Role Playing Vs. Roll Playing

[deltadave]

I'm with you on this one. Feats and class advances shouldn't come out of the blue, but rather be justified by the roleplay done in game... In my game, most prestige classes require some kind of mentoring, either situational or NPC. As DM I get final say on character advancement. Granted I'm pretty easy about things, but there should definitely be more than ' I wanted it' justification.

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.

 

[Corlon]

It's just whatever lets you have fun.

I've realized that over my vast gaming experience of 3.5 years, that all my friends get more fun out of roleplaying when it's not really in character. It's sort of told like a 3rd person novel by many authors ("my character says..." "The old man relates to you that..").

I've found it adds a non-hack-and-slash element to the campaign while still supporting a more...video gamish feel I guess that we all find enjoyable.

 

[Eolin]

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.

I read this, and then had a mild epiphany. I know of a system (and I know of one) that has an indepth merit and flaw system. It is about as indepth as DnD's combat system, and it can really help define the character in your mind.

These flaws range from missing a limb to albinoism to even severe personality disorders just as multiple personalities. They range from the comical to the tragic to the just plain silly. The more I think about it, the better it seems to fit this ideal.

It even has in-game plusses and minuses for not playing to your flaws. (in the form of EP).

What system is this? Hackmaster.

edit: I can't spell, nor keep things where I want them when I edit.

 

[IndyPendant]

Heh. I sense sarcasm. (I have no idea what Hackmaster is, btw; take my rebuttal to be a response based on the name of the system.)

And every once in a while, a chainsmoker lives past 100.

So obviously smoking does not negatively affect your health.

 

[Eolin]

Heh. I sense sarcasm. (I have no idea what Hackmaster is, btw; take my rebuttal to be a response based on the name of the system.)

And every once in a while, a chainsmoker lives past 100.

So obviously smoking does not negatively affect your health.

A bit of sarcasm. Hackmaster is a 1e/2e/rolemaster spoof with amazingly large tables. You can selection to take a number of flaws at character creation (you get character points for these), and role for them randomly.

Ever seen a character whose a greedy self-absorbed jerk with delusions that he's a dragon transformed by an evil gawd?

I have. He was a cleric named Luthwyr, and a great and fun character. He disliked humans because they were bags of meat.



But yeah, I don't think roleplaying really comes from rules. Rules are great to determine outcomes and that sort of thing, but roleplaying is what we're doing when we're not being stategic. Rules, by definition, are limiters. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Knowing who your character is, where (s)he is from, the family life, etc etc can definetly help roleplaying -- but I know of no reason this needs to be codified.

 

[GreatLemur]

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.

See, I don't get this at all. I'm of the opinion that a game where your character's personality is built through mechanics is something of a barrier to in-depth roleplay. Roleplaying isn't something that you use stats and dice to do; it's the words the players put in their characters' mouths and the choices they have them make while the stats and dice are taking care of things like combat and stunts and skill use.

Mind you, I agree completely that D&D is not exactly the roleplayingest RPG in town, but I wouldn't blame the game's mechanics quite as much as the core books' near-total failure to encourage much in the way of drama, intrigue, three-dimensional chracters, and non-crunchy problem solving. Another part of the problem is probably the simple fact that D&D is very often the first pen-and-paper RPG many gamers ever play.

 

[Telas]

Lemme throw a twist in there.... (this is all my opinion)

The best roleplayers I know are old-school D&Ders.

The best tacticians are the younger generation.

Video games have taught gamers that you go here, do this, and that will happen. That there's generally one optimal set of solutions to a set of problems, and the fun is finding it. That once you find out how to defeat a certain kind of monster, that same set of tactics will work every time.

Old schoolers tended to fit a role better. The game wasn't about power or killing (gawd knows there was a lot of that in there, though), it was about soving a mystery or discovering a new whatever.

This is a gross generalization, but run with it....

Telas

 

[Crothian]

it kinda works, but lots of old school gamers are war gamers as D&D was a tactical game back in the day as well. Some of the best role players actually come from different systems, but that also doesn't hold true all the time. Just like saying women are more role players then men. A lot of these statements are like 60% true, they work a majority of the time but not often enough to be of use.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think both you and your player can be accomodated under the current ruleset. It sounds like you enjoy the 3.5 system as does he or she, but for different reasons. Playing the "system" rather than the "characteristics" is pretty commonplace in my experience. And I don't mean to limit that style to just 3E or D&D. The gamists approach is pretty popular.

I suggest playing up the roleplay aspect of the game mechanics rather than the rollplay. Min-maxing, and stacking powers is probably already done by the players. Giving each power and ability a substantial meaning tied to In-Character play should encourage roleplay on their part. IOW, if the world is treating them as if they have the characteristics associated with their feats and skills, the players will start identifying the PCs as such. (for instance: high skills makes the character sagelike, feats are thoroughly practiced combat manuevers or spell learning, and class abilities each have a in-game meaning too)

The tough part with third edition is the numerous amount of abilities to tie into the game world. I think this is why most folks start out at very low levels and build along player declarations of advancement.

I don't know why you are clashing with people over this, but I think you would receive far better help if you detailed the problem.

 

[Telas]

Sorry for the hijack attempt....

I find that using evocative language to describe the feats and skills in action helps complete the world for the players.

Instead of "You critically hit the ogre for 28 points of damage, killing him."

Try "Your axe slashes at his leg, cutting deep into his tough hide and severing his achilles tendon. As the ogre falls forward, you sink your axe haft-deep into his chest. He tries to curse at you and get back up, but blood sprays from the gash you inflicted, and he sinks lifeless to the ground."

Or "You pick the lock."

Try "Your tools fiddle with the tumblers inside the lock, as you begin to question whether or not you checked well enough for traps. As you're remembering what the Guild taught you about traps, the tumblers slide into place and the lock begins to open."

Now, regarding old schoolers vs. the new generation: While OD&D was indeed based on wargames, the vast majority of OD&Ders weren't wargamers. We didn't use minis, we didn't "game" the combats, and we didn't have the synergies that are in 3.5. Everything happened in our minds, and I think we were more imaginative for it.

That said, I think you're right Crothian, that the difference is on the margins. There were some min-maxers back in the day, and there are some great role-players today.

Telas