. As others have pointed out in D&D the primary way to gain XP is to kill stuff. Everyone wants their characters to improve in some way or another, so in order to do that you have to go chop stuff up into little bits. You have to come up with your own homebrewed systems to reward roleplaying more than is suggested in the book in order to have the game NOT be all about combat.

So, I have to agree with the OP that some systems are just easier to RP in than others. Yes, an experienced player and or DM can even roleplay a game of monopoly. However, having a framework to assist that roleplaying makes it much easier for the players/DM.

To bring this back to the original point, I feel that a streamlined combat system with all the awards being based off of combat will necessarily be harmful to roleplaying without a great deal of homebrewing by the GM. A system with clunky/clumsy/especially deadly/ combat tends to assist roleplaying.

Rhuadin
2008-09-23, 11:07 AM
I have to ask, what does "crappy DM" mean to you? It seems to be a catch all answer which avoids answering anything specific. Have you considered attempting to suggest specific methods of correcting behaviors you and others dislike? Saying the problem is "a crappy DM" only polarizes sides.

Different systems do encourage different things... I try to"assign responsibility" instead of "blame".

I guess I intended my OP to be more lighthearted than it was interpreted. I pretty much look at it as assigning responsibility, too. A "crappy DM" as intended in the OP is simply someone who failed to address the responsibility of his or her position for the topic at hand, be it researching game balance, providing for player choice, or telling a compelling story. Such a person may not actually be a crappy DM because they may have other strengths that they bring into play (pun entirely intended).


I've never understood where people get this idea. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the primary source of XP is combat. The primary source of XP is overcoming challenges. Yes, combat is one way of overcoming some challenges, but it's not the only way, and some challenges can't really be overcome by combat at all. If you choose not to use non-combat methods to overcome challenges, then you shouldn't complain about there being too much combat.
I really wish more DMs would do this. I've seen very few systems that actually give guidelines for how much "challenge XP" a DM should give outside of combat. Would this be an example of something systems could do better (i.e. codify) or DMs could do better?


The biggest "system" problems for me are when the system gets in my way of expressing character concepts.
As far as "a DM can fix any problem" concept I'm reminded of the old adage "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
I would say that this is probably one of the "major" problems that can actually be attributed to a system, but that it shouldn't be an excuse as often as it is. My friend in the OP and I had this discussion about 4e (which may or may not be the system referred to in the OP ;)) He said that he didn't like the skill system, which I like because it's simplified. He said that it's impossible to make an Olympic swimmer or an expert rock climber who is really terrible at jumping -- being good at swimming or climbing also makes you good at jumping because of an abstract "athletics" skill. I responded by saying that he could take athletics and then just RP his character as a terrible jumper, maybe a self imposed penalty on jump checks.

I thought that would be a suitable solution for him, since he claims to be all about roleplaying. In fact, his favorite system is GURPS and he often doesn't create his characters using their full points because he's satisfied with the character's RPing potential without having to use every single point allowed.

He said it's not an acceptable solution, because he should get something for gimping his jump, like how GURPS has an ad/disad system. But that's equivalent to taking a disad and then not spending the points he got from it (which he's done before).

What do you think is an example of a sow's ear that a good DM can't fix?


I've always found that the most amount of roleplaying happens in skill based systems that do not especially reward players for combat... Other games, without detailed skills systems and/or some sort of perks and flaws system start out at a disadvantage... You have to come up with your own homebrewed systems to reward roleplaying more than is suggested in the book in order to have the game NOT be all about combat... Having a framework to assist that roleplaying makes it much easier for the players/DM.

To bring this back to the original point, I feel that a streamlined combat system with all the awards being based off of combat will necessarily be harmful to roleplaying without a great deal of homebrewing by the GM. A system with clunky/clumsy/especially deadly/ combat tends to assist roleplaying.
Hmm, I see what you're saying about systems "starting out at a disadvantage" Is that disadvantage something that the DM is expected to compensate for? What about of homebrewing a framework to facilitate roleplaying is too much beyond the responsibilities of a DM, i.e. you might as well just play another system (even if you want to play this one)?

I think it's unfortunate that clunky and clumsy combat actually helps roleplaying. I mean, I understand the rationale and I have definitely felt the "Oh god, we're about to go into another 2 hour combat that no one wants to sit through" dread. What about smooth/streamlined/especially deadly combat, would that still assist roleplaying? Or is there something anticlimactic about your character dying in an efficient, streamlined manner? Here's an example of an especially deadly game of GURPS I was in. It took forever to get knocked out, because the DM wanted to roll to see where we got hit, then look it up, check the blow-through limit, roll to see if the limb is crippled, then we had to roll against health to see if we were dead or merely incapacitated, and then every turn we had to roll for bleeding and again for death. I was like, 'Geez, I know that *no matter where we get hit* we're out of the combat, can't we just abstract all these rolls away and get on with it?'

Telonius
2008-09-23, 11:29 AM
In fact, that's about all it rewards...

I always ask DMs, "How do NPCs gain levels in your world?" Because they certainly don't go around killing monsters. There just aren't enough monsters for that.

Usually the DM says something like, "Through study and practice."

Then I say, "Can I do that?"

"No!"

:smallbiggrin:

I would say ... YES! Now please turn in a report of what you did while the others were off saving the world on a time-sensitive quest.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-23, 11:40 AM
What about smooth/streamlined/especially deadly combat, would that still assist roleplaying?

Hell yes.

Realistically dangerous combat - like you find in Warhammer FRP, or Cyberpunk 2020, or many other games - encourages players to think, plan, talk, and otherwise play their way through situations without using combat as a shortcut. These games also make for more interesting combat - you're not going to stand there slugging the opponent, you're going to try to be clever, use the environment, and roleplay in a fight.


