quote:

---

that a person who is defined by their skill at murder is at the very least somewhat frightening and uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

The thing is that every edition for D&D gives combat a wide variety of options in the form of spells, maneuvers, powers, different equipment and what you have. OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support), if you want mechancis that ENHANCE (not make possible, big difference) the social and exploration pillars, D&D won't offer you much beyond a single roll (or a handful at best) or a few tables.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

I've read somewhere about a system (I can't recall the name, it was a screenshot of a page from the rulebook) that handles certain social interactions like combat. I.e., there are turns, "hp", and a certain series of actions that you can take, defensive and offensive (like counterargument, ignoring, seducing, etc...), and each does a certain amout of damage. So, when you answer to a question, or when you make a point, or when you roleplay a character trying to use their charm, you pick the action corresponding to the kind of stuff you did/said and roll for its effects, and this goes on until one side loses all their "hp". The effectiveness of the actions, and your hp, depend on your stats, skills etc...

I don't think this is a necessarily good system (it may slow down interactions by a lot, therefore making RP feel rather innatural), but this is what I mean by mechanics that (try to) enhance social interactions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

So in another thread, it was discussed that combat is an oft-centered point, or rather, the MAIN center aspect of the role-playing game. On one hand I do agree that D&D has always been, at it's roots, a wargame with role-play elements. I mean it's what it evolved from originally with Chainmail.

As the game changed over the decades, one might say that the focus shifted slightly towards other aspects besides combat. Now I'm not an expert considering that I only got into the game in the late 90's when AD&D 2E was in full swing but even then it was basically boiled down to "here's a quest, kill the monsters, grab their loot, save the day - rinse and repeat." and things were pretty good. You did have some exploration (dungeons, jungles, deserts, woods, etc.) and you had occasional discussions with NPCs or people of importance and each other and sometimes the whole session was planning or talking with a healthy dose of goofing around. Still, at it's heart Combat remained the key figure and that was certainly the goal when it came to class design.

With 5th Edition in full-swing one of the designer's key components with the new edition was pushing the 3-Tiers of play concept. This was Exploration, Combat, and Social elements. A good doze of all 3 were needed to make the game really great. And conversely, this is something people really felt was left to the way-side with the previous edition (4E).

For one, I simply don't see it. I think 4E did a pretty amazing job of incorporating all the elements of play for their system. The thing is, Players didn't want to choose other tier options when a combat one is present. And that's not a fault of the system but of the DM's push to make combat central to the story or the game. For example in the 4E PHB the Paladin gets a 2nd level prayer called Astral Speech, which once per day gives them a +4 bonus to their Diplomacy checks for the encounter (social interactions, etc.) but a lot of characters would instead take Bless Weapon or Virtue or Call to Challenge (all combat-centered). In a campaign where you're dealing with a lot of NPCs and trying to convince dignitaries of your plans Astral Speech is far more potent of an option but yet, the other options are often taken because you want that extra boost for fighting.

Take the options in 4th Edition that allow Martial Characters unique out-of-combat traits - they're called Martial Practices. They were pretty cool concept that allowed for some interesting interactions with both the Exploration and Social tiers of play. But it required a feat to take them, a feat many players felt was far more suited to an extra bonus to attack or damage rolls or to get a Superior Implement or weapon.

The point I'm making is that combat and it's role in anyone's D&D game, regardless of edition, is ultimately what the group and the DM brings to the table. Hack 'n' Slash style games can be emulated with pretty much any version of D&D and you can have great immersive role-play driven campaigns with any version of D&D too. The tools are there to make of them what you wish.

So feel free to discuss, politely please, what about D&D or specific editions therein that helped you focus on the 3-tiers of play or maybe discuss what you feel was lacking in a version of D&D or maybe another d20 game and how you handled it? I don't want this to dissolve into an edition bashing sessions so I'm just going to ignore Opinions without reference. Saying "I think 3.5 was crap because there's too many supplements" for example doesn't really provoke any sort of discussion and is basically a statement, which ultimately goes no where. WHY do you have the feelings or opinions you do? If you say 4E was just a tactical board game, then be precise in why you feel that way and be sure to accept that not everyone feels the same and will definitely come back with anecdotes and rules to the contrary.

