Role/Roll Playing

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It has as much to do with the price and the place as your comment that 1st level 2E AD&D characters were disposable. Your implication is that the vast majority of 1st level characters in that game die.

No, it isn't. That may be what you read, but it isn't what I said.

My implication is that it doesn't matter if they die.

They are easily discarded and replaced, because character generation at any level is a matter of minutes, not hours. If Bob the Low-Level Fighter dies, you can roll up Bob II the Low-Level Fighter and be back in the mix before the end of the next encounter.

Or, as someone put it rather well in one of the "Old Skool" definition threads in the main forum (paraphrasing):

In Traveller, it is possible to roll a result during character generation that results in that character's death. This is thought to be rather unique to Traveller, but it isn't - old school D&D characters are the same way, it's just that D&D character generation also includes the first dungeon or two.

The main difference in this respect between 2E and 3E is that in 2E it's also possible to roll up Bob II the Mid-Level Fighter and Bob III the High-Level Fighter before the next encounter, as well as Bob II the Thief or Bob II the Cleric, wherein, for 3E+, this is not easily accomplished (barring photocopied characters).

Ergo, 3E characters are much less disposable than their 2E counterparts.

All this by way of saying that "Would you play a character who rolled just 1 HP?" is still an absolutely lousy test for "Real Roleplayer Cred(TM)(R)(C)."

If you did it in Basic - 2E, and you died nigh-immediately (as would probably happen), then you just hopped right back into the game (and probably had better stats doing so, to boot). "Now you're Really Roleplaying, brah!"

There's no way barring house rules to do this in 3E+.

So, yeah. Dumb test.

 

[jdrakeh]

Both. Neither is mutually exclusive.

 

[Water Bob]

So good roleplayers just copy what ever hackneyed, trite, fantasy character their stats suggest?

Weird.

That's a heck of a conclusion from what I said.

 

[Duke Arioch]

I find this delightfully ironic given your username is one of the most powerful beings in a power-filled multiverse.

Well played, sir.

Ahahahahahahaha!! You are absolutely right. But the story behind my name is a bit different. I use the name ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. On every forum. It is a left-over from my earlier years when I used to be a black metal guitarist. That was the name I used as my stage name, and it kinda stuck to me. Now my friends call me Arioch, and I tend to adopt it without grudge (hehe).
P.S. Sorry for OT, I needed to make this clear.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's a very interesting question. Looking back over all my PCs, I've tended to have more fun when my character performed up to certain levels of 'kickassitude'. And power relative to the other PCs is definitely a factor, too.

In my first game of 3e D&D, we used an unholy combination of Savage Species and the Grim n Gritty rules. This basically meant that if you took monsterish powers that avoided all the nasty stuff the GnG rules do, such as a troll's regeneration, your PC would be much more effective. I failed to do this, my monster had a bad Fort save, which meant that I frequently got knocked unconscious in the first round of every fight. While I rather liked the PC's concept and enjoyed playing the character, my lack of combat optimisation definitely made the game less fun. The flaw really was with the rules, though. Savage Species is very unbalanced to begin with, and the Grim n Gritty rules exacerbated this problem.

In another, later Savage Species game, I played a drider sorcerer which I felt basically worked mechanically. I could do some cool stuff but I wasn't crazy good. However there were two other PCs in that game that were incorrectly optimised imo. The full caster druid with spells from Spell Compendium and other splatbook powers was simply far too good compared to the Savage Species PCs. I remember in ranged combat, I'd be doing like 10 points with my magic missiles, he'd be doing 50 with some acid blast power. Too much of a disparity. Otoh there was a stone giant who consistently rolled terribly for his hit points. The low hit points led to the player having him act in such a cowardly fashion that he often contributed nothing to a fight, running away, or doing no damage. (I believe the PC didn't yet have the stone throwing ability at this point.) This group were very beholden to the rules, so if the rules said one PC was ineffective compared to the others, then he was. My feeling, even at the time, was that we should've said 'screw the rules' and brought the stone giant up to the average party power level, even if it meant giving him powers the rules said he shouldn't have. Again, as with the the first campaign, the rules weren't doing the job, they weren't bringing the fun.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Would you play a 1st level Fighter with just 1 HP? If "yes", then you're a roleplayer. If "no", then you're a rollplayer.

It really is the test that separates the men from the boys.

I play RPGs to have fun, first and foremost.

I do not understand why you think playing a statistically weak character makes you more of a man than someone else. Or why you have apply a label to this decision.

Lastly, I simply do not see "rollplayer vs roleplayer" as an either/or choice. I create characters, give them personality, optimise them according to concept and to mechanical benefit, and don't drop them lightly.

Which am I, of the two?

I mean, if I rolled up a weak character I'd still try and make the best of them, but I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel guilty or like a "boy" if I have a quiet word with the GM along the lines of "I don't think this is going to be much fun, can I have a reroll?" The GM has the right to say "No" and we can have a discussion about it.

 

[Water Bob]

I mean, if I rolled up a weak character I'd still try and make the best of them, but I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel guilty or like a "boy" if I have a quiet word with the GM along the lines of "I don't think this is going to be much fun, can I have a reroll?" The GM has the right to say "No" and we can have a discussion about it.

Despite the tone of your answer (sounds like a rollplayer who can't have fun with a stat-challenged character), you are a reluctant roleplayer in my book. If the GM says "No", and you shake your head and accept it. Then you do the best you can with what you've got--that's roleplayer territory.

 

[xigbar]

*looks over poll options*

Hmmmm...no "I'll stab you in the eye if you use this terminology around me." choice?

Poll Fail!

I'd prefer an at least semi-civil answer, please. You may sat that you abstain because of your personal preference, but at least try to sound half-cultured.

 

[xigbar]

*looks over poll options*

Hmmmm...no "I'll stab you in the eye if you use this terminology around me." choice?

Poll Fail!

I'd prefer an at least semi-civil answer, please. You may say that you abstain because of your personal preference, but at least try to sound half-cultured.

Sorry, double post.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Lastly, I simply do not see "rollplayer vs roleplayer" as an either/or choice.

Well, of course. There aren't two kinds of rpgamer, there are four!

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Munchkins and Loonies

And this makes a mockery of Water Bob's concept that men are roleplayers are boys are rollplayers. Men and roleplayers are different categories!