"I hit for 20 damage. I guess I swing my X at his Y and cause a Z wound."
"You get hit for 19 damage..."

vs.

"The guard rushes up the stairwell and fires a burst - but it goes wide and just covers you with plaster from the walls and ceiling."
"I push the food cart at him and leg it up the corridor and leap through the open door!"

Not much of a contest. I don't think I've seen a single static or uninteresting fight in Cyberpunk 2020 - PCs and enemies are always jockeying for position and advantage, using stealth and trickery and traps, and generally making the action interesting - because it really is advantageous. There's also no expectation of balance - many actions are way, way better than others (dropping a car on your enemy is more effective than shooting him, no two ways about it), and this helps make things more lively and creative. In D&D 3.X and 4E, there's an expectation of balance (which does bear observing, for reasons of fairness to players), and your actions are governed by feats and special abilities.

Winterwind
2008-09-23, 11:54 AM
I really wish more DMs would do this. I've seen very few systems that actually give guidelines for how much "challenge XP" a DM should give outside of combat. Would this be an example of something systems could do better (i.e. codify) or DMs could do better?Seriously? :smallconfused:
Wow. Either the roleplaying scene in America is very different than the one here, or the experience of one of us must be fairly unique. I haven't ever seen a system which did not give guidelines for out of combat experience. Contrariwise - I do not remember ever playing any system which has guidelines for combat-experience, and the only one I know of that does so is D&D.


I think it's unfortunate that clunky and clumsy combat actually helps roleplaying. I mean, I understand the rationale and I have definitely felt the "Oh god, we're about to go into another 2 hour combat that no one wants to sit through" dread. What about smooth/streamlined/especially deadly combat, would that still assist roleplaying? Or is there something anticlimactic about your character dying in an efficient, streamlined manner? Here's an example of an especially deadly game of GURPS I was in. It took forever to get knocked out, because the DM wanted to roll to see where we got hit, then look it up, check the blow-through limit, roll to see if the limb is crippled, then we had to roll against health to see if we were dead or merely incapacitated, and then every turn we had to roll for bleeding and again for death. I was like, 'Geez, I know that *no matter where we get hit* we're out of the combat, can't we just abstract all these rolls away and get on with it?'I do not think clunky combat mechanics help with roleplaying at all. I believe it's the other way around - people who care only about combat and not at all about roleplaying are more likely to play a combat-streamlined game, leading to a potentially larger concentration of such people in such games.

horseboy
2008-09-23, 02:01 PM
I really wish more DMs would do this. I've seen very few systems that actually give guidelines for how much "challenge XP" a DM should give outside of combat. Would this be an example of something systems could do better (i.e. codify) or DMs could do better?Going to agree with Winter on this one. SR/WW xp award was 1 for showing up, 1 for combat, 1 for roleplaying 2-4 for awards, depending on how hard it was. Rolemaster has xp per level of difficulty of the maneuver, x2 if you do it yourself and the ever so much fun 1 xp/mile traveled. Earthdawn suggest 1/4 xp from combat, 1/4 from roleplaying, and either 1/2 from "story awards" or 1/4 treasure 1/4 "story award." Depending on if you're just ending a session or ending a chapter.

I would say that this is probably one of the "major" problems that can actually be attributed to a system, but that it shouldn't be an excuse as often as it is. My friend in the OP and I had this discussion about 4e (which may or may not be the system referred to in the OP ;)) He said that he didn't like the skill system, which I like because it's simplified. He said that it's impossible to make an Olympic swimmer or an expert rock climber who is really terrible at jumping -- being good at swimming or climbing also makes you good at jumping because of an abstract "athletics" skill. I responded by saying that he could take athletics and then just RP his character as a terrible jumper, maybe a self imposed penalty on jump checks.You could point him to the feats that give him bonuses to different aspects of athletics if he wants to excel in certain areas of athletics. Then, of course, there's kinda the point of being "Olympic class" is that they dedicate their lives to doing that. Ergo, his character would spend all his time swimming and not adventuring. :smallamused:

What do you think is an example of a sow's ear that a good DM can't fix?

Hmm, I see what you're saying about systems "starting out at a disadvantage" Is that disadvantage something that the DM is expected to compensate for? What about of homebrewing a framework to facilitate roleplaying is too much beyond the responsibilities of a DM, i.e. you might as well just play another system (even if you want to play this one)?Pretty much. How much of a sow's ear it is is directly proportional to how much work I have to put into it before I could run it. If I've got to rewrite huge tracks in a slash and burn style to get it to work, I'd just be better to use a system that doesn't suck.

Mike_G
2008-09-23, 02:13 PM
I think it's unfortunate that clunky and clumsy combat actually helps roleplaying. I mean, I understand the rationale and I have definitely felt the "Oh god, we're about to go into another 2 hour combat that no one wants to sit through" dread. What about smooth/streamlined/especially deadly combat, would that still assist roleplaying? Or is there something anticlimactic about your character dying in an efficient, streamlined manner? Here's an example of an especially deadly game of GURPS I was in. It took forever to get knocked out, because the DM wanted to roll to see where we got hit, then look it up, check the blow-through limit, roll to see if the limb is crippled, then we had to roll against health to see if we were dead or merely incapacitated, and then every turn we had to roll for bleeding and again for death. I was like, 'Geez, I know that *no matter where we get hit* we're out of the combat, can't we just abstract all these rolls away and get on with it?'

I don't think clunky rules for anything help anything.

I once sat through a long and boring epic combat, where I'd do my action, and then stare at the ceiling while endless dice rolls and chart consulting was done. I started announcing the time after each round, "That six second round just took 47 minutes, by the way," because it was so awful. What should have been exciting was totally disappointing and agonizingly slow.