Basically lets have a discussion.

---

quote:

---

OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

The thing is that every edition for D&D gives combat a wide variety of options in the form of spells, maneuvers, powers, different equipment and what you have. OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support), if you want mechancis that ENHANCE (not make possible, big difference) the social and exploration pillars, D&D won't offer you much beyond a single roll (or a handful at best) or a few tables.

I've read somewhere about a system (I can't recall the name, it was a screenshot of a page from the rulebook) that handles certain social interactions like combat. I.e., there are turns, "hp", and a certain series of actions that you can take, defensive and offensive (like counterargument, ignoring, seducing, etc...), and each does a certain amout of damage. So, when you answer to a question, or when you make a point, or when you roleplay a character trying to use their charm, you pick the action corresponding to the kind of stuff you did/said and roll for its effects, and this goes on until one side loses all their "hp". The effectiveness of the actions, and your hp, depend on your stats, skills etc...

I don't think this is a necessarily good system (it may slow down interactions by a lot, therefore making RP feel rather innatural), but this is what I mean by mechanics that (try to) enhance social interactions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

5e’s support for the other two pillars is laughable, given that the only class that interacts with Exploration does so by bypassing it entirely. Almost every class feature for every class is about combat, as is the majority of the information on a character sheet. I don’t think you can decouple D&D from the core gameplay loop of “kill things to get better at killing things,” and between my lack of interest in that and the fact that said violence is most often deeply rooted in colonialist thinking and themes, it’s why I’ve moved on to other systems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

In a perfect world, the Fighter and Paladin are the classes that primarily interact with combat, and it gets acknowledged in the fiction and mechanics both that a person who is defined by their skill at murder is at the very least somewhat frightening and uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

5e’s support for the other two pillars is laughable, given that the only class that interacts with Exploration does so by bypassing it entirely. Almost every class feature for every class is about combat, as is the majority of the information on a character sheet. I don’t think you can decouple D&D from the core gameplay loop of “kill things to get better at killing things,” and between my lack of interest in that and the fact that said violence is most often deeply rooted in colonialist thinking and themes, it’s why I’ve moved on to other systems.

In a perfect world, the Fighter and Paladin are the classes that primarily interact with combat, and it gets acknowledged in the fiction and mechanics both that a person who is defined by their skill at murder is at the very least somewhat frightening and uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Great Reader Irennan,

I don't completely agree with the notion that,

quote:

---

OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support)...

---

because the a lot of what you and I, Great Reader Diffan, and many others have recently participated in is talking about the very heady topics of society, behavior, etc.: values, ethics, principles, values, economics, religion in more than a paragraph of dogma, and more. When you go beyond the thin veneer of those topics, it is challenging. I really feel that they could release books on the gods, by god for example, that explains what their religion is and why it is that way. I would get inline for a heady, epic 200 page "bible" on Tyr, etc. I would also really enjoy a philosophy book on the Adama, more than an FR Wiki explanation in one paragraph. It literally will take that kind of lore to make this change from combat intensive to acting/thespian heavier games IMO.

Thoughts?

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

The thing is that every edition for D&D gives combat a wide variety of options in the form of spells, maneuvers, powers, different equipment and what you have. OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support), if you want mechancis that ENHANCE (not make possible, big difference) the social and exploration pillars, D&D won't offer you much beyond a single roll (or a handful at best) or a few tables.

---

This is true, depending on edition, I feel. For example Bards in most editions can excel with the myriad of social options they have available to them. From spells to skills to class features they're sort of the best option when it comes to that pillar of play. Similar is the Ranger to the Exploration pillar, in that they too have a range of Skills, Spells, and Features that really help give them a boost over other classes. But like you said it's simply a better roll or a more focused aspect that applies some of the time to these pillars and not a larger extrapolation of mechanics that delve too far. Rangers can forage (a simple check with a boost) and they have do some other natur-y things and have a few spells that will help (again, a simple casting or roll is required). But with that being the case, Is really more needed or a better question: Wanted?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

I've read somewhere about a system (I can't recall the name, it was a screenshot of a page from the rulebook) that handles certain social interactions like combat. I.e., there are turns, "hp", and a certain series of actions that you can take, defensive and offensive (like counterargument, ignoring, seducing, etc...), and each does a certain amout of damage. So, when you answer to a question, or when you make a point, or when you roleplay a character trying to use their charm, you pick the action corresponding to the kind of stuff you did/said and roll for its effects, and this goes on until one side loses all their "hp". The effectiveness of the actions, and your hp, depend on your stats, skills etc...

