Race issues (split)

[S'mon]

You might want to take a look at some of the ways you present these issues and if your cues are misleading folks.  

I think this is an important point, thanks.  I never wanted to preach a particular worldview in my game, sexist or otherwise, but there's certainly things I do, choices I make as GM - like what fantasy art goes on a game's web page, or what NPCs I create and how I present them - that can have unintended consequences with regards to how players perceive it.   Just using a long-term D&D campaign world that, as SB says, I've been developing & GMing since I was a kid, that has been shaped initially by many years of play by adolescent males including myself, potentially has a big impact.

Hm, maybe I really should make a serious effort to run a good sf game... :)

[S'mon]

[Heck, you can ignore the effects of weapons on combat. You can ignore combat entirely.

GM: There's an orc ahead.
Player: I kill it.
GM: OK, in the next room you come in cleaning the blood off of your sword, and find a pool.

There is nothing, nothing at all, that one "must" explore. It's all entirely optional.

Actually, this was something I loved about Heroquest when we playtested it.  :)

I think rolling a d20 and adding some mods to see if you kill the orc or not is in many cases a big improvement on trying to use a miniatures- battle-game-disguised-as-an-RPG for dramatic roleplaying.  The Heroquest playtest prompted me to make a big change to my GMing style, actually making my 3e D&D game actually a lot more like the more freeform D&D games of my youth.   In the last 'D&D' session I ran, I handwaved away 90%+ of the combat (and didn't use miniatures at all, which was hugely liberating), to concentrate on what was to me dramatically interesting.  It felt great, and my sole remaining player complemented me on it, too.  :)

(On-topic!  Yeah!)

[Mike Holmes]

[Heck, you can ignore the effects of weapons on combat. You can ignore combat entirely.

GM: There's an orc ahead.
Player: I kill it.
GM: OK, in the next room you come in cleaning the blood off of your sword, and find a pool.

There is nothing, nothing at all, that one "must" explore. It's all entirely optional.

Actually, this was something I loved about Heroquest when we playtested it.  :)

I think rolling a d20 and adding some mods to see if you kill the orc or not is in many cases a big improvement on trying to use a miniatures- battle-game-disguised-as-an-RPG for dramatic roleplaying.

Yep, well said.

Just to really be clear, however, in the example, the GM is just deciding to skip the combat entirely. This can happen in HQ using the "Automatic Success" rule. No roll, not even any narration of the event even. Just totally skipped except for the declaration of intent, and the wiping of the sword.

I hate the term handwaving. It implies that one is being dismissive of the event or rules or something. It's part of the HQ rules (and those of every other game as well) that the narrator decides when to apply the resolution system. Is it "handwaving" if we decide not to resolve whether or not you choke to death on dinner? So why is combat any different?

Here's an even better example than the one above:

GM: There's an orc ahead.
Player: I go talk to it.
GM: OK, it asks for a toll for the bridge over the chasm with a really bad accent.

In this case, combat has been completely ignored by all parties. So it's not even "automatic success rule" in effect here, it's just that no conflict has been set up at all regarding combat. The simplest way to put this is that there's no imperative to have combat in a game at all. One can simply have the contests be about other things. There's no point where the orc magically appears from the rules wanting to do battle - he only gets there because the narrator puts him there. He's only beligerent because the narrator says he's beligerent. He only attacks, as opposed to tripping and falling off the bridge leaving the way open, because the narrator decides that he does.

So, the point isn't just that you can ignore the resolution system, but that the subject of the conflict in question only comes up because somebody wants it to come up. Because it's interesting to them. This goes for everything.

Sorry if I've overstated this point. But it's key.

Mike

[S'mon]

[quote="Mike Holmes]
Actually, this was something I loved about Heroquest when we playtested it.  :)

I think rolling a d20 and adding some mods to see if you kill the orc or not is in many cases a big improvement on trying to use a miniatures- battle-game-disguised-as-an-RPG for dramatic roleplaying. [/quote]Yep, well said.

Just to really be clear, however, in the example, the GM is just deciding to skip the combat entirely. This can happen in HQ using the "Automatic Success" rule. No roll, not even any narration of the event even. Just totally skipped except for the declaration of intent, and the wiping of the sword.
[/quote]

Yeah, I used that too in my last D&D game (involving 17th level PC king  commanding army of 30,000 on campaign of conquest against enemy empire) - "hacking your way through the fortress defenders, at last you reach the inner sanctum, where..."
I found this very liberating :)

3rd edition D&D tangentially supports this in that the XP/challenge rating system implies that minor battles aren't worth fighting (no XP for challenge 8 or more levels below the PC's level) but I don't think I'd dared to do this 'on screen' until then.

[S'mon]

I hate the term handwaving. It implies that one is being dismissive of the event or rules or something. It's part of the HQ rules (and those of every other game as well) that the narrator decides when to apply the resolution system.

I agree, but I think some D&D (and presumably other RPG) players might dispute this.   For them part of the Gamist satisfaction of the game is the illusion that players and GM are on a level playing field, bound by the same rules.  I've even seen a great GM like Kerstin/Stalkingblue struggling with the notion that she didn't have to take 3 hours of dice-rolling to resolve a battle we were already bound to win (the PC side had mounted archers, per the RAW the enemy orc melee infantry couldn't touch us).  I'm sure I've done the same as GM, feeling obliged to run a battle that everyone would have preferred be simply over and done with.

[Mike Holmes]

I agree, but I think some D&D (and presumably other RPG) players might dispute this.

Well, sure, but then in D&D, that is what the game is about. That is, the only sensible reason to play D&D is because you want to kill things and take their stuff. It's the system that tells you that combat is important. Sure the EXP system tells you that its not worthwhile to fight small stuff - but the mechanics still say you have to fight the damn baby kobolds or they don't die!

To get back on topic, I've said before that system can influence what's seen as important, what gets decided by the GM that has to be resolved. And, again, if a game said that you had to include racism or sexism or something, then I'd blame it on the game. But few do.

Mike

[soru]

The thing you can do in HQ, which you would be lynched for in any D&D game I have ever heard of, is:

Ok, (die roll), your army of 30,000 loses. While fleeing from the scene of your defeat, ...

soru

[S'mon]

The thing you can do in HQ, which you would be lynched for in any D&D game I have ever heard of, is:

Ok, (die roll), your army of 30,000 loses. While fleeing from the scene of your defeat, ...

soru

Actually I use the OD&D War Machine, which works pretty much like that - the two sides roll d%s and add a number, higher total wins.  My players much preferred it to my attempt at simulating a battle in blow-by-blow detail.

BTW, tangentially related to thread title,  looks like my next D&D campaign will soon get off the ground w 4 players - one Indian, one Chinese, one Norwegian, one English.  I don't know if there'll be any 'race issues', but I'm looking forward to running it in the style of old pre-3e D&D - "OK, you're all first level and standing at the dungeon entrance..." - I expect I'll use some ideas I've picked up from The Forge and its indie games - Heroquest, Donjon (relevant here - "ok, so you Hear Noise..."), and of course Sorcerer & Sword; I think I can do that while keeping a focus on what I like best in D&D, something that seemed to go missing sometime during my last D&D campaign.