D&D, revisited (long)

[Filip Luszczyk]

Although I've put away D&D for quite some time, lately I've been finding myself in a mood for some good old powergaming feast. However, I've been exposed to Forge too much recently it seems, as whenever I try to think about vanilla D&D, my thoughts constantly wander of and I'm starting to ponder how some things could be done in different ways. I have some ideas.

One thing that probably needs to be clarified is that out of many possible ways of playing D&D, I'm usually considering it in terms of entirely combat focused hack & slash or dungeon crawls mixing combat and environment exploration, played exactly by the book, with all those little modifiers, tactical maneuvers, environmental conditions and stuff. Although I've been playing D&D and seen it played in some different ways, my best and most engaging experiences come from playing in one of these two styles (i.e. encounter after encounter of constant combat, with little or no concern with setting and role-playing; or map based exploration of closed areas with some mix of combat, social interaction and problem solving). I've also seen and took part in some attempts to actually play D&D as a "fantasy world simulation", with focus on realism and setting in a wider than battlemap or dungeon sense, as well as some attempts to squeeze some epic narrative out of it, with deep role-playing, some real heroism and the like. None of them were real fun, and none of these things is what I seek in D&D, as I prefer it purely as a tool for tactical number-crunching and effectiveness focused character building, with some accidental dungeonpukish fantasy flavor.

(Well, I've ran some sessions of post-apocalyptic D&D once, keeping all the rules, races, classes, feats, items etc. mechanically intact and changing only color. What I dig in D&D are mostly rules and playstyle, not window dressing.)

I don't have many gripes with how the rules work, as in the context of my preferred ways of using them they work fine (and I don't mind them being unrealistic and all - the longer I've been playing D&D the less such issues I had with it). For those rules that don't work for me well, there are decent official optional rules. Although the massive prep time turned me off at some point, I can see ways of running the game that wouldn't require much prep and still be fun. I won't run a proper dungeon crawl that way, but I can always limit the game to a more or less linear series of encounters, using only pre-made stat blocks from various handbooks. However, I know playing out constant combats will get boring pretty fast, so this is a session or three of fun, tops.

Now, I'm considering some ways of making these encounters more engaging emotionally - as this should provide fuel for longer play (it's not like I'm thinking about months-long campaign - rather 5-6 sessions of still interesting play). Without making any actual changes in mechanical procedures, if possible. So, I'm examining what parts of the game could be reinterpreted and how. (Of course, I'm not sure if such things weren't done before.)

Making social combat possible (without messing with the rules)

I know how difficult it is to add an additional systems to D&D, and social combat is really problematic - it's likely to affect the game balance, and add another layer of complexity to the rules that are already complex enough. However, it did occur to me that this could be solved by doing some creative reinterpretation of already existing mechanics, and not touching the numbers much.

My idea is to simply resolve social combat just like it was a regular combat (only with different win/lose conditions). That way a fighter using spiked-chain and assorted feats in physical combat would mechanically function exactly the same in social combat - being a spiked-chain fighter socially as well. Characters in D&D are always combat oriented in one way or another, so in this reinterpretation, it would be assumed that ones fighting style (and even weapon choice) is a reflection of ones personality (or the other way around).

Stats can be reinterpreted and given additional meaning - e.g. high Strength would be connected with strong will and assertiveness, high Dexterity would mean the character is socially graceful and witty, while high Constitution would  indicate someone confident and tenacious, etc.

Feats, class features and all work the same as in normal combat. Class base attack bonus progression maps nicely to characters pursuing a given way of life being especially especially extrovert/introvert (so, fighters wind up as the naturally outgoing type, while wizards are rather timid inside). Weapons and armor wielded by the character can be interpreted as a reflection of his or her current attitude towards life in general ("So, you're using flaming longsword, and depend on your Dexterity/grace for protection, hmm..."). The same goes for various magic items equipped (although these may sometime require some stretching in color area - especially potions and other limited use items, hmm).

Hit points measure abstract staying power already, so there's not much to add. Of course, being out of hit points would obviously mean being convinced by the opposition and not dying.

Combat grid can be retained, with all the maneuvers reflecting some social positioning. Environment effects and all map to social equivalents (hey, it would be actually possible for the character of the place to affect social combat - there's different social atmosphere in the calm wood than on a tight bridge over a lake of lava).

Spells are a bit problematic, just as non-permanent magic items. These could be interpreted as the character with specific spells prepared holding some general mystical force that can be used to affect social environment by association. Like, having a magic missile spell prepared would allow the wizard to make his arguments infallible, or a cure light wounds spell energy could be used subtly to restore confidence.

Social skills lose mechanical impact, and these would need to be modified. The most direct way I can think of would be to make them work in social combat as some combat-usable skills work in physical combat. For example, Disguise could work like Hide skill, Bluff as Move Silently, Sense Motive as Listen and Diplomacy as Tumble (Intimidate already has some combat effects, so these need not change).

Some way of escalating from physical to social combat and the other way could be nice - but I can't think of anything good. Maybe an option of escalating in exchange for some hp recovery, or something. This would affect game balance that's fine as it is, though.

So, basically it's all about using the same rules, but changing color - leaving the tactical stuff intact but opening new possibilities on another layer by giving the players a valid option to win encounters by taking a different approach. There would be no real tactical value in choosing to talk and not fight ones way, so the decision would be meaningful on a different level. Of course, for it to have any sense, the series of encounters would have to be situated in the context of some Situation that would make such choices meaningful, but that's another matter (I was able to port D&D to postapocalyptic color without changing anything, so why shouldn't it be possible to port it to, say, DitV-like situation?).

Also, the more I think about it, the idea of character's class, feats, weapons and armor being a reflection of his or her personality (or the other way around) seems more and more awesome to me

Treasure

In essence, gold is a different, portable kind of experience points in D&D, and magic items are nothing more than portable feats with some color attached. Running my post-apocalyptic D&D some years ago, I've simply changed them into screws or something and technological artifacts respectively. There was no change in costs or mechanical effects, but they sure felt differently. So, treasure could just as well be reinterpreted to fit social combat.