I don't think this is a necessarily good system (it may slow down interactions by a lot, therefore making RP feel rather innatural), but this is what I mean by mechanics that (try to) enhance social interactions.

---

Eh, that doesn't sound very good at all. It sorta has some likeliness to 4th Edition's Skill Challenges in which the DM sets a number of *chances* the PCs have to achieve a specific task before they either succeed or fail but it doesn't go into HP for the encounter or anything like that. The initial implementation of Skill Challenges weren't overwhelmingly positive but when a DM takes them and integrates them into a continuous RP session, asking for a roll here or there, or maybe having the Player think of ways to use their skills to the situation, it can be much more enjoyable. I remember someone once said that if you don't actually know you're in a Skill Challenge and complete one, you've done a good job.

I've used them for various effects such as pursuing people on the Sea of Swords, to evading pursuit in the streets of Sembia, to wooing certain Waterdhavian nobles at a ball. So long as people are engaged with the RP and using their skills via critial thinking, it works wonders. I wish that was something 5E would've touted on more during development.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Great Reader Irennan,

I don't completely agree with the notion that,

quote:

---

OTOH, while you can very well play a story/RP-focused campaign in D&D (because that aspect doesn't NEED a lot of mechanic support)...

---

because the a lot of what you and I, Great Reader Diffan, and many others have recently participated in is talking about the very heady topics of society, behavior, etc.: values, ethics, principles, values, economics, religion in more than a paragraph of dogma, and more. When you go beyond the thin veneer of those topics, it is challenging. I really feel that they could release books on the gods, by god for example, that explains what their religion is and why it is that way. I would get inline for a heady, epic 200 page "bible" on Tyr, etc. I would also really enjoy a philosophy book on the Adama, more than an FR Wiki explanation in one paragraph. It literally will take that kind of lore to make this change from combat intensive to acting/thespian heavier games IMO.

Thoughts?

Best regards,

---

By mechanical support I don't mean info or lore. It would certainly be interesting to receive more lore about the values and ethics of certain regions, but we're talking about the game system, not the setting or the lore. I tend to decouple those things.

What I meant is that we don't need a set of "roll X Y times to get Z outcome" kind of rules to run the social aspect of the game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu
Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale.

Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs?

What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable.

tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

D&D's central gameplay mechanic is violence. Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale.

---

quote:

---

So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

Posting my thoughts in slightly longer format now that I'm off my tablet and in front of a proper keyboard.

D&D's central gameplay mechanic is violence. Characters are defined by their class, which (depending on edition, but certainly from 3.x onward) hinge almost completely on their role in combat; the primary verb in a player's toolbox is fighting. The most common means of advancement is experience gained by killing things. While these things have the weight of decades of tradition and reinforcement in other mediums, it's worth taking the step back and acknowledging that the average player character has killed dozens of people and beings by the time they're at all accomplished in their "adventuring career." Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale.

Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs?

What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable.

tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu
Most people don't recognize that the "heroes" we play as and idolize are killers at a disquieting scale.

Where this really steers into unfortunate territory is who the standard player character is killing. Many campaigns don't feature other humans (or elves, or dwarves) as the antagonist, in favor of more "acceptable" targets; orcs, goblins, and so on. Our heroes hail largely from backgrounds that are recognizably Western in inspiration, while their foes are variably primitive, savage, and exotic. So often, the violence in D&D is in defense of a deeply European-aligned concept of "civilization" against peoples who are inferior and inherently worthy of destruction. That these common foes are almost always darker-skinned, with features human-like but almost never Caucasian, says a lot. Fans defend these things with in-setting justifications; that they're inherently evil, that they're trying to do harm, and so on, but these thing are written by real people in our world. Racial and cultural superiority underpins all of this. How many stories are there of "clearing out" kobolds as though they're vermin, rather than humanoid beings with language and beliefs?

