DnD comparison ...

[kcdusk]

Dungeons and Dragons (I'm a fan, by the way) is often held up as a pretty good "role playing game", with an emphasis on role.

For example, DnD 3.5 is too "rulesy". Less role playing.

Normally, DnD verse anything is not an argument that i'm into. But then i had a thought comparing/contrasting DnD v T2K.

In DnD, a middle to high level PC can "take allot of punishment" before dying. Normally a low armour class (ie difficult to hit), lots of hit points, they can take everything but the kitchen sink before dying or running away.

In 2TK, a middle to high level PC can "be shot once or twice" and is DEAD.

So doesnt that mean T2K is more focused on role playing? Because death can be just around the corner and decisions about parlaying, bater-ing, retreating if required .... its more important in T2K than DnD. In DnD most PCs know if they can do away with an enemy/monster. In T2K its often harder to know if your over matched or not, so you tread with trepidation.

Anyway, because T2K is more deadly than DnD, i think it might have more of an emphasis on role playing. And thats not meant to take anything away from DnD, I'm a fan. But not until recently did i think that would be the case, i always thought DnD would have a greater emphasis on the role playing.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

In DnD, a middle to high level PC can "take allot of punishment" before dying. Normally a low armour class (ie difficult to hit), lots of hit points, they can take everything but the kitchen sink before dying or running away.

In 2TK, a middle to high level PC can "be shot once or twice" and is DEAD.

Probably also worth bearing in mind that in D and D games death isn't neccessarily final - a "dead' character can be resurrected with magic / spells.

Whereas in T2K death is rather more...permanent...

[Adm.Lee]

I don't see the connection between easy death and role-playing?

Role-playing, IMO, is all in the play-- the group and its attitude. I've seen plenty of groups that played T2k as continual combat, no interaction with the world, no character development, no storytelling. I readily say that I've played and run some of those groups. I've been in plenty of D&D groups that are simply hack & slash, too.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

D&D is it's own thing, and T2k is it's own thing. Both are great. If you strip away the setting and the name of the skills, T2k v1 is a lot like a heavily house-ruled original (1974 edition, which I own and have played) D&D. In fact, the favoring and slighting stats thing is something I would include in an Original (or advanced) D&D game if asked by the players. I have no problem with it. The stats generation method of T2k produces a range of numbers not unlike D&D's straight 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste. T2k tends to have a bigger bell-curve (I notice more 11-14s, for example), I think.

Tonally D&D is a game of big damn heroes, or at least the chance to become. T2k is a survivalist game; it's about trying to crawl up from the mud and darkness and survive, and maybe just maybe do some things that will possibly fix the world, or at least your corner of it, someday.

Finally, at least one campaign world and T2k's shattered Earth are very alike: the World of Greyhawk in D&D (at least original and Advanced D&D, I never had any truck with 2e onward) and the T2k world. The World of Greyhawk is a post-apocalyptic world. The Suel and Baklunish empires destroyed each other with terrible magic (the Invoked Devastation and the retaliatory Rain of Colorless Fire). Once-common magical items (swords, daggers, etc.) that were easy to manufacture are now cherished magic artifacts, and while more can be made (via enchant an item and permanency spells) it is far more difficult. Same for other magic items as well. The land is dotted with ruins, perilous to travel, and a mass of bandit nations and city states.

Now, does that sound like T2k? It does to me! The Soviet and US empires destroyed each other with terrible weapons (nuclear, biological and chemical). Once-common everyday "miracle" items (fuel, antibiotics, some foods, electricity) that were easy to create are now cherished rarities, and while more can be made (with enough labor and scavenging of parts), it is far more difficult. The land is dotted with ruins, is perilous to travel, and is a mass of bandit nations and city states.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I don't see the connection between easy death and role-playing?

Role-playing, IMO, is all in the play-- the group and its attitude. I've seen plenty of groups that played T2k as continual combat, no interaction with the world, no character development, no storytelling. I readily say that I've played and run some of those groups. I've been in plenty of D&D groups that are simply hack & slash, too.

Death is easier in T2K, so players are more likely to engage with other groups than in DnD where death (maybe i should have said "permanent death") for a PC is harder, therefore less strategy is involved.

I agree with your second point though, my statement above does depend heavily on the group in involved.

I'm not saying T2K or DnD is better than the other. I'm just wondering if in general, a deadlier system leads to more role playing.

[kalos72]

I have found the opposite.

When "death" is more looming people tend to get more reclusive, more nervous and close up if I let them.

Why risk that patrol if the risk is too high I might die die, like for good? Versus if as a DM I ensure they have an out, through roleplay or strategy to make sure they will not die.

Death isn't a motivation in my campaigns as much as failure is. Six of one thing really I guess...

[enrious]

I don't think the case has ever been made that the quality (or quantity) of roleplay is a function of the death rules, and it sounds like a variation of the Stormwind Fallacy to me.