Writing a manual for roleplay

[The Little Raven]

Sadly you are wrong.

Not really. A game is just a game. There's no roleplaying in it unless the players bring that to the table. Inability to roleplay is a personal problem that needs to be overcome, not solved with a magic game system that somehow does it for you. A discussion of roleplaying is useful for people, which is exactly why 4th Edition provides such a discussion in the chapter on making characters, but it cannot make them roleplay.

Kids learn to roleplay with Cops & Robbers and games of make-believe, because that's all RPGs are: make-believe that sometimes takes itself way too seriously.

Every new edition should treat every player like a virgin gamer.

Which is what 4th Edition does, hence the section devoting to characterization and roleplaying that is larger than that found in previous editions PHBs, as well as a DMG that assumes you're brand new to DMing.

 

[buzz]

Sadly you are wrong.

You know, I think the real fallacy at the root of this discussion is the idea that "roleplaying" is this one specific thing that a given RPG does/doesn't provide.

Regardless of whether you buy into Forge GNS, Threefold GDS, the DMG's player types, Push/Pull, or any other Grand Unified Theory of roleplaying, I think it's readily evident that there lots of different ways people like to play, and different output they are looking to get from their input.

D&D 4e (or 3e, or whatever) doesn't "lack roleplaying". It is by definition roleplaying; the "R" in "RPG". It is definitely a certain flavor of roleplay—one that, on paper, is less focused on story and character exploration than it is on situation, challenge and resource management.

This isn't bad or good; it just is. If this doesn't fill you with joy, then you're probably better off playing an RPG that has the same goals you do.

 

[jmucchiello]

You could put all this stuff in just one book. But then we would wait, say still 4 years until 4E comes out, and we would buy a PHB worth 150 $ or so and 1,200 pages. Think that works?

I'd like it. We'd still be playing 3.5 and in 2012 we'd have a new game and no one would moan about it being incomplete.

A lot of things you're saying make no sense, whether because of language or just inability to coherently express some of your opinions.

The OP's location says "Turkey". Draw you own conclusion.

 

[howandwhy99]

You know, I think the real fallacy at the root of this discussion is the idea that "roleplaying" is this one specific thing that a given RPG does/doesn't provide.

Regardless of whether you buy into Forge GNS, Threefold GDS, the DMG's player types, Push/Pull, or any other Grand Unified Theory of roleplaying, I think it's readily evident that there lots of different ways people like to play, and different output they are looking to get from their input.

D&D 4e (or 3e, or whatever) doesn't "lack roleplaying". It is by definition roleplaying; the "R" in "RPG". It is definitely a certain flavor of roleplay—one that, on paper, is less focused on story and character exploration than it is on situation, challenge and resource management.

This isn't bad or good; it just is. If this doesn't fill you with joy, then you're probably better off playing an RPG that has the same goals you do.

To the OP:

Buzz has it right. Because "role-playing" was incorrectly defined as theatre acting way, way back in the beginning of the hobby we have these foolish notions of what is and isn't role-playing. Your definition sounds like the typical World of Darkness definition (that role-playing = acting). There were many IMO snobbish arguments 15-20 years ago about how D&D players weren't "real" role-players. But it turns out that whole crowd was wrong. What they wanted, and what they didn't get in "Storyteller" games, was a theatre game. This is because acting and role-playing are two very different things.

I'm sorry if the you do not agree as the incorrect definition has bled into CRPGs too with "RP" worlds for those who try and act with their character on screen. Heck, there's a strong strain of "true believers" who don't believe computer games are capable of being role-playing games. Don't tell Wizards of the Coast that DDi will mean they aren't offering online role-play. Or the role-playing forums on ENWorld for that matter. I say this as these believers tend to have a similarly inaccurate definition of role-playing as yourself. I think you want acting. Maybe with role-playing as well, but I couldn't say for certain.

Feel free to disagree. My main advice is to read a book about role-playing that has nothing to do with the hobby. At least before you go write any books yourself. RPGs (and CRPGs) have been accurately titled, but the term has been erroneously used almost throughout (IMO, originally in a poorly conceived effort to differentiate D&D and other RPGs from wargames).

 

[CleverNickName]

To the OP:

Buzz has it right. Because "role-playing" was incorrectly defined as theatre acting way, way back in the beginning of the hobby we have these foolish notions of what is and isn't role-playing.

role-play
1. To assume or represent in a drama; act out
2. To assume or act out a particular role.
(The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition)

Both are "correct," the trouble is the distinction between definitions 1 and 2.

 

[buzz]

The dictionary disagrees.

That particular definition is only somewhat on point given the context of a tabletop RPG forum.

Not to mention, "to assume or act out a particular role" is applicable to any RPG, no matter how tactical or narrative its focus. Players, by definition, assume the roles of entities in the game world, regardless of whether that role is mostly killin' things and taking their stuff, or deep immersion and funny accents.

I.e., the OP is making judgements about the why and how of the act in question. It's a given that the act is taking place.

 

[CleverNickName]

That particular definition is only somewhat on point given the context of a tabletop RPG forum.

Not to mention, "to assume or act out a particular role" is applicable to any RPG, no matter how tactical or narrative its focus. Players, by definition, assume the roles of entities in the game world, regardless of whether that role is mostly killin' things and taking their stuff, or deep immersion and funny accents.

I.e., the OP is making judgements about the why and how of the act in question. It's a given that the act is taking place.

That's right, which is why I amended my previous post. That, and I didn't want to sound like I was looking for a fight.

I prefer the deep immersion stuff, myself. Which is why I think the OP has a really great idea here.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Your not the only one who thought about this Amanchanamun.

Did you ever read the Hero Builder's Guidebook by WOTC? If we're talking about roleplaying advice books, this book would be it.

 

[Amanchanamun]

Michaelsomething you are my best friend here.

 

[buzz]

That's right, which is why I amended my previous post. That, and I didn't want to sound like I was looking for a fight.

Hehe. I noticed your edit after I submitted my post. I understand.

I prefer the deep immersion stuff, myself. Which is why I think the OP has a really great idea here.

Right, and I'm cool as long as the book makes no claims to be about "roleplaying" as a whole, but just that particular style of roleplaying.