What these things do when they come together - a fixation on violence and a tradition of worlds built on European-ish "civilization" pitted against the inherently evil and inferior races - you end up with a product where our noble heroes glorify and justify colonial violence with so much of their actions. D&D flirts with understanding this, with stories like Drizzt's persecution, or the racial struggles half-orcs face in "civilized" lands, but then undercuts them by presenting the drow as inherently cruel and warped or having all orcs be monstrous (and 5e maintains the troubling assumption that half-orcs are most often the product of rape). My dislike of combat as a focus is partially a gameplay preference, but it also comes from a deep discomfort with what D&D ignores and what it presents as acceptable.

tl;dr D&D has a huge legacy of racial supremacist violence with laughably high bodycounts for our "heroes" and it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

---

Valid points. It's for this reason (especially the first point) that in my games antagonists are never a race of brutes or "inherently evil" creatures that can be easily dehumanized, but they're always people, and I try to present them as people. I almost never set killing as something you can do in the open to get what you want; killing someone always has repercussions. I also try to make fights happen, and to set conditions or previous narrative so that both the players and their characters WANT to fight, only when it's a good way to continue the story. Of course, this is what I aim to, but I don't always succeed at it, and players are ultimately free to do what they want, if they're ready to accept the consequences (just to be clear, this doen't mean punishment. For example, killing someone important won't exlcusively have negative consequences, but *might*--depends on the implications--also net the players the alliance of factions that oppose that person).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

Cpthero2 (sorry, can’t easily quote on mobile), the reason I call out Western/European examples and not those examples from broader in the world is because D&D largely centers those European-inspired cultures in their worlds. There’s a reason most campaign settings feature kings and dukes and not daimyos and shahs. Presentting a recognizably Western world as the one to be defended from savages and evil is where it becomes especially guilty of implicit supremacist, colonialist views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renin

When combat is the only thing at my table (forever DM now), and when it's in small chunks for 3 hours every 4 weeks with roll20, I do find it a bit of a sad state of affairs. Combat is fun; because combat is a game of chance and randomness that the players can work to swing in their favor. It's fun because it's a roll of dice, where a 1 in 20 chance allows you completely fufill your character's build or desire of action, or you become the goat and hope that Dice Gods of Luck don't crush you when the DM takes a turn.

However, one of my favorite Social things from my last campaign is that an underhanded noble, who was doing illegal activities, but not evil, was more reviled by my PCs group than the invading Baneite armies. They tried thwarting all his actions, tried to see if there was more they could pin on him (is he Baneite? Let's find proof! Or make proof!), so yes, at the end of the day, some Social stuff is just as much fun.

I've always found the rules lacking for any social situation. Why? Because I, or some of my players, simply cannot be that Charismatic. There will always be some amount of meta-play where my PC will simply act a certain way, because that's the way he is. Also, not everyone is capable of 'acting' that way either. Social situations are a real abstract form of game play to me; not everyone in my group can play as smart, witty, or as clever as their characters; so, the dice rolls have to prevail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

I concur with Diffan's OP contention that excessive focus on combat is more a function of the DM's and player's proclivities, whatever the edition used. His/her concern about the so-called Treadmill of Power that exploded in the 3.x editions is something I take very seriously as should we all. I made efforts to dampen the Treadmill of Power and (harshly) discourage hyper-concentrated murderhobo builds. These house rules are certainly not suited for many campaigns and -trust me!- they infuriated quite a few prospective players.

Here are several (not all) adjustments I made in my 3.xed campaigns, Realms related or not:

1. The 2ed concept of kits is very much alive. If you really want to play gish, consider a core class like a duskblade. Multiclass fighter/wizard is perfectly OK, but consider Point #2.

2. Levels, base attack bonus, skill points/ranks overlap-not stack!- for core classes. Character level is the maximum level for any one core class (assuming no prestige classes). You don't get extra feats for multiclassing.

3. Hit points are deterministic just like they are in 4ed. PC's receive maximum hit points at first class and half maximum after that. The credo is a disinterested third party must be able to reverse engineer a character. No. Rolling. Allowed. Period.