Basically, gold could be safely treated as an abstract purchasing power - and "loot" from social combat would be connected with gaining influence, emotional power or the like. Since Strength would map to authority and will in social combat, there's even no need to change load rules - coins would burden the character in the same way as emotions or influence, until reaching some upper cap (and then, these could be unloaded into some metaphorical equivalent of chests, e.g. by allocating influence to political allies and emotions to relationships).

Now, continuing the social combat ideas, magic items could sometimes be interpreted in some more abstract manner. For example, belt of giant's strength gained through "social loot" could be interpreted as some authority strengthening title of power, or some grasped philosophical Truth, or just about anything. And since there is the whole "stuff reflects stuff" going on, having the title of power or philosophical attitude would still make one more effective in physical combat.

Alignment

Alignment is mechanically significant, so it has to stay. Still, I see no reason to stick to the interpretations of nine alignments. In the end, in vanilla D&D the only thing it does is explaining why you kill things and steal their stuff.

Some time ago it occurred to me that it could be cool to give the players authority to decide what their characters' alignments really means. Kind of like passing judgement in DitV. So, if a lawful good paladin comes into the village, mercilessly kills all peasants and then steals their stuff, the player either changes his alignment, or decides that it actually was a valid lawful good act

This could either mean that the players define what the alignment means for their characters, or what is the objective meaning of a given alignment in the world at large. For the latter, limiting alignment choice of the group should produce something similar to DitV. But I wonder about the effects of allowing for a free choice of alignment, or requiring that no two characters have the same alignment with both the first and the second setup.

Action Points

We've been using Action Points variant in our games and they certainly enriched the tactics. Still, I'm comparing them with how various metagame resource mechanics work in some Forge-ish games, and it seems to me they could be changed into a Gift Dice or fanmail mechanic without much fiddling with the mechanics. This would simply require that the points were spent by other players from their pools on the acting player's behalf (Gift Dice variant) or awarded from the pool to other players and only then be available for them for actual spending (fanmail variant).

So, these are my recent conclusions about the game. Have anyone tried incorporating something like this to his or her D&D game? Thoughts?

[Thenomain]

Nobody has replied to this yet, so I thought I'd step forward.  Unfortunately it's not too far forward.  I recall seeing something very much like this concerning a D&D variant where the characters were all 1960s activists.  They, too, didn't change any actual rules to have a social "combat" game; they simply re-cast the meaning of the stats and classes, with ideas about alignments.  (I found it interesting how different "alignments" had different names for the same classes.)

All my search-fu failed me and I could not find the thread; perhaps someone with a better memory can provide a link.  (Ah, the perils of being a newbie.)

There are probably differences between your application and theirs, Fillip, but seeing how other people approached a similar issue might answer some of your open-ended questions.

[Simon C]

These are really interesting ideas! I love taking a fresh look at D&D, I guess becasue a) a part of me still finds all those uniquely D&D trops compelling, and b) I love the nerd mathematics of it all. 

Social Combat: I think this is a cool idea, but I can see it being hard to seperate physical combats from social combats in the minds of the players.  (Did we fight that guy, or just argue with him?).  Also, there might be some confusion about what is possible in Social Combat, as opposed to physical.  Like, can I bullrush this person off this cliiff? What does this represent? I like the idea of the physical environment affecting the social combat, but I think you'll get a situation where the locations that are the most significant socially (the courthouse, the public forum) become less interesting for social combat.  That's ok if you're never planning on going there.  I guess if you've got players who are very involved in the metaphor, then it might work out, but otherwise, I'd suggest having some obvious mechanical differences, for no other reason than to materially distinguish between the two types of combat.  The distinction gives you a further reason to escalate, and it distinguishes the two types of combat in the players' minds.

The most obvious way (that I can think of) is to let Int, Wis, and Cha fulfill the roles of Str, Con, and Dex respectively.  Intelligence lets you come up with powerful arguments that damage your foe, Wisdom (or willpower) keeps you in the argument through sheer determination, and lets you accept the opponents' points while maintaining your own position.  Charisma allows you to twist the other person's words, slip out of difficult logic, and deflect their arguments through charm and persuasiveness.  I think that this would work well with the use of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive you've already considered. 

The major advantage of this change is that it preserves what is a very important facet of D&D: Niche protection.  If the Fighter can do all your talking, the Bard takes a back seat.  This way, the Rogue and Bard, with their ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy, retain their roles in the party.  I also like how this gives the classes different styles in social combat.  Wizards come up with good, solid arguments, and win by force of logic.  Clerics stay the course, accepting their opponents points, but maintaining their own.  Rogues charm their way into your good graces (Bluff, Diplomacy) and then destroy your argument with a well placed jibe (Sneak Attack).

I really like the idea that weapon choice represents aspects of a person's personality.  It also represents how attached a character is to their weapon.  Caught unarmed, a character loses their force of argument, as well as their force of arms.  Actually, this could be an interesting thing.  Maybe in the courthouse, weapons are forbidden, except for the magistrates who carry cerimonial blades (+5 in social combat). 

