Why D&D is like pr0n

[anest1s]

So am I the only one who agrees with the OP (somehow?)

Points:
-A reasonable number of you (well I didn't bother to count, and wont do so) agreed that most people don't like heavy role-playing.

-Almost the same people, also agreed that they can't find those people who like role-playing, and that if they found them they would like them to be in their games.

-Almost everyone got defensive [I mean ok, I like role-playing too and I don't think roll-playing is criminal but I didn't bother to answer before...]

-Some admitted that they liked hack'n'slash, some denied that they are saying they like role-playing just because they feel roll-playing is something bad, but none admitted to it. How can you think that not a single person is doing just that, and that the OPs idea is totally irrelevant?

-Also, how can you not see that something has become a taboo (roleplaying/rollplaying, roleplayer/optimizer/munchkin/whatever, sandbox/railroad) even if it is just in this forum? Because in the short time I am here I think its perfectly clear that this is happening.


And by the way, I have played with "rp only allowed" players, and I didn't have to search to find them....and when I talk to them I can just feel that hack'n'slash=taboo="problem player" Which may be true for just rp games after all.

 

[Wycen]

If you'd said porn was like DnD because we always looks for the newer funner stuff, then I'd believe you.

 

[Hussar]

No, you are not the only one who agrees at least in part with the OP. Or at least sees where he's coming from.

Try this experiment. Wander into almost any thread discussing some game element - say setting construction. Give an entirely one sided argument that setting building just gets in the way of killing stuff and wastes time at the table.

Watch the reactions.

Now, go into another thread, again about setting, talk about how setting construction is a DM's dream, the artistic expression of the DM's soul and how it should really speak to the sense of wonder of everyone at the table.

Watch the reactions.

Which poster is going to get posrepped and which one gets dogpiled?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Meet other DMs - and what do 90% of them say first? "I like a rules-lite, RPG-heavy game that concentrates on the story telling. I like to focus on roleplaying and not too much combat."

FWIW, those are not my preferences, and I will most likely run away from any DM who uses the phrase "story telling" in a positive way. I like me some roleplaying, but it is icing on the cake. (Now, I don't eat cake without some icing, but neither do I want more icing than there is cake underneath.)

Do you regularly view pornography?

No! One or two hours a day, tops.

3e and 4e seems to be mostly built around the idea of combat & lots of rules. People want rules for accomplishing any little task as if it is game breaking to just allow the PC to swing on a chandelier and do a back flip as he lands on his feat. No, we gotta beat a DC check (or checks) just so we can hopefully look cool.

In my games, anybody who wants to do something like that "just to look cool" can do it without making any kind of check at all. It's only if they hope to gain some mechanical advantage by doing it that I worry about what might be "game breaking" or unbalanced.

I find that once I make that clear, however, people don't do very much of it...which leads me to believe that few people just want to "look cool." YMMV.

 

[Oryan77]

I find that once I make that clear, however, people don't do very much of it...which leads me to believe that few people just want to "look cool." YMMV.

That's interesting to hear. I wonder if that is true with a lot of groups.

I tend to still require the skill checks (mostly out of habit from playing with rules lawyers), but I sort of like doing the skill check because it can make things interesting if they fail. It's embarrassing, but it gives the players something to remember and talk about.

Our cleric player just last session brought up the time he jumped off a 30ft cliff to land on the back of a huge monstrous spider. He landed on it, on his feet, but lost his balanced, slipped off and fell prone on the ground. Right under another spider up on the cliff that died before his next turn and it landed on him. The series of events with successful and failed skill checks made it more interesting than if he just landed on the spider & attacked it the next round.

 

[MarkB]

No, you are not the only one who agrees at least in part with the OP. Or at least sees where he's coming from.

Try this experiment. Wander into almost any thread discussing some game element - say setting construction. Give an entirely one sided argument that setting building just gets in the way of killing stuff and wastes time at the table.

Watch the reactions.

Now, go into another thread, again about setting, talk about how setting construction is a DM's dream, the artistic expression of the DM's soul and how it should really speak to the sense of wonder of everyone at the table.

Watch the reactions.

Which poster is going to get posrepped and which one gets dogpiled?

So, just to reiterate: Go to thread A, disparage its very purpose, and suggest that the OP is wasting his time. Then go to thread B, praise its goals and achievements, and compliment the OP's efforts.

And then be surprised when your contributions to thread B are more appreciated than to thread A?

 

[Wik]

Why is D&D like porn? This is what I'm dying to know. I have a few guesses, but Eric's gramma probably wouldn't like what I have to say.

Hint: Most have to do with the words "Money Shot", "Group Play", "Party Dynamics," and "Magic Missile".

There's also a power in 4e called "Skin Flute" which always cracks us up.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Same here. I've gamed with probably close to 2 dozen or more people since I've played D&D. Not one single person ever said they prefer rules-light games and mostly roleplaying.

The phrase "The rules shouldn't get in the way of the roleplaying" was fairly common amongst the circle I used to game with about ten years ago. And I heard the exact same phrase from someone at a party about a month ago. Here's another.

These guys were not gearhead GMs, they almost never houseruled. They regarded it as the job of the GM to create worlds and tell stories, and the job of the player to "do what your character would do" ie roleplay.

That said, the systems they used went from rules-lite to rules-heavy - Amber, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Golden Heroes, Warhamer FRP, D&D 2e, Champions - so the statement was an ideal rather than an actuality. Fairly often in their games the rules did get in the way of the roleplaying.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Clip, I agree with your basic point, that there's a dichotomy here that needs answering.

1) Both GMs and players don't get exactly what they want from their games and are forced to compromise. People don't like to compromise, hence the complaints.

2) Everyone wants more power. Everyone. GMs get it by using rules-lite systems and/or being permitted to overrule the rules. Players get it by using a rules-heavy system and learning the rules better than the GM. When a rule in the book favors their PC, they mention it. If it doesn't then they don't. All of this behaviour is in evidence at my game table.

3) Another factor is that GMs are often storyteller/worldbuilder types whereas players are gamist - they just want to win, and don't really care about the world or the story. I'm like that myself when I play videogames that have both good game mechanics plus a narrative. I find I care much more about the former and mostly just skip the flavor text.

Quite often, when such GMs complain about this on ENW, you'll see advice to integrate game and story/world. Make it so the players have to learn the history of a magic item to solve the mystery, or whatever. But isn't this just admitting that our creations, our secondary worlds, are too crappy to engage the players alone? That we are mostly failed writers? Creators whose creations aren't good enough. Or maybe it's just that game is stronger than story for most players.

4) GMs tend to big up their own games, to describe them as better than they are. This is a natural human tendency, called Illusory Superiority. Svenson's 1981 survey showed that 93% of Americans think they are above average drivers (though only 69% of Swedes).

Don't believe what anyone says about their own capabilities, they are all filthy liars. Don't say you don't believe them though, they don't like that. Just think it quietly to yourself.

 

[anest1s]

So, just to reiterate: Go to thread A, disparage its very purpose, and suggest that the OP is wasting his time. Then go to thread B, praise its goals and achievements, and compliment the OP's efforts.

And then be surprised when your contributions to thread B are more appreciated than to thread A?

He said a game element.For example setting construction. You assume that the OP/the thread itself will be automatically against rollplaying. Which proves that either you replied in a great haste, or that you actually expect every thread to be about roleplaying

Ok in fact I just wanted to say that you make it look extream, while it is not. A simple post trying to prove that d&d needs less roleplaying and therefore the DM should account for more battle and less rp, would be both on topic and relevant yet ignored or criticized (with a negative meaning, if there can be).