4. Humans do not get a bonus feat at 1st level nor bonus skill points. They get a second favored core class instead.

5. Abilities scores are based upon the elite array. Refer to the credo in Point #3 and put it in bold italic font.

6. Prestige classes work like core classes. Per point #2, it may get a wee bit harder to qualify. The overlap policy applies to multiple prestige glasses as they do to multiple core classes. The overlap among core classes is stacked with the overlap among prestige classes. Character level is the maximum core class level plus the maximum prestige class level, with attendant restrictions on the number of feats.

7.Put prestige into prestige classes. Prestige classes with five or fewer levels are treated as usual. Six or more levels, however, mean the character-and player!-are committed to the last level. If the character leaves the prestige class before taking the final level, they may no longer advance in the prestige class just like leaving the paladin or monk class. Furthermore, the character is levied a 10% XP penalty for each level before 10th that was skipped. Players who want to remove this penalty must advance their character level so they can get another feat. The player may choose to forgo the feat to remove the penalty.

8. The untrained versus trained rules for skill checks stay, but with additional restrictions. Subtract 20 from DC's 21 or greater to determine the minimum number of ranks in the relevant skill to have any chance of success. Sorry, natural 20 is not an automatic success.

9. Temporary ability score increases never affect hit points, skill points, access to spells and psionic powers or bonus spell slots or power points per day.

10. Make Craft and Profession skills integral to the gaming session. Give XP awards for successful use of Craft and Profession skills. I go so far as to treat Profession skill checks as bardic knowledge when it pertains to the profession.

11. Epic progessions of classes are severely slowed down. Monsters are kept the same as usual. Of course, epic has its own headaches which are beyond the scope of this writeup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Great Reader Diffan,

Fantastic post: thank you! You're busting through the thin veneer of what is falsely labeled a "roleplaying" game in that roleplaying was playing a role, not acting. That really is where it splits. Players want to self-aggrandize through dominant ways associated with human histories form of conquest: beating the crap out of people, taking their stuff, and being the superior one. It's low brow, with a fancy set of clothing over the top of it in most cases I feel. The problem is, as you clearly articulated, it is what the DM brings and what the players want. Until there is more of a sense of promoting the thespian aspect of it, it will continue as a hack n'slash or similar derivative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Your point here is exactly why I have been creating the other scrolls about morals, values, freedom, politics, economics, and more. When you realize that the contest, or the "fight" if you will, is more than swinging a sword and could be something as "simple" as having to help disturb an economic power play that involves currency devaluation between two trading nations that are in the midst of a trade deal, that then goes on to include the Spymaster, a diviner, the diplomancer, etc., you can quickly see there are a million ways to make compelling adventures, but they are not as easy as shifting the numbers around, calling monsters something else, and utilizing trite, low brow, explanations for the failed and awkward social mechanics of a DM that plays out people in the D&D world as effectively living zombies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

1) Run a sandbox campaign. Yeah, it's a lot of work but it pays dividends in group happiness across the board.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

2) Question why so many aspects of power bases, i.e. the gods, nation-states, are so monolithic, and in many ways similar, even though they are described as being different, i.e. Thay, Durpar, Mulhorand, and the Dales. There seems to be a false averaging out of conflict to keep things on par and approachable the world over in a way that is frankly childish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

RP, RP as defined as: acting, using actual acting methods. I utilize a karma system that my friend Travis created. I also average combat XP as a level every three sessions, no matter what you do. You could kill all the gods: you get 1/3 of a level, every session. This immediately disincentiveses the combat aspect. If you gain a level every three sessions, then you go up whether it is through RP or killing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

4) Don't scale encounters. I could go into the mountains right now without one of my sidearms that could kill a bear where I live. That bear isn't going to take it easy on me. He's going to do what he does. So, that being said, that's just how life works. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if I am eaten by a bear, but I still get crapped out 18 hours later.