Mechanics should allow for a quick and somewhat satisfying resolution of player actions. I don't need to know if Goblin Scout #4 is dead or unconscious if that means four more dice rolls. "I parry his blow, then cut him down and rush through the door" should be something the rules can resolve with minimal fuss, and I should feel that my chances are better or worse based on my skills, stats, feats, etc.

Other than that you either get "Ok, he misses his Attack of Opportunity, so make a touch attack, then a Grapple check, then an opposed Str check, or...wait..he can use his Dex I think, or is it Escape artist..hey Mike, your snoring is keeping everyone else awake, here" or you get "Just roll over a 10, regardless of whether you are an asthmatic scholar with no ranks in anything physical or Jackie Freaking Chan."

If the mechanics get in the way, they are an issue. If the DM having to invent mechanics stops the game for too long, that's an issue.

Roderick_BR
2008-09-23, 03:28 PM
I know people that play Vampire: The Maskerade (2nd edition), with less roleplaying and more senseless combat than my group play D&D. Whenever I GMed either, my group always liked the games, with a balance of RP and combat (more combat for D&D, more roleplay for Vampire). Yet, this group I saw at school played Vampire as if it were Hero Quest (humanity? who needs humanity?).
So, it's a combination of bad DM, bad players, and bad system that makes a bad game.
Easy combat rules? It means less work to worry about, and more time to RP. Bad DM/Players.
Lack of rules for others things, bad system.
Railroad? Bad DMing.
No roleplay? The players need to roleplay their characters, the DM will do his job then with the NPCs.

DM Raven
2008-09-23, 04:09 PM
There are reason why there are so many players and so few DMs...this thread gives a good testiment to those reasons. ;p

If the game isn't fun, then it's usually the combined fault of the players, DM and system. You either have to find a DM who has a style more to your liking, play a system that has a style more to your liking, or stop being a whiney lil punk. :P

fusilier
2008-09-23, 05:31 PM
Hi everybody. I'm the player in question at the beginning of this thread. I just found out about this thread, and joined so that I can make a response. I've only skimmed the thread to this point, but feel that the conversation has been pretty good.

Let me tell you a few things about me. First, I don't care too much for D&D . . . any version of it. But, I do like roleplaying and often enjoy the company. Nevertheless I'm carrying around some old baggage. The first roleplaying game I played was the West End Games Star Wars system. The system is still around, and is known as the d6 system, although West End lost the rights to Star Wars. It had a very simple, and elegant mechanic which I enjoyed, and also made it very easy to learn and understand, especially compared to 2nd edition AD&D. I've also played some GURPS, and run a few GURPS games myself -- those of you who have played gurps will know that combat isn't usually desirable.

So, now let me restate my argument about 4th edition D&D.

I feel that 4e encourages combat over roleplaying. There are two components:
1. Increased emphasis on combat. Combat is now faster. There are more options in combat, especially for fighters. You do more damage, and heal more quickly. I'm not sure I would call it streamlined, because there are now more attacks available in combat.
Even so combat is still pretty much: I stand here and roll to attack my opponent, turn after turn after turn (because I keep rolling 2's :-) ).

2. The decreased emphasis on non-combat related skills. Things like swimming and climbing are now lumped together under one skill. So when designing characters, the players aren't thinking as much about their non-combat abilities.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the first point. But when combined with the second, I think it's fair to say that the system *encourages* combat over roleplaying. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, if you like combat over roleplaying.

Of course the particular GM can change that. And the GM Rhuadin and I are dealing with does lean heavily toward railroading. I do appreciate the detail he gives to the world, although this GM will often make things in his world work "differently" just to railroad the players. :-( Likewise I don't care much for boring worlds where the GM doesn't bother to name towns, or uses the same name for every tavern, even when there's less railroading.

Something very interesting has happened in the last couple of sessions . . . we've gone off script. The result is more roleplaying and less combat. But some players are immediately resorting to combat when some dilemma presents itself. This could be the system, or it could be that the campaign up to this point has caused us to focus on combat, but I suspect it's a little of both.

DM Raven
2008-09-23, 05:47 PM
I thought this thread was about game style and rule system preference, how did we get back to 4e hate mail?

Again I will say this, at the chance or more derailment. Role-playing is defined more by your play style and your DM than by the rule system you use. Lumping swimming and climbing into one skill does not limit your ability to craft stories or create engaging scenes. While I would also rather there be more skills and skill ranks.

The system for skills they are using now sort of reminds me of the old White Wolf system of D10s and successes, with the difficult is whatever the GM feels like it being style of play, but with more guidelines for easy, normal, and hard DCs in the rulebook. This is actually a less constricting system than 3.5 where there were set DCs for everything. (Though I actually liked that system better)

horseboy
2008-09-23, 06:10 PM
Let me tell you a few things about me. First, I don't care too much for D&D . . . any version of it.
I feel that 4e encourages combat over roleplaying.
Well, Dungeons And Dragons is the game of "I kill it and take it's stuff." :smallamused:

Shazzbaa
2008-09-23, 06:30 PM
I think it's a bit dangerous to say "You have a crappy DM" to anyone you're not playing with. I see that response a great deal, even sometimes in response to extremely trivial matters (when I asked on here about options other than turning undead, in case the DM didn't feel like "it runs away" gives you EXP, I was told that my DM must not be very good or very nice -- while in truth, said DM is one of my favourites).

But it's a lot less inflammatory, when someone critiques a system, to simply say that the right DM can work around those points, rather than to accuse his DM of doin' it wrong. I mean, I'd expect that kind of "If you do things this way/don't do things that way, you just suck!" talk at my own gaming group, because they've seen very little outside of their own social circle. But here on this forum, where there's enough of us that we should be aware of a thousand different playstyles, it seems like "You just have a crappy DM" should be saved for those moments where a complete situation has been described, and the DM was clearly out of line.