Alignment: This is a super strong idea, especially the idea that the players determine the objective meanings of alignment.  I think a great way to make D&D have more thematic impact is to really look at the effects of a morally absolutist world.  What happens when good and evil are not just real and absolute, but can exert physical force on the world? Insisting that no two players play the same alignment, and then letting them define for themselves what that alignment means in the setting - that's powerful thematic play.  If a lawful good character can slaughter a village of goblins, how does the chaotic good character react? Perhaps the best way to really kick this into overdrive is for the GM to challenge the players with this stuff.  "Ok, you find the village, remains of goblins, men, women and children, are littered throughout the small camp.  Their straw huts still smoulder.  In the middle of the encampment, you see someone has erected an altar to Heironeous, god of Valour, patron of Paladins."
Players: "WTF?"
The lawful good character gets to say "Oh, this Paladin has gone too far, her actions may be sanctioned by law, but they are not good".  And then the Chaotic Good character gets to say "No way! They got what they deserve.  You're just upset becasue you don't like the consequences of your actions.  Sometimes defending good means doing things that are distasteful.  You can't have it both ways." The judgement of one character forces the other players to think of their own interpretation.  Paladins are a problem, becasue they are an objective measure of what's lawful good.  If they're doing it, and they've still got their powers, then it's lawful good. 

The problem with this, without any mechanical support, is that it promotes conflict between the characters without any good way to resolve this conflict.  Eventually, you need some way for the character to say "Well, if that's lawful good, then I'm not lawful good anymore." My suggestion would be that characters get a small bonus for maintaining thier alignment, and a large bonus if they change their alignment, but then they can never go back to that alignment again.  So alignment becomes like Keys in TSOY, except that the players decide what constitutes hitting their alignment.  This would be an excellent way to introduce action points.  Maybe there's a way to turn this into a clean reward cycle mechanic?

[jerry]

With regards to using the combat mechanism for more than combat, I've been working out a very similar idea for Gods & Monsters.

The way I'm looking at it is that there are two basic resolution systems: single rolls, such as the way opening locks and other skill checks are handled (which I'm calling contests), and combat (using survival points and attack rolls, which I'm calling conflict). A player will be able to choose either method for any situation their character needs to do something. If they want to handle fights via a contest, they'll be able to do that; or if they want to handle a chess game using conflict, well, they can do that.

One issue with this, however, is that it makes warriors very good at non-combat conflicts. This gets into another, somewhat separate, idea I'm working on which is to on remove the different kinds of dice for survival points for each archetype; each archetype will get d10 survival points, as the warrior does now. Half of them are survival points, and continue to be used as they currently are; the other half are swashbuckling points and can only be used for archetypal activities, such as combat for warriors.

"So, for example, warriors will be able to use swash points in combat. Thieves can use swash points if they fall after failing to successfully climb walls. Monks will be able to use swash points for survival point losses incurred because of a failed perception roll.

'A thief tossed off of a thirty-foot wall cannot use swash points to defend against that damage, even though they could use it if they'd been climbing that wall and failed their Climb Walls roll. Climbing walls is an archetypal activity for a thief. Being tossed off of a wall is not."

I'm not sure that it's obvious that point loss for non-combat should not result in death. In my current playtest document, I haven't decided yet (we're going to start playtest on swashbuckling points in the next game, and depending on how that works out I'll introduce conflicts/contests). Certainly, if it's the same point pool, then it does, kind of. A character that has been defeated in (in your case) social combat and is now out of hit points is going to be a lot easier to defeat in physical combat.

You may want to consider what loss of hit points really means: in the case of physical combat, does it really mean being taken (temporarily) out of the game, with the in-game reason being because the character is dead? In social combat it may mean the same thing but with a different in-game reason.

Here are the paragraphs from my playtest document dealing with survival point loss and non-physical conflict. I'm coming at this from a different angle than you are, since I'm not specifically attempting to create a social conflicts analogue.

"You may be looking at this and thinking that this means your high level character could challenge a chess master to a chess conflict and win, even though your character would have no chance in a chess contest. That's true. In that sense it's a lot like the movies—if you care enough about this particular conflict, you can draw upon great reserves, past experience, and secret knowledge, to win the conflict.

'In a conflict you aren't always following the exact rules of the game, and you are engaging in psychological warfare, street techniques, whatever it takes to win.

'But remember that the chess master has skill bonuses that your character doesn't. That conflict will reduce your survival points, even if you win the match. This will affect later conflicts.

'You might also be looking at this and thinking, 'but this means that if I challenge a rhinocerous to a poker conflict, the rhinocerous might beat me at a card game.' That's true: it might. The short answer is, don't challenge a brute to a poker conflict. The long answer is, in a conflict sometimes you have to let the wookie win.

'And yes, using this system you can die from a chess game. There's a reason that games at the highest levels of play often end in a concession. Like a conflicted marriage, they will otherwise end in death.

'Most non-player characters will concede any conflict that is easy to exit, if they are running the risk of dying."

(I just had an idea--if you really want to make social combat D&D-style, you may want to consider "weapon lists" and "armor lists" complete with damage, armor class, costs, and encumbrance.)

Jerry

[Filip Luszczyk]

Thenomain,

Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate about those alignments interpretations there?

Simon,

Also, there might be some confusion about what is possible in Social Combat, as opposed to physical.  Like, can I bullrush this person off this cliiff? What does this represent?

Why, I see no reason why pushing a person into a rhetorical pit shouldn't be possible

I've been thinking about the whole reinterpretation thing, and my conclusion is that while it's possible to define alternative interpretations for every single maneuver and effect in the game (like, I can already see some of those social Sneak Attacks, heh), this could be left for play itself. The creative reinterpretation itself can provide be a lot of fun, after all. So, every time the player would want do try something new, he would have to describe what is actually happening.  Or, someone else would have to provide an explanation for him in case of a creative block, for that matter. Kind of the same principle as using Traits in DitV - if it can't be plausibly explained, it can't be done at this time, in this particular context. I think there shouldn't be much problem with it, though, especially that there is no reason to be particularly strict about it and it's more about providing just about *any* explanation than finding the perfect one. Most of the stuff in D&D has its meaning on the fiction level arbitrarily attached anyway.

There is one problematic thing here, though - the whole thing simply won't work with players who are neither:

a).experienced with D&D and open minded enough to easily deal with the reinterpretation thing,

or

b).heavy into metaphorical thinking in general.