5) Utilize the environment to its fullest. I have had campaigns end due to exposure. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if the character's die due to starvation, dehydration, etc. However, that crap happens, and it is something that adds a level to of challenge to the game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

6) Nuke the overnight Ph.D's. I am in the process of overhauling my skill system to join GURPS and D&D in some hybrid. When you go up a level in (12) in game hours, and now you are a master of geology, or speak three more languages, something is wrong. Don't let the knowledge system break the game as it always does. Make that a challenge too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

5) Truly take on the personal of a storyteller. If you take on that persona, you can truly, in a neutral way tell a story that has no bearing on your success or failure as a storyteller, because if the game is a sandbox game, the players characters tell the story, you just facilitate all of the other stuff in between. :)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2


**Point of note: I wasn't speaking at you so much Great Reader Diffan, as I was speaking openly to whoever is interested about my ideas, so no criticism to you! :)

Best regards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn


1. The 2ed concept of kits is very much alive. If you really want to play gish, consider a core class like a duskblade. Multiclass fighter/wizard is perfectly OK, but consider Point #2.

2. Levels, base attack bonus, skill points/ranks overlap-not stack!- for core classes. Character level is the maximum level for any one core class (assuming no prestige classes). You don't get extra feats for multiclassing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

3. Hit points are deterministic just like they are in 4ed. PC's receive maximum hit points at first class and half maximum after that. The credo is a disinterested third party must be able to reverse engineer a character. No. Rolling. Allowed. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

4. Humans do not get a bonus feat at 1st level nor bonus skill points. They get a second favored core class instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

5. Abilities scores are based upon the elite array. Refer to the credo in Point #3 and put it in bold italic font.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

6. Prestige classes work like core classes. Per point #2, it may get a wee bit harder to qualify. The overlap policy applies to multiple prestige glasses as they do to multiple core classes. The overlap among core classes is stacked with the overlap among prestige classes. Character level is the maximum core class level plus the maximum prestige class level, with attendant restrictions on the number of feats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

7.Put prestige into prestige classes. Prestige classes with five or fewer levels are treated as usual. Six or more levels, however, mean the character-and player!-are committed to the last level. If the character leaves the prestige class before taking the final level, they may no longer advance in the prestige class just like leaving the paladin or monk class. Furthermore, the character is levied a 10% XP penalty for each level before 10th that was skipped. Players who want to remove this penalty must advance their character level so they can get another feat. The player may choose to forgo the feat to remove the penalty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

8. The untrained versus trained rules for skill checks stay, but with additional restrictions. Subtract 20 from DC's 21 or greater to determine the minimum number of ranks in the relevant skill to have any chance of success. Sorry, natural 20 is not an automatic success.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

9. Temporary ability score increases never affect hit points, skill points, access to spells and psionic powers or bonus spell slots or power points per day.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't this take kind of ignore the individual's own personal desire to play the game and the ways in which they approach it though?

---

quote:

---

As for the thespian part, simply put not everyone is good at acting, lol.

---

quote:

---

Skills not every gamer or DM might have a good understand of.

---

quote:

---

I find the best kind is to start small, a few local villages or towns, maybe one larger trading port, and then work up from there. That way the DM can focus on the local issues without having to instantly come up with large worldly events.

---

• Establish an overarching campaign wide theme for a 2 - 4 million square mile region in the Realms
• Create 5 - 10 major story arcs
• Select 3 - 5, levels one to twenty adventures
• Alter the adventure themes to tie into each 2 to 3 of the major story arcs
• Create 5 to 10 minor story arcs that promote County level (as an example of small regional areas) or smaller group engagement
• Develop communities by creating fully fleshed out villages proper and for their environs that associate to the 5 to 10 minor story arcs
• Pre-establish weather, environmental, cultural, and economic progress for a (4) year, in game period of time that I monitor so that actions take place in the background, independent of the characters doing things

quote:

---

The similarities are there for a few reasons: first being ease of play.

---

quote:

---

I really don't use XP anymore.

---

quote:

---

I feel these both sort of play with one another. It certainly adds a reason to take packing mules, horses, and more supplies for your journeys (and people on hand to guard or take care of them) and it also gives more nods to classes like the Ranger or the guy who graps Survival as a skill to help foraging in the wilderness. But this is all based on the group-dynamic and level is certainly an issue too. By 10th level (or 12th/15th in 4E) these become trivial elements due to the sort of ways in which PCs can travel via Magic or flying mounts.

---

quote:

---

this is one of my biggest pet peeves of games like GURPS or 3e/PF D&D. I hate Skill ranks. Hate them with a burning hot passion.

