"Roleplaying": Thank you, Mr. Baur

[Mark]

From the latest Adventure Builder column.

Been following that series. Lots of good stuff in there! :0

 

[wayne62682]

So you'd rather a barbarian with a dangerously low INT suddenly become a master tactician in the middle of combat?

Honestly? Yes. Until I started playing 3.5 that was never an issue (neither was "metagaming" for that matter.. nobody cared if you saw a troll and immediatly broke out the fire and/or acid) when I played, and so it's difficult for me to get into that mentality.

EDIT: That and I have a severe problem with doing things that are sub-optimal, because I think of it this way: I invest a lot of time and effort into my characters.. I will not risk getting killed by willingly doing something I know is foolish or won't be successful, because then I've wasted all of that time and effort. I play D&D to tell a story.. if "realism" has to suffer once in a while, then it's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make. If once in a while I don't let my barbarian run headfirst into the fray because I as a player know it's a dumb idea.. I'd rather suspend realism than throw away a character I've spent time building up.

 

[Treebore]

Personally I think this is just another attempt to expand the political correctness mentality in 3E. Moving around and saying where you stand while you swing your sword, shoot your bow, or cast your spell is not roleplaying.

Now if you happen to be the few that has your character say stuff in combat, yeah, your roleplaying. Especially if it suggestions to party members, or imploring your enemy to surrender before you have to kill him. Otherwise, as I saw at this GenCon, most of the talking is clarifying how they are able to move and declaration of actions.

The vast majority of people I have observed do NOT roleplay while their character is in combat.

Next thing you know WOTC is going to be insisting the Wargaming community are role playing.

Then they will be saying as long as you sit at the gaming table and telling how your character moves, but hardly ever, if ever, say anything "in character" you are roleplaying.


WOTC can take this "all inclusive" hogwash and lame attempts at redefining words and flush it.

 

[seskis281]

Neither. But, I'd also like to know where everthing is in combat, since my barbarian character, assuming he has eyes, would also know. The idea that battlemaps somehow limit role playing was pretty much debunked in the link I provided above. It might limit roleplaying for you but, it's hardly a problem with the battlemap then is it?

Well, looking through the thread I'd say it's hard to say something is "debunked" if there are those who disagree - and I'd point to wayne's post as a sign that many ARE focused on just the tactical idea of doing the best at combat, regardless of what their character sheets say. To those who say "that's stupid...", well that's the point - some characters are stupid and so one would hope they might play that in a game.

One of my best players once played a fairly single-minded, low-intelligence half-hobgoblin. He had, I think, a 5 or a 6 INT and not much better WIS. He had also established that his character loved good food. Well, one particular adventure the party ran short on food and were all a bit hungry. They came upon an obvious trap set with food in the wilderness, and this player did exactly what his character would do.... go for the food. The resulting fight (subdual) within the party to keep the guy from the trap was pure gold.

I've also had players who, as soon as battle started, completely disregarded their character - one was a Druid, but we'd be in the woods in battle and he'd start throwing flame strike around, burning every tree in sight as he tried to kill one troll. It may have been the most effective battle tool, but he's a Druid and he's destroying nature just so he can win?

I really have to go back and agree with the earlier post on the battlemat - I've just witnessed too many games where exactly what was mentioned occurs - it becomes a tactical wargame all about winning. Of course this all just my opinion and don't denegrate or condemn anyone who disagrees or likes that sort of game.

 

[Quickleaf]

Honestly? Yes. Until I started playing 3.5 that was never an issue (neither was "metagaming" for that matter.. nobody cared if you saw a troll and immediatly broke out the fire and/or acid) when I played, and so it's difficult for me to get into that mentality.

EDIT: That and I have a severe problem with doing things that are sub-optimal, because I think of it this way: I invest a lot of time and effort into my characters.. I will not risk getting killed by willingly doing something I know is foolish or won't be successful, because then I've wasted all of that time and effort.

It sounds to me you, like many D&D players, have been conditioned to associate failure as "un-fun" because the DM was adversarial and not quick on his/her feet.
I would venture the guess that a player whose DM made failure fun, did not adopt an adversarial stance, and was quick on his/her feet wouldn't see "screwing his character" as undesirable (because failure CAN be fun). You can eliminate threat of death while still gravely threatening the hero, his loved ones, and his cause. In fact, you might bring these points up with your GM. I'm happy to post more on this if you'd like.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

EDIT: That and I have a severe problem with doing things that are sub-optimal, because I think of it this way: I invest a lot of time and effort into my characters.. I will not risk getting killed by willingly doing something I know is foolish or won't be successful, because then I've wasted all of that time and effort.

One of the reasons I love the superhero genre. By default failure =/= death. You get in a deathtrap you have to escape. The villian gloats at you, beats you up and leaves you... or the villian got away and you have to find a different way to stop him in time.

 

[wayne62682]

Actually I've never experienced an adversarial DM.. its just how I played the game in the old days (although granted I was young then). D&D is still a game to me, not a simulation... so if I have the choice between rushing heedless into a fight (let's say it's in my character's nature to be reckless) or think rationally for a minute, I'm going to think rationally because it increases my chance of survival. I don't see how someone can risk their character when they as a player know it's the bad choice to make.

 

[Treebore]

It sounds to me you, like many D&D players, have been conditioned to associate failure as "un-fun" because the DM was adversarial and not quick on his/her feet.
I would venture the guess that a player whose DM made failure fun, did not adopt an adversarial stance, and was quick on his/her feet wouldn't see "screwing his character" as undesirable (because failure CAN be fun). You can eliminate threat of death while still gravely threatening the hero, his loved ones, and his cause. In fact, you might bring these points up with your GM. I'm happy to post more on this if you'd like.

Actually, I am an adversarial DM. However, I value my time too much, and therefore my players time, to just throw their character in the garbage because it is the "right way to roleplay it". Now if the player values playing the character the "way it should be roleplayed" more than the time they have invested in playing it, that is fine. I respect that.

I certainly do not have the expectation of destroying your character just because that is the way it should be done. So if we want to ignore the way it should be played, and pretend that they had a moment or two of great inspiration so that their character lives, I rspect that too. Stupidity does not mean a loss of self preservation. Animals often do very intelligent things to save their lives, and many people consider animals "dumb".

The only time I ever expect a character to get themselves killed is when they are played as honorable, with paladins being the most extreme example. Then they had better put their life on the line to save others.

Other than situations like that, I don't expect anyone to throw their character away unless they want to.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Bless you, sir.

Interesting. It is, of course, something I've always thought should be obvious, yet so many people seem to just utterly fail to see these things and need to be TOLD.

 

[Pants]

WOTC can take this "all inclusive" hogwash and lame attempts at redefining words and flush it.

When did Wolfgang Baur's (a freelancer) opinions suddenly = WotC's opinions?