If I think about the people I've been playing D&D with for the longest time, most of them fits either a or b just enough. I can't see playing something like this with some accidental people, though, as without a proper mindset it would be extremely difficult, whether the reinterpretation is done up front or on the spot.

I like the idea of the physical environment affecting the social combat, but I think you'll get a situation where the locations that are the most significant socially (the courthouse, the public forum) become less interesting for social combat.

Well, there's a lot of place for taking a higher ground in the courthouse or in the public forum The idea of having a separate social battlemap for every encounter is appealing, as I could have the nature of the place reflected by things like spiked pit trap equivalent where the defendant's place is and the like. This would probably work best with pre-made locations, however, and so it would require an increased prep time. Unfortunately, the more time I'm devoting to prep, the faster I'm getting weary with running the game, so it's not the best solution for me.

The most obvious way (that I can think of) is to let Int, Wis, and Cha fulfill the roles of Str, Con, and Dex respectively.  Intelligence lets you come up with powerful arguments that damage your foe, Wisdom (or willpower) keeps you in the argument through sheer determination, and lets you accept the opponents' points while maintaining your own position.  Charisma allows you to twist the other person's words, slip out of difficult logic, and deflect their arguments through charm and persuasiveness.  I think that this would work well with the use of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive you've already considered.

I've been considering doing something like this before, but in the end, I decided it's better to leave how the combat effectiveness is determined without changes. The more mechanical difference between conflicts on different arenas, the more tactical incentive there is to stick to only one - and I'd prefer the choice of arena to have mainly thematic and aesthetic impact. Mental stats already figure in combat effectiveness in D&D in some ways (although it depends on class and feats). In the end, my reasoning is that it's better, and more interesting in fact, to give some nonphysical aspects to the physical stats - making them kind of like Rings in L5R.

Skills I'd have to modify anyway, since with social combat there's no sense of having "make NPCs your devoted followers with one check" Diplomacy or the like. Also, skills don't contribute to overall combat effectiveness of the character much. So, I can safely give social skills mechanical function of some other skills, to retain all the items, feats and class features that modify these checks. Doing it with attributes would pose too much risk of debalancing combat, though, and I think it would actually hurt the whole niche protection thing.

I really like the idea that weapon choice represents aspects of a person's personality.  It also represents how attached a character is to their weapon.  Caught unarmed, a character loses their force of argument, as well as their force of arms.  Actually, this could be an interesting thing.  Maybe in the courthouse, weapons are forbidden, except for the magistrates who carry cerimonial blades (+5 in social combat).

Hmm, from reasons similar as above, I'd rather see characters entering social combat with all the weapons/attitudes listed on the sheet. This might require assuming a kind of twisted computer game logic - e.g. in an average computer game it's rather unlikely that in a courtroom combat after some dialogue sequence there the player would find his characters without weapons. For simplicity, it could be assumed that characters are armed by default on any arena in such situations. Or for plausibility (and some added challenge, too), it could be assumed that they are unarmed, indeed, on both arenas, but their arms are kept somewhere in their potential reach.

The problem with this, without any mechanical support, is that it promotes conflict between the characters without any good way to resolve this conflict.  Eventually, you need some way for the character to say "Well, if that's lawful good, then I'm not lawful good anymore." My suggestion would be that characters get a small bonus for maintaining their alignment, and a large bonus if they change their alignment, but then they can never go back to that alignment again.  So alignment becomes like Keys in TSOY, except that the players decide what constitutes hitting their alignment.  This would be an excellent way to introduce action points.  Maybe there's a way to turn this into a clean reward cycle mechanic?

Oh, this is a good point. AFAIK somebody did something similar before, probably somewhere on Story Games. I'm struggling with this. On the one hand, some mechanical support could be in place here, and I'll be modifying action points rules from Unearthed Arcana anyway. On the other hand, I'd like to do as little actual mechanical changes as possible, and I'd prefer alignment interpretation and changes to be an entirely thematic and aesthetic choice (e.g. there are no bonuses for hitting faith issues in DitV, and there are some good reasons for that).

Also, alignment already has some mechanical effects in D&D. One of them could be detrimental here, as alignment prerequisites would penalize players of some characters for changing alignment. I think it could be good to allow rebuilding the character when alignment is changed, so that the player could switch class levels that are no longer useful. So, alignment change would be accompanied by a far more dramatic transformation, as barbarian could become a fighter, a ranger or even a wizard after becoming lawful, turning into a completely different person.

One other thing concerning alignment that comes to my mind now is that I could actually keep the two axes and all, but completely change what they represent. For example, there could be a love axis and responsibility axis in the game, instead of moral and ethical one, or the like.

Jerry,

You may want to consider what loss of hit points really means: in the case of physical combat, does it really mean being taken (temporarily) out of the game, with the in-game reason being because the character is dead? In social combat it may mean the same thing but with a different in-game reason.

Well, I like the concept of hit points as an abstract staying power and I'll probably stick to this (also, the less mechanical changes from vanilla D&D, the better). But as for character death, I'm pondering whether I really need it. Death in D&D was always a problematic issue, as it's the only lose condition, and one very harsh for the player. Or, depending on the availability of powerful raising magic, it's a virtual non issue.

Now, the moment I make resolving encounters through social combat valid, I need to include some alternative win/lose conditions. Basically, I need some form of stakes. Since I want it to have at least some rewards in common with physical combat - namely the same amounts of experience and loot (falloot? ), removing the risk of death from social combat would almost always make it a tactically wiser choice. And since I don't want the choice between physical and social combat to have a tactical, but rather thematic and aesthetic impact, it cannot be so.

So, I have two options. I can either retain the risk of death (or some functional equivalent, like a banishment or the like) in social combat, or get rid of PC death altogether.