---

quote:

---

Good advice for any RPG :)

---

quote:

---

No worries, I'm glad I got this discussion going and how well it's been received.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Great Reader Diffan,

Fantastic post: thank you! You're busting through the thin veneer of what is falsely labeled a "roleplaying" game in that roleplaying was playing a role, not acting. That really is where it splits. Players want to self-aggrandize through dominant ways associated with human histories form of conquest: beating the crap out of people, taking their stuff, and being the superior one. It's low brow, with a fancy set of clothing over the top of it in most cases I feel. The problem is, as you clearly articulated, it is what the DM brings and what the players want. Until there is more of a sense of promoting the thespian aspect of it, it will continue as a hack n'slash or similar derivative.

---

Doesn't this take kind of ignore the individual's own personal desire to play the game and the ways in which they approach it though? It's painting D&D (as a system) with a broad brush simply because it does have a lot of Combat-focus. The reasons FOR the PCs approaching combat should be a whole different discussion on the matter. Not everyone who's playing D&D is playing it Murder-Hobo style. The system, despite the hyper-combat focus, is still simply a set of tools. How the players use those tools is the real question.

As for the thespian part, simply put not everyone is good at acting, lol. I'm certainly not and really only use the 3rd Person ("My character does this or interacts with that") method 90% of the time. I do "interact" with NPCs and the other characters sometimes In Character but I woudln't say that is a common approach of mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

Your point here is exactly why I have been creating the other scrolls about morals, values, freedom, politics, economics, and more. When you realize that the contest, or the "fight" if you will, is more than swinging a sword and could be something as "simple" as having to help disturb an economic power play that involves currency devaluation between two trading nations that are in the midst of a trade deal, that then goes on to include the Spymaster, a diviner, the diplomancer, etc., you can quickly see there are a million ways to make compelling adventures, but they are not as easy as shifting the numbers around, calling monsters something else, and utilizing trite, low brow, explanations for the failed and awkward social mechanics of a DM that plays out people in the D&D world as effectively living zombies.

---

This sort of campaign, I should add, isn't also going to be everyone's taste and really doesn't apply to a few character classes. I mean, the concept is really cool and involved and has a LOT of elements that aren't hack-and-slash, but I feel to do this properly requires a lot of real in-world knowledge of how trade, devaluing money, and economics work. Skills not every gamer or DM might have a good understand of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

1) Run a sandbox campaign. Yeah, it's a lot of work but it pays dividends in group happiness across the board.

---

I find the best kind is to start small, a few local villages or towns, maybe one larger trading port, and then work up from there. That way the DM can focus on the local issues without having to instantly come up with large worldly events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

2) Question why so many aspects of power bases, i.e. the gods, nation-states, are so monolithic, and in many ways similar, even though they are described as being different, i.e. Thay, Durpar, Mulhorand, and the Dales. There seems to be a false averaging out of conflict to keep things on par and approachable the world over in a way that is frankly childish.

---

The similarities are there for a few reasons: first being ease of play. It's easier to go into a town with simply different window dressing, different looking people, or oddities and exoitic elements but having a core familiar function. Again, I feel the pull for games like D&D is the ease of entry and play. This doesn't mean there can't be more at play or things that differentiate once place or deity from another - I think there's actually a bit different with Thay (a necropolise-based Undead hub) and the Dalelands (a functioning micro city-state of independent peoples) who both have oddly different world-views.

3) Overhaul the XP system!!!! Utilize a reward system for

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

RP, RP as defined as: acting, using actual acting methods. I utilize a karma system that my friend Travis created. I also average combat XP as a level every three sessions, no matter what you do. You could kill all the gods: you get 1/3 of a level, every session. This immediately disincentiveses the combat aspect. If you gain a level every three sessions, then you go up whether it is through RP or killing.

---

I really don't use XP anymore. A few encounters, battles, or moving the story forward now take the place of XP. As I get further into other systems like 13th Age, I'm really liking the incremental bonuses you get with each session or two. Maybe you don't level up fully this time but you can get a spell or feat or some small bump to HP to carry with you to the next big event and then level up fully later. This also does away with going out into the woods to find a den of Kobolds to slaughter just for some additional XP that would push them over the top (a concept I pretty much hate - thanks to World of Warcraft).

