D&D 5E When did Role become Roll?

[Sunseeker]

Let's discuss the issues raised,

As soon as you raise some issues, we can discuss them.

In the meantime I'll side with the posters above that, since all you "raised" was how you think D&D should be played a certain way, that there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Satyrn]

As for the "citations needed," this was presented as an opinion piece, not an academic paper.

Aye. But I was hoping a comic would be a humorous way to imply I don't see this issue like you, that whatever foundation of ideas or facts you built your opinion on is foreign to me.


I'm also confused that you seemingly dismissed all importance of implication in an essay you've described as a polemic. I mean, I've always seen implicaton as the key tool in polemics - the way you say the really nasty things without having to actually say them.

 

[nswanson27]

Let's discuss the issues raised, and not ones interpretation of "implications" and "absolutes." As for the "citations needed," this was presented as an opinion piece, not an academic paper.

In an open discussion on agreements and disagreements, we may both, all, come to a better understanding of where Role and roll should meet.

Fair enough - but then you might want to change your language a bit with how you describe your position. Many of your statements come off as if it were absolute and a closed topic, not merely your opinion and open for discussion/debate.

 

[iserith]

When did Role become Roll?

Easy!

Role, or roleplaying, is when the player decides what the character does - how he or she thinks, acts, and what he or she says. The player may make that determination on whatever basis he or she wants and is still roleplaying. Certain, specific kinds of roleplaying can be worth a reward such as Inspiration in D&D 5e wherein the player is rewarded mechanically for playing to the character's established personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.

Roll, or rolling the dice, happens when the DM decides what the player described as wanting to do has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. At that point, role becomes roll: the DM engages the mechanics of the game via the rules and dice are often rolled to determine a result.

And round and round it goes to produce, hopefully, an exciting, memorable story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils and a good time is had by everyone at the table.

 

[Dausuul]

Roll came first. D&D started as a wargame. Role is a secondary layer, which different groups emphasize to different degrees. But if your only interest is in whacking monsters, you can junk the "role" element and play quite happily with the dice and minis.

Sounds like you have issues with players not being on the same page as you are. You might want to talk to them, not to us.

 

[toucanbuzz]

OP, I know what you're saying, and it goes to the old saying "To each his own." I've gamed with folks who love the number crunching that 3rd edition entailed and are thrilled by a challenging grid-based combat. Some players will leave the ideals, bonds, and flaws blank or ignore them. Others will draft a compelling story, spend hours chatting up the NPCs without rolling a single die. And I've had days when a hardcore role-player emailed me, said she'd had a tough week, and she'd feel a lot better this week just killing some stuff.

Ultimately, if you're at a table with people you like, you're socializing, you're engaged in the spirit of the game to bring people together and have some fun.

If you're a DM, your job at times is to sacrifice your time, your vision, and your control in favor of everyone having a good time. It's all about the players. If they're getting what they want out of an RPG in a way that keeps them coming back to the table each week, you're doing something right even if you philosophically feel the role play could be better. Now, as a matter of personal preference, I totally agree with your perspective and so do my gamers. It's taken years to find that group.

My only advice to DMs about opening players to new perspectives on gaming is to do it away from the game table. Go out to eat or play board games one day, chit chat your feelings. Don't air dirty laundry but instead chat about what helps you make a better campaign.

 

[RobertBrus]

Sure, but when you're fighting for your life in some dungeon somewhere, it's easy to see how survival is your win condition. That's the game that the character is playing, with the highest stakes of all; and to pretend that they don't want to win, it's not conducive to occupying their headspace.

It doesn't give you the right to act on information the character doesn't have, of course. Wanting to win as the character is not quite the same thing as wanting to win as a player (as though that was possible), but I haven't noticed players having much difficulty with that after the first few corrections.

Thanks for the more nuanced clarification of "win." And it is difficult to imagine a complete separation between player and character. I appreciate the input.

 

[RobertBrus]

I was thinking "5 minutes after the first rules were published and people realized the game had dice."

On topic of the OP:

The game may not be adversarial between the various players, but the game contains more than a few adversarial elements. Since the game contains loss conditions, it automatically has the reverse. I "win" when my character doesn't die. I 'win" more when my character manages to advance -- using any metric of advancement -- whether by increasing level, gaining coin, or getting to write down that the local baron owes me a favour.

Further, since the game is a rather simplistic model for a large and complex reality, it invariably has bits that work really well - they reasonably reflect effectiveness and probability of success -- and bits that work less well -- that are not so reasonable. It behooves players who want to succeed to drift toward those rules that provide the greatest chance of success.

As for the provision of advice: it can go too far, certainly. But is the character played by the player supposed to be an expert i.e. would the character be reasonably expected to see the value in a the recommended tactic? Is the player offering advice more skilled? Will the character be closer to its conception if the advice is followed? Did the player receiving advice miss something in the verbal description or forget something that happened 6 weeks ago that the advising player caught or remembers?

Good points. I think a better expression I could have used would have been "I'm out to get you" rather than adversarial. As adversity, as you show, is built into the game. And success is a better term than winning, it feels a little more open-ended. Your last paragraph brings up many interesting nuances that shows how the game can be both difficult and complex and as a result require many interpretations.

 

[sim-h]

As a player I'm interested in overcoming challenges and becoming increasingly more powerful so that I can attempt to overcome even greater challenges.

As a DM I'm interested in seeing how the players deal with the challenges set in the scenario, and how they hopefully enjoy doing so.

In both cases, the large amount of beer we consume ensures fun will be had in most cases although thankfully the one tee-total player is on hand at the end of the session to save the day by preventing a TPK (most weeks).

Acting out the personality of the characters etc. is an optional extra, which I encourage - but the OP is playing a totally different game to me and any groups I play or have ever played in!

 

[RobertBrus]

As soon as you raise some issues, we can discuss them.

In the meantime I'll side with the posters above that, since all you "raised" was how you think D&D should be played a certain way, that there is nothing to discuss.

I'm not sure I understand how you don't see any issues to discuss. The very points I made can be discussed. I would like to get your feedback, as I want to have a better understanding of what would make for a good balance between roll and role.