I'd rather go for the second option, since death is generally problematic in D&D. If there is no easy access to raising magic, it completely eliminates the character, costs the player a substantial amount of fun time, and negates his investments of time and effort up to this point. If raising magic is easily available in the campaign, it means nothing in turn - you go back to your save point, so to say. I think I could greatly simplify things by making PC death without player's consent impossible. That way, I remove the not-so-fun lose condition, as well as any need to waste precious session time on bothering with resurrecting fallen PCs (e.g. after combat everyone comes back to some positive amount of hit points, like in some Japanese console games).

Still, I definitely need lose conditions - without them, things will get boring. An ideal lose condition would be something the players don't want to happen enough for it to generate tension, and at the same time something that would push the game forward instead of stopping it. Since I'll be introducing stakes to social combat anyway, it's pretty obvious that in physical combat something should be at stake, too. I think in every encounter it should be possible to achieve something apart from gaining experience and (fal)loot - and some story-level consequence of being defeated should be present as well.

Since I'm including stakes setting and the whole "stuff from one arena reflects itself on another" principle, functionally I'm turning D&D combat into an extended conflict resolution system. The next logical step would be to use it for more than just physical and social combat, but also for other possible conflict arenas - be it mass battles, trade or, going after your examples, Jerry, chess. All this without any real need to go beyond SRD.

The thing is, I want the whole thing to be emotionally engaging, and for this including stakes setting is not enough. Some recent sessions of my Exalted heartbreaker game come to my mind - after a game or two things started to feel kind of dull, as our stakes setting was quite weak and it occurred to us that the impact of conflicts on the story is not really meaningful. My conclusion was that we could squeeze more drama out of it by constantly putting stuff the characters care about at stake in conflicts - but the characters lacked such stuff, apart from their rather tight Motivations. I figured out a good way to deal with it would be to situate characters in some broader context from the start - e.g. by creating some relationship map with the group, and providing some mechanical reason to add to it as the game progresses.

I'm also considering it for this D&D variant. A relationship map, or maybe rather "what we care about" map, including people, places, goals, objects, ideals etc. Everyone, including the GM, would put some number of elements on it, and then new elements would be added in play. Probably, every player would be required to add one element per level or per session. Also, I think everyone could be allowed to add new elements to the interests map at any time, as needed. (Hmm, some of you might suggest to go with TSoY Keys - I've played TSoY, I've been using Keys in my old Exalted campaign, and I like how they work, but this time I'd like to try some different approach.)

I think every single encounter will have one of the elements on the interests map at stake - no conflicts about things that nobody cares about. Actually, no attention given to unimportant stuff at all. I'll probably go for a "series of encounters" rather than for a typical dungeon crawl formula (encounters I can improvise as needed, while a dungeon structure, with its complicated dependencies and all requires way too much careful prep for me). Still, with the interests map there probably will be some sense of having a "dungeon" and moving from abstract room to abstract room. Hmm...

I wonder if it's enough, or should I rather give some additional mechanical purpose to things on the interests map. I'm thinking about PTA, and how all conflicts are required to touch character's Issue there - without Issue having any other mechanical effect. PTA I haven't played yet, though - actually, I'm expecting to play it tomorrow for the first time, and this should give me some valuable insights on the matter.

One additional function I could give to the elements on the map is making them equivalents of chests. The idea of gold being interpreted as an abstract purchasing power, and (fal)loot including not only gold pieces but also influence points, fame points, emo points or the like (or maybe simply "whatever the player wants" points, depending on the arena of the particular conflict and player's aesthetic preference) really appeals to me. In vanilla D&D carrying capacity makes it difficult to keep large amounts of treasure with oneself, and sooner or later the group needs to store resources in a safe vault or something. So, if there was, say, a city on the interests map, the player could store some of his gold in it. Once there's gold stored in the city, there's an incentive to fight for the city. On the same principle, the player could "store" some of his emo points in some relationship on the interest map, gaining an additional incentive to protect the NPC. Actually, I'm tempted to modify encumbrance rules, maybe basing the maximum treasure value carried on character level instead of Strength and making it rather low (and at the same time getting rid of counting encumbrance from equipment altogether, as it was always more bothersome than it was worth).

(I just had an idea--if you really want to make social combat D&D-style, you may want to consider "weapon lists" and "armor lists" complete with damage, armor class, costs, and encumbrance.)

I'm pretty much determined to keep the mechanical changes to the minimum - I'm resolved to have no more than one page of them. Special "social equipment" list would be quite an addition, and there's already a lot of stuff in the books - and with the "weapons reflect attitudes" principle it won't be really needed, as characters will simply use their normal combat statistics in every conflict.

[Eero Tuovinen]

The thread Kent remembers about D&D as social combat in the '60s was at RPG.net, which probably explains why he didn't find it. It's here. A remarkably fun thread, that one, about practically the same topic.

Other than that, not much to add. I'd say that the fun you get from this kind of D&D reinterpretation is oracle-play, where you enjoy the act of remapping, rather than any actual value-add for the routine of play. Therefore I suggest that you'll get the best results if you just go and play with the premise of "combat/social transparency", making the kind of brainstorming you have in this thread a basic backbone of play. If you end up making all the fun connections yourself here, the actual play will have much less novelty and cohesion for the people you're going to play with, as they can't get in on the fun of figuring it out.

Also, I think that you should probably follow the que of those RPG.netters and just remove normal combat altogether, at least for the first few sessions. After all, why would I want to waste time with normal D&D when I could be making a hilarious formal conversion of my character into a drama monster?

[Thenomain]

The thread Kent remembers about D&D as social combat in the '60s was at RPG.net, which probably explains why he didn't find it. It's here. A remarkably fun thread, that one, about practically the same topic.