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

4) Don't scale encounters. I could go into the mountains right now without one of my sidearms that could kill a bear where I live. That bear isn't going to take it easy on me. He's going to do what he does. So, that being said, that's just how life works. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if I am eaten by a bear, but I still get crapped out 18 hours later.

5) Utilize the environment to its fullest. I have had campaigns end due to exposure. It isn't heroic, it isn't fun, it doesn't make for a great story if the character's die due to starvation, dehydration, etc. However, that crap happens, and it is something that adds a level to of challenge to the game.

---

I feel these both sort of play with one another. It certainly adds a reason to take packing mules, horses, and more supplies for your journeys (and people on hand to guard or take care of them) and it also gives more nods to classes like the Ranger or the guy who graps Survival as a skill to help foraging in the wilderness. But this is all based on the group-dynamic and level is certainly an issue too. By 10th level (or 12th/15th in 4E) these become trivial elements due to the sort of ways in which PCs can travel via Magic or flying mounts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

6) Nuke the overnight Ph.D's. I am in the process of overhauling my skill system to join GURPS and D&D in some hybrid. When you go up a level in (12) in game hours, and now you are a master of geology, or speak three more languages, something is wrong. Don't let the knowledge system break the game as it always does. Make that a challenge too.

---

this is one of my biggest pet peeves of games like GURPS or 3e/PF D&D. I hate Skill ranks. Hate them with a burning hot passion. They're the LAST thing I calculate when I make a character and 9/10 I'll just round up what the max skill amount I can have and then divide that buy the number of skills I have and boom, I'm done.

I also hate the way Knowledge, Profession, Craft, and Perform are done. These should all have more intricacies for their use than simply a 1-roll DC check.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2

5) Truly take on the personal of a storyteller. If you take on that persona, you can truly, in a neutral way tell a story that has no bearing on your success or failure as a storyteller, because if the game is a sandbox game, the players characters tell the story, you just facilitate all of the other stuff in between. :)

---

Good advice for any RPG :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by cpthero2


**Point of note: I wasn't speaking at you so much Great Reader Diffan, as I was speaking openly to whoever is interested about my ideas, so no criticism to you! :)

Best regards

---

No worries, I'm glad I got this discussion going and how well it's been received.

---

quote:

---

Learned Scribe Delnyn,

I like your approach there! Those are clearly focused on the getting rid of that uber combat dynamic.

Out of curiosity, do you feel that a non-scaled, sandbox campaign would help since you always have people sort of looking over their shoulder now knowing what is to come, as in real life?

Best regards,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delnyn

Senior Scribe cpthero2,
"Yes" to your question about non-scaled sandbox campaigns. I made some brief comments in your other scroll about sandbox campaigns. The players themselves tend to start small and stay local for the few three or four levels.

My XP system differs from other DM's, especially at low levels. That overall discussion is better suited for the Sandbox campaign scroll. As far as combat's role is concerned at low levels, they tend toward pest control missions. Rather than swing melee weapons or string bows, the characters typically devise a "smoke 'em and choke 'em" strategy to exterminate vermin nests.

Sometimes the players caught me off guard with a totally unanticipated solution. On one of these rat patrol missions, the party negotiated a deal with a faerie dragon living just outside Goldenfields. For the price of one apple pie paid in advance plus one apple pie per breath weapon, the faerie dragon would breathe euphoria gas into the rat holes. The party members would then fish out the stoned rats by mage hand, hooked poles, etc. and stuff the rats into nets for extermination. It was a delightful combination of having someone with Diplomacy, someone speak Draconic for translation and someone with Profession (baker) to bake the apple pies.

I was delighted. The deal called for three breath weapons at the cost of four apple pies. Each apple pie cost 3 copper prices for raw ingredients. One pie was botched, so the party had to cough up 15 copper pieces, which was more than covered by the 1 gold per party member fee. And the party got a friendly contact.

quote:

---

Learned Scribe Delnyn,

I like your approach there! Those are clearly focused on the getting rid of that uber combat dynamic.

Out of curiosity, do you feel that a non-scaled, sandbox campaign would help since you always have people sort of looking over their shoulder now knowing what is to come, as in real life?

Best regards,

---

---