As has been said, when it's the DMs fault and when it's the system's fault is a wobbly, ambiguously fuzzy line at best -- since a good DM can cover for a lot of a system's faults, it's easy to say "Oh, a good DM could fix that problem" and somehow equate it with "You must have a bad DM, then." But then, a good system should, if we're going by Murphy's Law, be designed so that even a mediocre or poor DM can make an enjoyable game out of it, so how often is the system not coming through? Hard to say. Rarely is it important to make the distinction, honestly; easier to just say "I've played X, and we had a lot of fun with it, regardless" if you want to make the point that the system is not a hopeless one.

Besides, maybe you just have a really good DM.

Artanis
2008-09-23, 07:09 PM
As far as a socially unskilled player as the party "face" :

Either a) he's considered socially adept because his obvious discomfort and nervousness is disarming.

Or b) I suggest that he avoid picking "bard."

I encourage roleplaying as DM. I am willing to help my players reach that goal, but I won't run a slow, environmentally horrid MMORPG because one player isn't willing to at least make an attempt.

No amount of stats or luck are an excuse for roleplaying. If I have such a player and they're willing to work on coming out of their shell within the game, that's excellent. If they insist that Diplomacy was invented so they'd never have to say anything more complex than "Full attack the ogre," they're already looking for a different role in the party - or more likely, a different playing group. It's not that I don't like such people, nor would I banish them from my game. That being said, if that is really what they're looking to do, they're not in the right environment.
I'm with turkishproverb on this one. Yes, they should have to try. "I attempt to convince him" should indeed be grounds for an automatic failure. But it's just plain not fair to players to force them to be as good at social stuff as their characters are. Hell, after a few +CHA items, there is no way in hell ANY human could be as charismatic as the character is.

Do you also give the Rogue a real lock to pick every time he tries to do so in-character? Do you point the Fighter's player to the bowflex and tell him to start lifting every time his character tries to make a STR check? Do you pull out a box of Trivial Pursuit cards and demand a player get ten questions right before his Wizard succeeds on a Knowledge check?

Tistur
2008-09-23, 07:16 PM
For example, if all the DM does is have the players walk from one otherwise empty room with an evil monster in it to another room with an evil monster in it, that's the DM's fault for not giving the players anything to do besides kill things. The players can't exactly stratigize or role play when all that happens is they walk into a room and somthing tries to eat their faces off.

I have to disagree here. I have gamed with could roleplay anything, including walking through (mostly) empty dungeons. Party interaction, dealing with the atomsphere of the dungeon, etc, can all come into play here.

afroakuma
2008-09-23, 07:24 PM
No, what I'm saying is, if you're the bard and don't want to roleplay it, don't. But don't also designate yourself the party face. It's not what you're playing. If your character has high Charisma, then maybe you're attractive and a good listener, but not so much of a crowd-pleaser.

Similarly, a Barbarian with low intelligence coming up with the best plans in-character is not roleplaying; he's started to swap info between player and character. However, that same character, acting on a clumsy hunch, or stumbling into the correct lever, is roleplaying his character and still making a positive contribution to the group.

What I'm trying to say is, the roleplaying skills have their uses, but they should only go so far. They're not like other skills which depend on action. I understand using Diplomacy to improve the listener's attitude, but getting information or assistance requires that you speak to him, not just smile and sit with positive body language.

Again, if the player doesn't want to try actual roleplaying but wants to be the party face, then he's in the wrong group, because my game is not about blowing past the plot to get to the combat. I'm not running my game to give that player Final Fantasy with a 20-sided X button. You can be a bard, cleric, whatever - the charismatic, social skilled character - and NOT be the face. It would in fact offer more interesting roleplaying opportunities.

Raum
2008-09-23, 08:30 PM
I guess I intended my OP to be more lighthearted than it was interpreted.My apologies. Afraid it's difficult to 'read the fine print' some times.

I pretty much look at it as assigning responsibility, too. A "crappy DM" as intended in the OP is simply someone who failed to address the responsibility of his or her position for the topic at hand, be it researching game balance, providing for player choice, or telling a compelling story. Such a person may not actually be a crappy DM because they may have other strengths that they bring into play (pun entirely intended).Yes, often it's a matter of differing expectations between player(s) and DM...I recommend explicitly setting expectations and enumerating assumptions.

I'll still stand behind my original list of responsibilities though! :)


I really wish more DMs would do this. I've seen very few systems that actually give guidelines for how much "challenge XP" a DM should give outside of combat. Would this be an example of something systems could do better (i.e. codify) or DMs could do better?There are systems which do this better than D&D. Personally I prefer to divorce advancement from conflict altogether. One of the simplest models is True20's - just level everyone when thematically appropriate. Another is the Shadowrun / White Wolf / Savage Worlds method mentioned above - give out XP per session based on how fast you want the group to advance with occasional bonuses for significant accomplishments. There are almost as many methods as there are game systems though, pick the one you and your players are most comfortable with.


My friend in the OP and I had this discussion about 4e (which may or may not be the system referred to in the OP ;)) He said that he didn't like the skill system, which I like because it's simplified.Some systems are simply more abstract than others. Most (though not all) lose some individuality and flavor when increasing the abstractness. The flip side is usually gaming speed. An overly detailed system may become a chore. The good news is there are lots of systems available! :)


I think it's unfortunate that clunky and clumsy combat actually helps roleplaying. I mean, I understand the rationale and I have definitely felt the "Oh god, we're about to go into another 2 hour combat that no one wants to sit through" dread. What about smooth/streamlined/especially deadly combat, would that still assist roleplaying? Or is there something anticlimactic about your character dying in an efficient, streamlined manner? Not sure I understand how clunky mechanics help role play - that's not my experience. My experience is similar to horseboy's, clunky systems get in the way of role play. I prefer systems where the mechanics disappear smoothly into the background. Deadly combat on the other hand certainly pushes a particular style of role play - you'll want to avoid combat when possible and set up all the potential advantages you can when forced into combat. That doesn't mean you can't / don't role play when death is more difficult though! You just role play a different style. Over the top action in a pulp game, heroic action in an epic game, etc.