See, newbie hazzards.  Thanks for understanding, remembering, and finding it.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Eero,

Indeed, these ideas are pretty similar to mine (that is, after filtering the typical rpg.net noise). However, I don't really want to take as strongly abstract approach with everything - I'm thinking more about typical D&D here, only with a twist that would make the whole tactical combat focused adventuring deal more engaging and dramatic. Turning The Most Popular Fantasy Game Evar upside down while leaving the mechanics intact certainly has some perverse allure. I definitely don't aim for hilarious or comedic results, though, and it's not art for art's sake. Consequently, I'd prefer to have it on an additional layer of play rather than to push the whole game into a new layer. Also, if I remove normal combat altogether, there will be no element of choosing conflict's arena, and no place for the whole "weapons reflect attitudes" thing - and these are the things I'm quite hyped about.

You're certainly right about leaving most of the reinterpretation for actual play, although I'd say it's better if I keep the general frame to give players some clear direction. Still, in the activist's example, reinterpretation seems to be the main purpose of play, and I don't think I'd like to make it so central. I aim at playing D&D as ends with reinterpretation as means rather than D&D as means with reinterpretation as ends, so to say.

Also, I don't know why but I have a feeling that making reinterpretation the whole purpose would support open-ended short term play, but wouldn't lend itself well to actually getting to some concrete closure in the fiction. It's kind of the same as focusing entirely on constant tactical combat for the whole time. In theory, this could make for a "neverending campaign" - only it probably won't, since it's leading nowhere in the long run and will probably become dull after a session or two. I'm aiming at 5-6 session mini-campaign, with some clear and preferably dramatic closure.

I'm still considering the issues of PC death, relationship/interests map and defining the objective meaning of alignments by players - and different approaches I could take with these things. Most of all, I'm pondering whether it's better to give some additional mechanical importance to the interests map and allignment, or leave this stuff free of potential tactical/strategic fiddling and mostly in the thematic decisions area.

[Callan S.]

Hi Filip,

However, I don't really want to take as strongly abstract approach with everything - I'm thinking more about typical D&D here, only with a twist that would make the whole tactical combat focused adventuring deal more engaging and dramatic.

Have you considered putting in the opportunity to lose? I don't mean lose as in 'we had to retreat then come back latter' lose. I mean lose like checkmate in chess, or going bankrupt in monopoly. It ends the game.

As well as that, the ability to start the game again, right from the start the same as it was the first time you tried.

Those tactics come into context when, having lost, it becomes apparent the answer to winning lies within them.

Mind you, that appeals to the people who think 'Dammit, I know I can beat this thing'. For people who focus on other areas, it might be 'What? The game just ended...what was that for?'.

For those people, I re comend killing them and taking their stuff. Err, I mean really checking who you want in on this whole tactical excursion.

[Thenomain]

Indeed, these ideas are pretty similar to mine (that is, after filtering the typical rpg.net noise). However, I don't really want to take as strongly abstract approach with everything - I'm thinking more about typical D&D here, only with a twist that would make the whole tactical combat focused adventuring deal more engaging and dramatic.

From my perspective (and it's why I brought it up), the 60s D&D reinterpretation is exactly what you've described.  It shouldn't be too difficult to tighten up; there are Social Weapons (mace = yelling to get your point across).  It also shouldn't be too difficult to diminish the scope so that one round still equals one round.  You don't have to do the complete reimagining that they did.  If the characters turned a corner and ran into a hellhound, it would be a real hellhound and using social attacks on it would be completely inappropriate.

You (and your players) would have to accept that Strength is also Social Strength, Dexterity is also Social Dexterity, and so on.  If this were pitched to me as a player, I'd make the same "why not use the three social stats that my character has already?" that Callan brought up earlier, and I would probably balk if I had a social character that was no good at social combat.  That's just me.

For Alignments, two ideas come to mind.

1) d20 Modern uses less alignments and more preferences, things that are important to you.  In Urban Arcana, you need to choose one of the typical alignment scale (Good, Chaotic, etc.) but the rest can be anything you want, and you list them in order of what's the most important.  If you put Family before Friends, this tells the GM that a moral dilema between the two could be interesting.  If you put Chaotic after Puppies, this could mean you don't care about the world except for that which is small and floppy-eared.

2) Expanding on this idea, you could make everyone describe several things per alignment component that describes that component.  For "Chaotic Good" I could list "Cares for the Underdog" under Good and "Cheeky" under Chaotic, thus making me play Robin Hood.  For your Lawful Good Paladin killing off an entire village, he could be "Unforgiving" under Lawful and "Hates Evil" under Good.  Even two characters of the same alignment can be at odds.

There's a lot you can do with these, depending on your tastes.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Callan,

Have you considered putting in the opportunity to lose? I don't mean lose as in 'we had to retreat then come back latter' lose. I mean lose like checkmate in chess, or going bankrupt in monopoly. It ends the game.

As well as that, the ability to start the game again, right from the start the same as it was the first time you tried.

What you describe is the default in D&D, and what I'm considering is removing opportunity to lose in this sense altogether. This is for purely practical reasons. It's about spending around 15-25 hours, throughout multiple evenings, playing a campaign, and I wouldn't like this time investment to go to waste. This would be a losing both for the players and for me. Also, I don't plan playing this thing indefinitely, but in the span of 5-6 sessions specifically, so there's no way that we'll be starting over and over again after every TPK.

Well, I've been playing the hell out of Ancient Domains of Mystery, and I know well how "total gameover" lose conditions can pump up adrenaline levels and all. Still, I play ADOM in different context than D&D, with different expectations in terms of time commitment.

This is why I'm looking for some lose conditions that wouldn't equal gameover, and I'm thinking about those stakes in encounters. But I need lose conditions that would motivate the players and create tension, and for this there needs to be some emotional investment in stakes on the players' side. This can be connected with some loss of resources (e.g. gold points stored in the city or emo points stored in the lover could be lost after losing combat in which the city or the lover was at stake), but I kind of feel that I can't expect emotional investment from players if I leave consequences of losing purely on a effectiveness or resources level.

