Heroes of Battle and Defining Roleplaying

[Captain NeMo]

That's synecdoche as well. Hack 'n' slash is as much "roleplaying" as any other style of play. Hack 'n' slash is still about exploring a shared imagined space, it's just about exploring different aspects of a shared imagined space than deep immersion political intrigue or setting specific plots.

I disagree. Yes, it is both about a shared space but the emphasis on a certain aspect of that space is different in roleplaying to hack 'n' slash. It's the same as comparing SimCity to Age of Empires. Both are about ruling nations/countries but one has emphasis on battles and the other has emphasis on behind the scenes management.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

What's so bad about that quote, people?

It specifically states that political intrigue works just fine if your players enjoy that kind of thing...but really, that's the kind of book best left to 3rd party publishers while WotC should focus on a more classic style of D&D. They aren't insulting anyone or telling anyone how things should be done...

 

[Allandaros]

The fact that it bluntly states "That's not roleplaying" to something which has previously been shown to BE roleplaying, and damn fine material for roleplaying. Heck, old TSR products like the Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide even SUGGEST political intrigue as a good campaign style. I remember one of my nice old Dragon magazines was entirely devoted to incorporating large-scale conflicts into AD&D.

It's also somewhat condescending, saying "silly little gamers, what you've been doing isn't ROLEPLAYING! That's boardgames and wargames! Now buy this book to see what you've been doing wrong," then patting us on our collective heads.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The fact that it bluntly states "That's not roleplaying" to something which has previously been shown to BE roleplaying, and damn fine material for roleplaying. Heck, old TSR products like the Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide even SUGGEST political intrigue as a good campaign style. I remember one of my nice old Dragon magazines was entirely devoted to incorporating large-scale conflicts into AD&D.

It's also somewhat condescending, saying "silly little gamers, what you've been doing isn't ROLEPLAYING! That's boardgames and wargames! Now buy this book to see what you've been doing wrong," then patting us on our collective heads.

So you're saying that its NOT wargaming to have thousands of troops and such?

Look, I don't read it as condescending at all. Sure, wargaming and roleplaying can be done together just fine, but it seems to be we've got a clear idea of what the book WILL and WILL NOT be covering.

It might make for a great game of Diplomacy or Risk, or a great Tom Clancy novel, but unless your players love political intrigue, it doesn't make for a great game of Dungeons & Dragons.

Seems to be true to me. Sure, I love games with political intrigue, but I highly doubt that the majority of players really want a book about it.

 

[Dirigible]

It might make for a great game of Diplomacy or Risk, or a great Tom Clancy novel, but unless your players love political intrigue, it doesn't make for a great game of Dungeons & Dragons.

It really does strike me as a dumb thing to say. Though I am reminded of the time someone defined D&D as 'Tom Clancy's Lord of the Rings'.

I think I'll give this book a miss, and wait for Heroes of Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff. That's what D&D's really about.

 

[Flyspeck23]

I disagree. Yes, it is both about a shared space but the emphasis on a certain aspect of that space is different in roleplaying to hack 'n' slash. It's the same as comparing SimCity to Age of Empires. Both are about ruling nations/countries but one has emphasis on battles and the other has emphasis on behind the scenes management.

It's your definition of roleplaying. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hack'n'slash is roleplaying, although it might be argued that this style of roleplaying doesn't live up to the full potential of the hobby.

Or what would you say if someone said that a D&D session without a single combat isn't D&D?

 

[Flyspeck23]

I think I'll give this book a miss, and wait for Heroes of Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff. That's what D&D's really about.

Wait no more - that book is already available.

 

[Ourph]

I disagree. Yes, it is both about a shared space but the emphasis on a certain aspect of that space is different in roleplaying to hack 'n' slash.

That's why I called it synecdoche (mistaking the whole for the part, or the part for the whole). You're defining "roleplaying" as participating in a shared imagined space with an emphasis on exploring character (Why is my character here? How does he/she feel about it?). While that activity definitely falls within the realm of "roleplaying" it doesn't define the entirety of "roleplaying". It's simply a part.

Participating in a shared imagined space with an emphasis on exploring setting (What's behind that door?), situation (If we burst through the door, will we gain surprise?) and system (Are our combined talents sufficient to allow us to defeat whatever is behind the door?) are all aspects of "hack 'n' slash" play (a term, by the way, that's particularly useless, since most people have completely different working definitions in their heads for it) which are equally a part of the activity of "roleplaying" as exploring character. They are all part of the definition, not the entirety of it.

You're falling into the same trap as WotC (and TSR and WW and numerous other RPG publishers) in thinking that "roleplaying" as it pertains to RPGs is somehow related to a specific way of approaching character and story within the game. I'm just trying to point out that, while espousing a very narrow definition of "what is roleplaying" might very well be a good marketing technique, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think it's also dangerous to assume that one quote represents the Official Stance(TM) of WotC as a whole. It doesn't. Yes, it's on their web site, and there's some unfortunate phrasing, but ultimately all it is is one person trying to sell the book, and perhaps not choosing the best way to do it.

Wizards, as a company, isn't telling you one thing or the other.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I find it terribly disheartening that WotC is tossing off political gaming. To me, political intrigue is what campaigns should actually aspire to, as the characters gain in power and status.

Well, not always, but I have played in that sort of campaign, and it rocked. We started from level one, and while we had more than just hack'n'slash from the start, it was more in the beginning. I might add that the DM in question really knows how to design a dungeon. We played it straight to level 21, and made a little time (and level) skip, and then continued from 24 to level 30. Starting around high-levels, we had a fast increasing amount of political maneuvering. In the epic parts, we usually had one big battle (though one that lasted an hour or so, against a big enemy), and beyond that only social interaction, exploring, and the like. Or sometimes smaller battles that were "battles" only because we attacked things. They were no challenge, and weren't supposed to be. They just fit into the story.