I feel that 4e encourages combat over roleplaying. There are two components:
1. Increased emphasis on combat. Combat is now faster. <snip>
2. The decreased emphasis on non-combat related skills. <snit>

There is nothing inherently wrong with the first point. But when combined with the second, I think it's fair to say that the system *encourages* combat over roleplaying. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, if you like combat over roleplaying.I agree with your conclusion...though for different reasons. But that's a subject for another thread. Just want to say that some very abstract systems encourage role play, consider Wushu as an example.


Of course the particular GM can change that. And the GM Rhuadin and I are dealing with does lean heavily toward railroading. I do appreciate the detail he gives to the world, although this GM will often make things in his world work "differently" just to railroad the players. :-( Likewise I don't care much for boring worlds where the GM doesn't bother to name towns, or uses the same name for every tavern, even when there's less railroading.Eh, I understand and agree. This is largely GM & group dependent though.


Something very interesting has happened in the last couple of sessions . . . we've gone off script. The result is more roleplaying and less combat. But some players are immediately resorting to combat when some dilemma presents itself. This could be the system, or it could be that the campaign up to this point has caused us to focus on combat, but I suspect it's a little of both.Yep, habits can be as hard to break for players as they are for GMs.

charl
2008-09-23, 08:35 PM
While yes, it's completely reasonable to dislike a system for any reason, you don't have to use it just because it's there. Feeling like D20 doesn't give you enough roleplaying action and just leads to powergaming? Don't use D20. (Personally I prefer to use very light systems, or no system at all.)

Easy as that.

Of course, it's not always as easy getting rid of a bad game master (dungeon master is a stupid term) as it is getting rid of a bad game system, but the same general principle applies, with the added complexities of politeness and/or lying when telling your friend he won't be game mastering for a while.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-09-23, 09:50 PM
I've never understood where people get this idea. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the primary source of XP is combat. The primary source of XP is overcoming challenges. Yes, combat is one way of overcoming some challenges, but it's not the only way, and some challenges can't really be overcome by combat at all. If you choose not to use non-combat methods to overcome challenges, then you shouldn't complain about there being too much combat.

Yeah, that basically sums up my view on this.

fusilier
2008-09-23, 11:56 PM
DM Raven: I didn't mean to derail the thread, and I didn't intend it as a D&D 4e hate mail. I just wanted to clarify my position, which I felt was horribly misrepresented.

Charl: You must have a lot more friends who run rpgs than I do! :-) My options at this point are pretty much play D&D or don't play anything. I occasionally run a GURPS game, but am far too busy to organize one now (master's thesis is long over due!).

Raum: Do clunky combat mechanics help role-play? They can, if the GM avoids using combat as a plot device, to save time. Faster combat may mean that the GM throws more of it at you.

My experience is similar to horseboy's, clunky systems get in the way of role play. Yeah, I can totally understand this. Again, it will depend on the GM. My point wasn't that faster combat was bad, it was that the combination of faster combat and a gimped skill set signalled to me that the emphasis *within the system* was on combat. (of course, I think the whole history of D&D has generally had emphasis on combat).

Rhaudin:

Here's an example of an especially deadly game of GURPS I was in. It took forever to get knocked out, because the DM wanted to roll to see where we got hit, then look it up, check the blow-through limit, roll to see if the limb is crippled, then we had to roll against health to see if we were dead or merely incapacitated, and then every turn we had to roll for bleeding and again for death. I was like, 'Geez, I know that *no matter where we get hit* we're out of the combat, can't we just abstract all these rolls away and get on with it?'

Another snipe at my expense. I tried to explain to the players that the purpose of that GURPS: WWII game, was for me to try to get some familiarity with some realistic rules that I didn't get to use often (especially automatic weapons, fatigue, grenades, and 75mm artillery shells). Nobody else runs gurps (not anymore, and not seriously), so nobody has much experience playing gurps. GURPS third edition is an organizational mess, and it wasn't helped by the fact that I didn't have a GM screen. Some of the players took no interest in trying to learn anything, and furthermore cluttered up the table with laptops rather than give me room to keep various books handy. *I* learned a lot about how things work (and resolved to get a GM screen), and some players were helpful. -- I do not usually run combat heavy GURPS games (I think everybody's character died or was seriously wounded at least once).

XP:
D&D is an XP heavy game. Some, like Rhuadin, like having everything very well defined. They will have a very good idea of how much XP they should get after each game, and how they're going to spend it to make their character bigger and better, so they can get more XP. Me, I don't care too much for that. :-) I don't like my character creation to be dragged out over the whole game. Get it done with in the beginning and then have fun with the character. A little bit of experience points for tweaking and improving skills is fine. If you really don't like your character I guess you can drop him and make a new one. The weird thing is, I don't think I've ever seen that happen in any rpg except D&D. Maybe it's just a lack of experience, but I did play a lot of Star Wars back in the day.

That's just my opinion though.

charl
2008-09-24, 03:29 AM
Charl: You must have a lot more friends who run rpgs than I do! :-) My options at this point are pretty much play D&D or don't play anything. I occasionally run a GURPS game, but am far too busy to organize one now (master's thesis is long over due!).

Well, no. Not at the time anyway. And it's always hard to convince people to play what you want. I guess I was lucky with my old RPG friends. They were up to almost anything. At least they were willing to try everything once.

Alas, I then moved to another city and now I have no roleplaying friends.

Rhuadin
2008-09-24, 12:07 PM
So I wrote this thing up, and the forum said I didn't have access to "forum/newreply.php". I did a quick binary search of my text and found that the offending text was this string of characters:

"to:~~1)" (where the tildes are actually spaces). Any idea why there'd be that weird restriction?