Hmm, Capes is a great example of a gamism facilitating system that does wonders with consequences of losing on the fiction level. Still, both vanilla D&D, activists' mod, and Jerry's propositions above retain TPK as the main lose condition, motivating players by penalizing them with a heavy time and effort investment loss for losing.

Kent,

You (and your players) would have to accept that Strength is also Social Strength, Dexterity is also Social Dexterity, and so on.  If this were pitched to me as a player, I'd make the same "why not use the three social stats that my character has already?" that Callan brought up earlier, and I would probably balk if I had a social character that was no good at social combat.  That's just me.

Yes, it's very important that players in this particular game be conscious that in D&D, having, say Strength 12 and Charisma 18 means in the first place that the player can get +1 to these and those rolls, and +4 from these and those feats, and that the fictional meaning attached of these numbers serves an entirely different purpose. If we can get past this, there should be no problem with accepting that with all those reinterpretations the character is as effective socially as he's effective in combat. With this setup, thinking of the character as social while the numbers on the sheet actually don't contribute to his social effectiveness would be a mistake.

Weapons are a different case here, though. In the activist's example, the character could have media as his metaphorical weapon, using lance's numbers or the like. But there's no actual lance in the fiction, some completely different label is stuck to its numbers. With the "weapons reflect attitudes" thing, there are two different fictional contexts. In combat, the character uses mace. In social conflicts, he yells. In both situations he uses the same numbers. What's important is that we can see the character in two different kinds of situations, so there is a different aesthetic impact than with one context. It's visible that he uses mace in combat because he tends to yell at people otherwise, and that he tends to yell at people because he uses mace in combat.

As for the allegiances from d20 Modern, in the way they work in the system they don't differ much from D&D's alignments - both provide guidelines for how the player should portray his character and explanation for why the character kills stuff and steals its things. But what I'm aiming at (Simon excellently puts it in words in his post somewhere above) is not giving the character views the player needs to accurately role-play, but rather saying which side the character is on and then allowing the player to make thematic statements, deciding what exactly does it mean. This, the player does in play, as the character faces situations that challenge his moral and ethical position. Eventually, the character may undergo an inner transformation in the process. What's important is deciding what constitutes the alignment and demonstrating it through character actions, so describing the alignment components as guidelines for role-playing could actually turn counter-productive.

Here, the choice between social and physical combat can be a statement. For example, if a group of good characters encounters a goblin village, and they decide to slay the goblins, it tells something entirely different about them than trying to civilize the monsters. It's a statement about the characters, and since the characters are good (it says so on their character sheets, so they are), their choice is a good choice, and a statement about what being good means is also made.

My dilemma here is whether to reward players mechanically for addressing such issues (which could be tricky with the whole tactical thinking and character optimization stuff present in game), or to make their choices disconnected from any mechanical benefits that could influence the decisions.

Hmm, I wonder what results would playing Dogs in Clinton R. Nixon's Paladin produce and how different would it be from vanilla DitV.

[Callan S.]

Hi Filip,

I'd disagree D&D contains any losing condition as the default. It does contain a ''we had to retreat then come back latter' condition, as in rezzing. Total party kills aren't a lose condition, its just a start over condition - like having to start on the first level of pacman if you lose all your lives, rather than see a 'game over' screen. Ancient domains of mystery falls into that area (as does nethack).

I think it might be good to illustrate some rapid win/lose cycles that we can talk about
http://www.popcap.com/launchpage.php?theGame=mummymaze
Note: I'm sure I could get past level 6 last time!

http://www.popcap.com/launchpage.php?theGame=heavyweapon

You can see it doesn't have to have hours of investment blown away.

On capes, I see a fundimental divide in mutual ground. A common issue is equating system use with gamism, or seeing competition (where it's as a secondary concern amongst players) as if it were a primary concern.

What do you think of the game links? Drawn back or are you satisfied to just lose them and leave them?

[Filip Luszczyk]

Callan,

What do you think of the game links? Drawn back or are you satisfied to just lose them and leave them?

In the maze game I got to a point when it was perfectly clear to me I probably won't be able to progress any further. At this point I didn't feel any need to continue playing. All in all, I've spent a bit more than half an hour on it, and although I failed to get to the top of the pyramid, such time investment is to small to hurt my schedule so I didn't really lose much. Also, I didn't lose anything else invested in the game - I was totally disconnected emotionally from the explorer, and I didn't accumulate anything I could feel attached to or proud of. There were some points and rank, but I had no reason to care about them - if there was some other player I could compare my achievements with, or if achieving higher score would be connected with some unlockables (gotta catch 'em all), that would be another matter entirely. I suppose I could also be motivated to go on and try to get past the stumbling point if there was some story to uncover or if were curious about the graphical aesthetics of the next stage.

As for the other game, it seems there are some problems with opening it in my browser.

As for Capes, I'm not equating heavy system use with gamism - mechanics themselves are the least important thing there. Capes is all about having the story resolve as one wants it to resolve (or achieving ones aesthetic goals in SIS, in other words). Towards this end the player is required to demonstrate his mad story weaving skillz in order to get the resources he needs to further manipulate the story from other players (and yes, one needs to use the system as a tool for this, as well as to bribe other players with bits of the most important resource in the game - that is, the story itself). Notice the pattern - it's easy to substitute "story" with "battles" or "puzzles" and "mad story creation skillz" with "mad tactical skillz" or "mad puzzle solving skillz".

Note that the reward cycle here is marked by the moment someone gets get the story to his desired point - the whole story and resources manipulation process serves the purpose of deciding who among the players is cool enough to have the right to resolve the story according to his will. This is different from reward cycles marked by having a thematic statement produced, as it doesn't really matte how the story resolves - it matters who wins the right to do it. Or, so I understand it.

