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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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 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).

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?

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.

(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.)

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?

Eero wrote:
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.

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.

Hi Filip,

Filip wrote: 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.

Filip wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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?

Callan,

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

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.

Filip wrote: 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 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

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.

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.

Simon,

As for the stakes, they do need to be explicit, and tying them to escalation seems a good way to deal with it. Since I don't want to affect the game balance too much, and I need to have some consequences for retreating from conflict anyway, I could present an opportunity for escalation when the group retreats. E.g. players could choose between forfeiting the conflict without resolution (some kind of impasse) on "retreat" or coming back to the conflict after refreshment (a functional equivalent of going back to nearby town for healing). In the latter case, in order to continue with the conflict, a new approach would be needed and the stakes would have to be increased or the consequences of a failure be worsened (possibly, an additional element from the relationships/interests map would have to be included in the stakes).

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.

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?

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.

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.

Hmm, I've just realised that I'm making mental circles thinking about Capes and the place of story in it. I find it amazing how the game manages to turn story into a form of currency, and pumps it through the whole flow. No wonder I have problems pinpointing its place - it circulates constantly, so to say ;) Oddly enough, now I'm starting to look at player's interests in the game the same way. It's a fricking self-perpetuating hydraulic system! ;)

Hey, Filip. Just a quick note on map elements. The question of whether or not map elements need to have a mechanical purpose, will, I think, get to the heart of what your purpose is in using D&D for this experiment. In some forms of D&D, they'll have to, or there isn't any emotional attachment to them.

You might look at Adam Dray's Character Bonds. Dray allows players to buy emotional attachments using experience points.

For setting stakes in a D&D-like game, you might also look at Donjon. Basically, success or failure determines whose version of the future is drawn forward.

Hi Filip,

Yeah, your experiences with metal slug would be good (for others, its an arcade game where your a gun bunny commando with a hell of a lot of enemies to shoot). And you played raptor? The one where your a mercenary flying a jet!? Cool, that was a favorite of mine at the time and still is a bit, any account is welcome :)

I think I can see neither the game world or the author of the challenge there, but only the challenge.

The whole D&D character optimization thing is not possible without classes, feats, magic items and all, and I dig it (well, try to optimize a D&D character not using D&D ;) ). Also, I find D&D combat engaging. So, it's all about playing this specific game, only experimenting with some twists. Otherwise, I'd simply go for DitV, which has all the twists, pretty tactical conflicts and less complexity.

Jerry,

You might look at Adam Dray's Character Bonds. Dray allows players to buy emotional attachments using experience points.

Yeah, your experiences with metal slug would be good (for others, its an arcade game where your a gun bunny commando with a hell of a lot of enemies to shoot). And you played raptor? The one where your a mercenary flying a jet!? Cool, that was a favorite of mine at the time and still is a bit, any account is welcome :)

I think the same applies to challenge (as I define it here), in that if no one sends you the challenge, it is NOT a challenge - its just a piece of cardboard with challenge written on it. Or a disk with some data written on it. The human element is essential if it is to be a challenge.

I think those 'twists' are part of the 'pool' exploration. Do you want to share that exploration with others - cause your working out how to switch the mechanics to social conflict here, when it might actually be fun to make that the point of play - play would be to work out how to do the switch with friends. You don't even have to get to playing the switched rules, the switching may be fun enough itself.

Filip wrote:

I think the same applies to challenge (as I define it here), in that if no one sends you the challenge, it is NOT a challenge - its just a piece of cardboard with challenge written on it. Or a disk with some data written on it. The human element is essential if it is to be a challenge.

You mean, the presence of the challenge creator's as a person, in some way? Cause, it seems to me that the fact every game is authored by someone out there is one of those things so obvious they are generally simply taken as a given and not thought about. Disks alone don't write the data on themselves, just as get well cards are unable to send themselves alone, after all. There can't be no human element.

Hmm, not really. I want to provide enough structure so that we wouldn't have to spend play time figuring out how to do the switching in the first place. The specific color reinterpretations I can leave for play itself, but I want to make sure there will be enough skeleton already present to weave the reinterpretations around, so that we could focus on actually playing the thing without stumbling on some potential problems in the middle of the session. If the switching was my priority, I could just as well stop at this thread here, as I wouldn't need actual play at all - the mental exercise would be enough, as AP wouldn't be much more. But then, as I already stated, I'm not interested in art for art's sake (e.g. as far as the activist's example goes, I suspect the interest of people involved ended on the switching part, and I doubt there was any reason for them to continue play once the switching was done).

Callan,

So figuring out the switch would take time and be a problem? What if it didn't take time and didn't turn into a problem, would you want to share its creation then?

If not, is there something your trying to get to, beyond just switching stuff around? Like a group switch would just get in the way of that thing?