Hell yes.

Realistically dangerous combat - like you find in Warhammer FRP, or Cyberpunk 2020, or many other games - encourages players to think, plan, talk, and otherwise play their way through situations without using combat as a shortcut.
Okay, good to know. I've played Cyberpunk 2020 and I have to agree that combat was not boring.


Seriously? :smallconfused:
Wow. Either the roleplaying scene in America is very different than the one here, or the experience of one of us must be fairly unique. I haven't ever seen a system which did not give guidelines for out of combat experience.


Going to agree with Winter on this one.

Hmm, I guess I just have only experienced the combat-only systems then. It may just be me. :)


Pretty much. How much of a sow's ear it is is directly proportional to how much work I have to put into it before I could run it. If I've got to rewrite huge tracks in a slash and burn style to get it to work, I'd just be better to use a system that doesn't suck.
Of course. What I meant was... how much is too much? How much is "huge tracks in a slash and burn style"?


I think it's a bit dangerous to say "You have a crappy DM" to anyone you're not playing with. I see that response a great deal, even sometimes in response to extremely trivial matters (when I asked on here about options other than turning undead, in case the DM didn't feel like "it runs away" gives you EXP, I was told that my DM must not be very good or very nice -- while in truth, said DM is one of my favourites).

But it's a lot less inflammatory, when someone critiques a system, to simply say that the right DM can work around those points, rather than to accuse his DM of doin' it wrong. I mean, I'd expect that kind of "If you do things this way/don't do things that way, you just suck!" talk at my own gaming group, because they've seen very little outside of their own social circle. But here on this forum, where there's enough of us that we should be aware of a thousand different playstyles, it seems like "You just have a crappy DM" should be saved for those moments where a complete situation has been described, and the DM was clearly out of line.

...Rarely is it important to make the distinction, honestly; easier to just say "I've played X, and we had a lot of fun with it, regardless" if you want to make the point that the system is not a hopeless one.

Besides, maybe you just have a really good DM.
Yes, it is a dangerous assumption to make. I'm sorry that I didn't make it more clear that I was opening on a lighthearted note -- I think at some point I said that just because I was saying that doesn't actually make their DMing abilities crappy in general, but rather that it was a specific crappy decision on their part (in our opinions!)

As far as the distinction goes, however, most of the time it really doesn't matter whose responsibility it is if it was a lot of fun. It could be the system, it could be the DM. The question is important for when you're considering something like, "Well, I'm not having a lot of fun in my current game, and I'm thinking of running my own. Should I stick with the same system?" From what I can read in these boards, that may not be a rare occurrence.


My apologies. Afraid it's difficult to 'read the fine print' some times.

Some systems are simply more abstract than others. Most (though not all) lose some individuality and flavor when increasing the abstractness. The flip side is usually gaming speed. An overly detailed system may become a chore. The good news is there are lots of systems available! :)

Not sure I understand how clunky mechanics help role play - that's not my experience. My experience is similar to horseboy's, clunky systems get in the way of role play. I prefer systems where the mechanics disappear smoothly into the background. Deadly combat on the other hand certainly pushes a particular style of role play - you'll want to avoid combat when possible and set up all the potential advantages you can when forced into combat.
No, sir, my apologies, it's even harder to 'write the fine print' some times. :)
I kind of see what you're saying with abstraction being a trade off of game speed for individuality and flavor. I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean by individuality/flavor, though, but I have a vague idea. Could you provide an example?

As far as clunky combat mechanics helping role play (and a lot of you have disagreed with this so I'll respond to all of you here), I agree that most of the time streamlined mechanics of any sort help role play, because you can concentrate less on the rules and more in the mindset of your character. However, there are two specific instances that I was referring to: 1) When the GM believes that a certain amount of time should be spent in combat (probably because his campaign is plot-lite), then when combat gets faster, the number of combats increase, with the rationale of entering said combats sometimes stretching the bounds of credibility. 2) When combat is SO clunky that you're faced with two options, either role play your way past the guards in 15 minutes so you can spend another 2 hours exploring the world and your characters, or get embroiled in a rules-heavy, complicated, time-consuming combat with the guards for the next 2.25 hours. If it gets bad enough, even the most bloodthirsty players will try to roleplay, and even the most bloodthirsty DMs will fudge so that they don't have to run another boring combat. ;)


DM Raven: I didn't mean to derail the thread, and I didn't intend it as a D&D 4e hate mail. I just wanted to clarify my position, which I felt was horribly misrepresented.

Sorry about misrepresenting (paraphrasing with bias) your position, I was using it as an example to examine a concept, not as a snipe to you!



Charl: You must have a lot more friends who run rpgs than I do! :-) My options at this point are pretty much play D&D or don't play anything. I occasionally run a GURPS game, but am far too busy to organize one now (master's thesis is long over due!).

There's always the "Boring world where no towns or NPCs are named and all taverns are 'The Angry Orc'" ;)



Raum: Do clunky combat mechanics help role-play? They can, if the GM avoids using combat as a plot device, to save time. Faster combat may mean that the GM throws more of it at you.

Our DM does this a lot, but I still think streamlined combat mechanics are better.



Rhaudin:
Another snipe at my expense.

I again didn't intend it as a snipe. I understood that night what the point of the experimental session was, just as I also made sure that you understood that night my misgivings with it. I believe we came away with a mutual respect of each other's viewpoints. But just because I think your learning GURPS realistic combat rules is respectable doesn't mean that I have to agree that they're good rules to apply all the time -- similarly, you don't have to agree with my point of view that real-life time is a roleplayer's greatest resource.