As for the difference between the lose condition and start over condition, it seems I fail to grasp it. You die, you lose. As I see it, there is no definite win condition by default in D&D, though, as one could theoretically play as long as he manages to keep his character alive. Retreat I've never really seen as losing, as risk assessment is an important tactical skill in the game, and the only thing one demonstrates by not executing a tactical retreat once things go bad is heroic stupidity. As in gambling, players need to know when to stop, and make sure they are not going home with empty hands.

Now, as I think about it, it seems what I want is actually:
-introducing clear and definite win/lose conditions for the group on an encounter scale (possibly adding some serious trade off to retreating too soon).
-introducing the point of definite, final achievement.
-removing the (as you refer to this) start over condition.

Also, with all the thematic stuff added on the non-tactical level, I think I'm expecting an agenda shift somewhere past the middle of the campaign, once resource accumulation becomes less meaningful (there's only so many encounters left till the closing point) and dramatic tension grows and things start to demand resolutions.

[Simon C]

Something that occurrs to me is that with the "scoial combat", you'll need to be much more explicit aboput stakes upfront.  In this sense, it makes the choice of "fight or talk" much more than a thematic one.  If the choice is between "fight the goblins and kill them all" or "argue with the goblins and make them our servants", that's a pretty big difference.  Do you think you'll need a systemn to determine what are acceptable stakes?  It seems that this could be an interesting way to include escalation.  You'll only ask for stakes that are more acceptable than the risk of dying.  The goblins might stay in a social conflict over "let us pass", but they're going to escalate to physical conflict over "become our servants".

WRT alignment, I'm struggling to see how, without mechanically reinforcing the idea, you're going to get a significant difference from the existing D&D mechanic.  The best thing I can think of is something you've suggested, and Thenomain kind of suggested too, where each character makes a decision about what each alignment axis means to them.  So "Good" and "Evil" becomes, for one person "protecting my beloved" and "letting my beloved come to harm".  "Law" and "Chaos" becomes "do what my father told me" and "do what I want".  Or for a Barbarian character, Law and Chaos become "The strictures of the city" and "don't let anyone tie you down" So, they're still law and chaos, but a different interpretation of them.  I can see movement along these axis as really interesting, now, both in terms of changing your definition of the axis (the kid who decides slaying the dragon is a greater "good" than protecting his beloved) or your position on the axis (the Barbarian who becomes fettered by social ties).  This is the best way I can see to make alignment more thematic, without changing any rules.

[Callan S.]

In the maze game I got to a point when it was perfectly clear to me I probably won't be able to progress any further. At this point I didn't feel any need to continue playing. All in all, I've spent a bit more than half an hour on it, and although I failed to get to the top of the pyramid, such time investment is to small to hurt my schedule so I didn't really lose much. Also, I didn't lose anything else invested in the game - I was totally disconnected emotionally from the explorer, and I didn't accumulate anything I could feel attached to or proud of. There were some points and rank, but I had no reason to care about them - if there was some other player I could compare my achievements with, or if achieving higher score would be connected with some unlockables (gotta catch 'em all), that would be another matter entirely. I suppose I could also be motivated to go on and try to get past the stumbling point if there was some story to uncover or if were curious about the graphical aesthetics of the next stage.

Thanks for the actual play account. Pity the other didn't work. Try downloading it yet? It's a fun shoot em up.

In terms of comparing achievements - don't know how to phrase this - can you see the author of the game? Or can you only see the game world? Do you engage the game only thinking of the game, or engage it with some thought that the author laid down this challenge?

As for Capes, I'm not equating heavy system use with gamism - mechanics themselves are the least important thing there. Capes is all about having the story resolve as one wants it to resolve (or achieving ones aesthetic goals in SIS, in other words). Towards this end the player is required to demonstrate his mad story weaving skillz in order to get the resources he needs to further manipulate the story from other players

I fully agree with the phrase "Toward this end". Mad skillz system use is a means to an end, not the end itself.

This is different from reward cycles marked by having a thematic statement produced, as it doesn't really matte how the story resolves - it matters who wins the right to do it. Or, so I understand it.

From the accounts I've seen, that right is then itself used to change the story. The right is still just a means to an end.

This capes bit is diverging the thread, so I'll only continue it in PM, but will read any responce here.

As for the difference between the lose condition and start over condition, it seems I fail to grasp it. You die, you lose.

The start over wipes away what beat you - theres no way to get to the situation that beat you, and try to beat it this time. Nethack and ADOM's random level gen remove this chance. While in the two games I showed you they are fixed - you can get to that point in the game that beat you, and have the opportunity to beat it this time. Since you can do that, you can if you chose, make that your goal of playing in the first place - the only reason your playing is to beat that point. You might not see a motive for that goal, but I'm sure you can see that the opportunity is there in the game you played.

So far I've basically wandered around some subjects that might give some common ground, but really they are bits of trivia right now.

Although I've put away D&D for quite some time, lately I've been finding myself in a mood for some good old powergaming feast. However, I've been exposed to Forge too much recently it seems, as whenever I try to think about vanilla D&D, my thoughts constantly wander of and I'm starting to ponder how some things could be done in different ways. I have some ideas.

Here's the important thing: Why are your thoughts even starting at D&D, the good old powergaming feast?

I'll give a quick account of how I was drawn to them recently. I'm running a PBP right now, with a good solid largest reward cycle and really liking how its turning out. So I think "Hey, I'd like to do this with D&D too!". I start thinking how to implement it, fitting in classes, then just trying to fit in a couple, then trying to fit in their powers and...I realised I was dragging in material I had no f'king interest in. The classes and their powers I were bringing in...added no value to add to what I wanted to do and actually removed it. It was simply because they were the trappings of D&D that I was working with them. It's kind of like running a buisiness and hiring a nephew cause your brother asks you too - its nothing at all to do with who's competent with the job. This gets the results one might expect from that.

What value do you see in the D&D powergaming fest? I'm not saying there isn't any to be had, my story is to show one aught to be careful with that beloved old harpy, D&D.