Role Playing Vs. Roll Playing

I have clashed in oppinion with several people while running my games, but the subject we have disagrances on more than any other is role playing. I look at feats, prestige classes, and skills as a representive of a characters life story (like in Starwars). Though others look at them as a game mechanic that is ment to be used. Oppinions and Ideas on this subject are more than welcome.

well, for the most part zD&D is very weak at offering insights intoi role playing. mechanics can be seen as bits of role playing but really more of it needs to come from outside the mechanics and the personality of the character and his background.

Different people have fun with different aspects of the game. I wouldn't venture to say that either opinion is 'more right'. If everyone's having fun, it's not an issue. If their fun is lessening your fun or vice versa, then maybe you need a new group.

Leaones said:

I have clashed in oppinion with several people while running my games, but the subject we have disagrances on more than any other is role playing. I look at feats, prestige classes, and skills as a representive of a characters life story (like in Starwars). Though others look at them as a game mechanic that is ment to be used. Oppinions and Ideas on this subject are more than welcome.

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that if the players are having fun then it doesn't matter how (or if) they role play well.

That being said, encouraging role-playing is a difficult art. Its hard for a player to really get into a character the first couple of sessions. The best way I've found to encourage role-playing is to make the players care about the game world. Here's a few tips:

1) Start with a small location (single city or town) with a small cast of character. Through their adventures, get the players familiar with the people and how those people interact (who is family with whom, who hates who). Kinda slip this in on the side rather than make it the focus of the adventure (which could get boring fast). Stick with easy to remember (and pronounce!) names so the players can keep track. Setup situations where knowledge of the townsfolk can help their characters advance. For example, they might help out a young noble to get an in with his father.

2) Watch each player and see what he or she best responds to. Even if a player only cares about his character's combat prowess, you can use that as bait to set up some sort of social situation where they can gain a powerful weapon or magic item.

3) Don't let them always win. Let them "lose" an adventure and see the consequences (i.e. the people they are trying to help are hurt). Make sure they know the bad guy responsible but make it so they can't just walk over and kill him.

4) Throw in a nice character without morals. For example, a rich merchant might help out the characters but then they later find out he makes his money selling slaves.

5) Role-play your NPCs. Refer to the players by their character names. I also find its helpful to deliniate when you are talking as DM as opposed to as an NPC. For example, I usually stand up to show when I'm talking as the NPC.

For the most part, I view the primary responsibility with role-playing as the DM's. I always think "what can I do better" rather than blame the players first.


Aaron

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DND is a tactical-combat system with roleplaying elements. It's not very well designed to serve as a pure RPG. I love playing it--but I don't kid myself and try to create a true roleplaying sim when I GM it.

To answer the question though, I tend towards a balance. I tend to pick a combo I like, and build a personality around it. For example, one of my favourite more recent concepts involves a wolfrider-spec'd halfling paladin with Use Magic Device. The mechanics are clunky, and far from uber--but for some reason I just love the concept. Then, when I introduced her, she sort of 'grew' her own personality, fleshing out the framework of the concept. She has now entered my Hall of Fame as a permanent character.

A lot of people disagree with me though, so *shrug* take that how you will.

IndyPendant said:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DND is a tactical-combat system with roleplaying elements. It's not very well designed to serve as a pure RPG. I love playing it--but I don't kid myself and try to create a true roleplaying sim when I GM it..

Click to expand...

Actually, it is very well designed for role playing. It doesn't have large rules that cover the role playing parts like many games do. It leaves it all alone allowing for freedom of role playing to take place.

IndyPendant said:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DND is a tactical-combat system with roleplaying elements. It's not very well designed to serve as a pure RPG. I love playing it--but I don't kid myself and try to create a true roleplaying sim when I GM it.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, what do you consider to be a "pure RPG" or a "true roleplaying sim"?


Aaron

True roleplaying? Diceless games maybe?

Leaones said:

I have clashed in oppinion with several people while running my games, but the subject we have disagrances on more than any other is role playing. I look at feats, prestige classes, and skills as a representive of a characters life story (like in Starwars). Though others look at them as a game mechanic that is ment to be used.

Click to expand...

I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.

Well, that's a good question. I would have to say a true roleplaying sim hasn't been created yet. But some RPGs have come a lot closer than DND--something that I think few people would disagree with. (And note that I don't say these RPGs are better--I love DND and currently the only campaign I'm running is in 3.5e. I just state that it's central concept is tactical fighting, not roleplaying.)

I would say that a RPG that at least tries to provide mechanics for developing a personality (with all the flaws and merits involved), plus guidelines for social interaction that are at least close to on par with the level of detail DND provides for combats...would qualify as a much-closer-to-roleplaying-than-DND RPG.

Gurps is my current favourite alternative to DND. It is, in many ways, the opposite of DND. DND has simplistic broad rules--and then 29387142947 specific rules for specific situations (spells, feats, actions, etc etc). Gurps has a comparatively larger number of core rules--but very few situation-specific rules. DND is designed as a hack-and-slash campaign, with the rules most comfortable when you wade in seas of blood. Gurps is designed so that the PCs often want to *avoid* combat where possible--because it's so damned deadly! DND has very very few Feats or Skills based solely on roleplaying; Gurps has a great many advantages and disadvantages central to roleplaying.

However, Gurps isn't perfect, and if they hadn't come out with Gurps 4e I wouldn't be playing it anymore. I plan, with cautious optimism, to start another campaign in Gurps though, when my players finish decimating the Temple...: )

Whew. Longwinded post, but it is how I see the two systems. They're different, they both have their flaws, and they're both fun.