If you really don't like your character I guess you can drop him and make a new one. The weird thing is, I don't think I've ever seen that happen in any rpg except D&D.
Hehe, remember our conversation about correlation and causation. My belief about dropping characters only in D&D is as follows: Dropping characters in a roleplay heavy game breaks suspension of belief and destroys established bonds between characters. So even if I don't like my character, I won't drop him if I feel it'll hamper my RPing abilities. However, in roleplay light games (which just so happen to be this particular DM's games under D&D -- remember "sample size of 1"), I'm more willing to drop my character and make a new one! But that's ironically not because I don't like my old character, it's because I'm exploring new rules so I can see if I can get the game off those darn rails!

Thend
2008-09-24, 01:03 PM
:smallannoyed:In answer to your last question what faults can lie with the DM and what faults can lie with the system, all of them. With a crappy enough Dungeon Master and a crappy enough system any game can go to hell. Unless of course like me your DM is willing to outright kill the rules and/or rewrite them for his or her own purposes. Than if anythings wrong it's the DM's or the player's fault. Yes it can be the player's fault. If they're ignoring obvious clues or playing their Lawful Good Human Paladin like a Chaotic Neutral Orc Barbarian or even if they're just taking too long to decide what to do or bitching and moaning every time they lose one HP it can be all the player's fault. So, yeah, kind of generalized but in my opinion, One-Hundred percent true. And to the "system is too good" comment, no. Just, no.:smallmad:

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-24, 02:41 PM
Reading posts and talking to people IRL, people always have their favorite complaints about games x, y, and z, or particular classes, or railroading, or whatever. My default thought is "You just have a crappy DM." You are forced down a plot point you don't want? Crappy DM. Your DM doesn't let you play monk or samurai (3.x) because he thinks they're too powerful? Crappy DM.

However, one of my friends told me this complaint recently. He said that gaming has turned into a hack and slash combat fest, with no roleplaying or character development to speak of. I told him it was, surprise surprise, because he had a crappy DM.

He said, no, it's not because the DM is crappy, it's the system, it encourages combat. I asked him what made him think that. He told me that the system encourages combat because it's too streamlined, convenient, and easy to run. Of course, I was floored at this. You're telling me that the system is bad because it's too good at aspects of its ruleset?.

Anyway, my question to you is, what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the DM, and what aspects of poor game experience can be blamed on the game system itself?

A perfect DM could use any system, and never experience any problems. A perfect system could be run by any DM and it would have solutions to any problem that develops. Therefore if you have problems it means neither the DM nor the system is perfect. Any problems you experience are partly to blame on both of their imperfections.

Now, it's unrealistic to expect any DM to be perfect (they are a human being after all!) just as it's unrealistic for a system to be able to accurately model the infinite possibilities of any given game scenario. All I can say is that a DM can be reasoned with, and can learn from mistakes. The system can't because it's just a bunch of rules on paper. So solutions are invariable going to need to come from the DM.

I think you need to learn to stop attempting to place blame on one or the other. Finding an acceptable solution should take precedence, and once the issue is solved what's the point in laying blame in the first place?

fusilier
2008-09-24, 04:39 PM
Hehe, remember our conversation about correlation and causation. My belief about dropping characters only in D&D is as follows: Dropping characters in a roleplay heavy game breaks suspension of belief and destroys established bonds between characters. So even if I don't like my character, I won't drop him if I feel it'll hamper my RPing abilities. However, in roleplay light games (which just so happen to be this particular DM's games under D&D -- remember "sample size of 1"), I'm more willing to drop my character and make a new one! But that's ironically not because I don't like my old character, it's because I'm exploring new rules so I can see if I can get the game off those darn rails!

I have played D&D under several different GM's and in plenty of those other D&D games run I've seen people grow tired of their character and want a change. I don't remember this ever having happened in other game systems, and I've played a fair amount of them (although I'm sure not as much as some people on this forum).

We can talk about the system, and we can talk about DM's. We all have our own opinions about what makes a good system, and I think most would agree that the DM can change the way a game is played. But DM's and their styles of running a game are unique to each one. So if you want to have a discussion of what makes a good DM, that's one thing. If you want to have a discussion of the system rules, that's another. A third area would be how the players approach the game. How all three come together is yet a fourth area -- probably the most important. However, that is going to be influenced by the individual DM and the individual players, and if you want an unbiased analysis of the system, we can't go around assuming things about the DM and players. Likewise, we must acknowledge that how the GM and player's approach the game will also affect how enjoyable it is.

Calinero
2008-09-24, 04:49 PM
Trying to place the blame solely on the DM or on the system is never going to work completely, although sometimes the case will be relatively clear cut. For example, if you find yourself running into overpowered NPC's everywhere who do your party's work for you, a railroad plot, and cliches by the boatload, then you are probably faced with a lousy DM. If a group of monsters with an EC well within your range manage to TPK you, you probably have a few bugs in the system. However, it's not always this easy.

Sometimes a system will have flaws, but a good DM will know which rules to homebrew over or ignore. It is possible to have a good game with a flawed system if your DM is good enough. However, it's a bit harder to have a good game with a bad DM, no matter how good the system is. This may sound like I'm placing the blame on the DM, but I'm not. I'm only saying that blame rarely lies with one source. If you find yourself not enjoying the game, it might be because you had a bad DM, but it could also be that you have a good DM who just can't make up for the flaws in a system. Or maybe the players suck. It's been known to happen.

I guess the point I'd really like to make is that trying to pin the blame is pointless. Instead, try to work with your DM to make the game better. Much more fun that way, instead of blaming.

Besides, we all know that there's only one perfect DM in the world....

That's right. Chuck Norris!

Knaight
2008-09-24, 06:27 PM
If your comparing systems, don't use entirely system dependant mechanics, nothing else uses ECL and CR that I'm aware of. That said, if you spend over a minute rolling on a series of tables, systems fault. And that happens depressingly often.

horseboy
2008-09-25, 12:31 AM
So I wrote this thing up, and the forum said I didn't have access to "forum/newreply.php". I did a quick binary search of my text and found that the offending text was this string of characters:

"to:~~1)" (where the tildes are actually spaces). Any idea why there'd be that weird restriction?I'm catching that too.


Of course. What I meant was... how much is too much? How much is "huge tracks in a slash and burn style"?
Well, that depends on a couple of factors, just how bad is the rules set, how much do I need to actually slash/burn/rebuild the rules, what other responsibilities does the system assign me. How much time is Real Life giving me to apply towards it. Do I like the system enough to put out that much effort. It's a sliding scale thing.

Dausuul
2008-09-25, 08:57 AM
In fact, that's about all it rewards...

I always ask DMs, "How do NPCs gain levels in your world?" Because they certainly don't go around killing monsters. There just aren't enough monsters for that.

Usually the DM says something like, "Through study and practice."

Then I say, "Can I do that?"

"No!"

:smallbiggrin:

See, my answer would be, "Sure, you can do that. But you notice how few of the NPCs in my campaign are above 5th level or so? That's because it usually takes several years of study and practice to gain even a single level. Or, you could be a hero chosen by destiny, who goes on quests full of danger and rewards, and your rise will be (relatively) meteoric."

Anyway, back to the original question: There are a lot of issues that are clearly GM-related, and a lot of others that are clearly system-related.

If your newly created characters are mysteriously hijacked and dropped into a dungeon where they have to fight a dozen battles against a series of identical elementals in identical rooms, that's the GM's fault (yes, this has happened to me).

If you create a character according to the rules, trying your best to make sure the character will be useful but with no intent to abuse the system, and then you and the rest of your group discover that the character is so horribly overpowered that the other PCs might as well be twiddling their thumbs, that's the system's fault (and this, too, has happened to me).

There is also a subtler category of issues which are less clear-cut, having to do with the incentives the system provides. D&D, for instance, offers big rewards for combat. You get XP, you get loot, and you get to use the combat-related abilities which make up about 90% of your character sheet.

That isn't a flaw in the system, since D&D was and is designed for heroic fantasy with a lot of fighting and dungeon-crawling. But the system does push a certain style of gameplay. If you want to run a different type of game, then you're going to be pushing against the system - you can do it, and it can be a lot of fun, but it will be more work than if you went with what the system naturally supports, and you'll run into situations now and then when the system is pushing the PCs one way and the reality of the game world is pushing them a different way.

Likewise, an RPG system is built with a bunch of interlocking parts, and it's assumed that all the parts will be in place. If you don't like one of those parts and decide to remove it, it can cause breakdowns. I often ran into this in previous editions when I wanted a world without easy resurrection magic. The system did not play nice with that change. I was able to compensate for it, certainly, but it took much more work than it would have taken to just allow raise dead into the game. (One of the reasons I like 4E a lot is that combat is less randomly lethal, which means I can take out resurrection magic and not have to fudge like crazy every battle.)

So, when these issues crop up, is it the system's fault or the GM's fault? I'd say it's the GM's fault, I guess - the system is designed to do one thing, it's not the system's fault if the GM wants it to do something else. But it's not a sign of bad GMing so much as it is a mismatch between GM and system.

fusilier
2008-09-25, 03:10 PM
That isn't a flaw in the system, since D&D was and is designed for heroic fantasy with a lot of fighting and dungeon-crawling. But the system does push a certain style of gameplay. If you want to run a different type of game, then you're going to be pushing against the system - you can do it, and it can be a lot of fun, but it will be more work than if you went with what the system naturally supports, and you'll run into situations now and then when the system is pushing the PCs one way and the reality of the game world is pushing them a different way.

Well said. The system itself isn't "flawed" as long as it operates in the manner that the designers intended it to. However, as players (and DM's) we have certain preconceptions about what we want to see in our roleplaying systems. If those preconceptions (criteria) aren't met and we try to play in that system we would be going against the grain of the system as you described. So from the viewpoint of a particular person with particular criteria in mind, the system could be "flawed."

So when I say "D&D encourages combat over roleplaying" that statement can be taken by itself, as a judgement of the system. However, you could take it as a criticism, in which case it's implied that I prefer roleplaying over combat, to at least a certain degree. (Likewise it could be taken as praise, if I prefer combat over roleplaying) So from *my* perspective the system is flawed because it doesn't meet my criteria of what makes a good roleplaying system. You could run a game with that system that would fit my criteria better, but it would go "against the system" as Dausuul described.

Lycar
2008-09-25, 05:38 PM
In other words, if for example encounters swing between "cakewalk" and
"overwhelming" is it the DM's failing in not anticipating their difficulty properly (yes) or the system's failing in making such predictions unnecessarily difficult (in all probability also yes)?

Ok, no. Just no! That is a sign of GOOD DMing. Bad DMing? 4 level-appropriate encounters per day. Every day. Ever. That is BAD DMing.

Wildly swinging encounters? Some where the players really have to fear for their characters lives? And a few where the PCs can just waltz over their opposition and actually feel, you know, heroic? Yes please!

It was already mentioned in another thread: Read page 49 of the DMG. See that little table down on the right side? Right where it says that about half of the PCs encounters should be 'level-appropriate'? And about 30% or so easy and 15% hard and about 5% REALLY hard?

Wildly swinging between 'cakewalk' and 'overwhelming'? Yes, it's supposed to be that way. Because orks, kobolds and goblins don't suddenly chease to exist, just because a band or so of them is no longer an 'appropriate challenge'.

Taking on that hobgoblin patrol had been a darn close call back at 2nd level? So why not let the players have a good time and let their now 5th level characters mop the floor with them this time?

4 encounters a day. Level appropriate. Always. THAT'S bad DMing!

Lycar