Roleplaying? Yeah right!

[Festivus]

That sounds like a great tool. Do you know where I can find it?

I took a break from D&D for about six years, and came back with the release of 3.0. I was immediately swept up in the technical challenge of feats, skills, and equipment, but after a couple of campaigns I realised I wasn't enjoying the characters because I was creating stories and personalities to justify the mechanics I'd chosen.

Since then I've done it old-school: working out a ooncept I like, then creating mechanics to fit it. I generally create sub-optimal characters which are a hoot to play.

Johnn Four's Roleplaying Tips site had it. Here it is:

http://www.roleplayingtips.com/articles/character_questionnaire.php

Ok, so more than 101 questions... but who is counting. I think I used that and created my own template basing a lot on his questions.

 

[LostSoul]

First, I have to say to all those who contend that the fault in lack of roleplaying lies with the D&D system: I play twice monthly in a D&D game that is almost entirely roleplaying. We frequently have sessions with no combat, and often can complete an entire session with virtually no dice-rolling. We do this because it's what we all want out of the game. We'd do the same thing no matter what system we chose to use, because our goal is to roleplay our characters. It's the players who make the game, not the system, IMHO.

Those two bolded points seem to contradict each other.

I'd say that if you're not rolling dice, the D&D system isn't doing that much for you. Not that it does nothing, but not as much as if you were exploring a dungeon.

My advice for the original poster: change how XP works. Decide what XP is going to be handed out for - make it much less about combat and more about what you want it to be. Take a DM-driven approach: "This session, you guys will get XP for discovering who or what is behind the murders" (or whatever other stuff you want to see in-game); or a player-driven approach: "Write down 3 things, approved by me, that you will get XP for next session."

edit: Now your powergamers have to do what you're looking for in order to power up (ie. get what they are looking for). This might be a deal-breaker for them, but if it is, you know that you guys are not going to enjoy playing together.

Give some XP for combat, still, just make it a lot less. Like a quarter of what it is now.

 

[JustinM]

Being the kick in the door and kill the monster style of play is fine if everyone including the DM wants to play that way. In the OP's case, it seems that the other players don't want that. You can call it sickening and insulting but he's the odd one out and should be either fitting in to how the majority plays or finding another group IMO.

I'm not trying to call you out here, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. In the first sentence, you seem to be saying that preferring hack and slash is only okay if everyone else also does. In the last sentence, you seem to side with whatever the majority wants to do. I'm just trying to understand your point better, so could you clarify?

I'm the type of player who likes hack and slash more than lots of talking and political intrigue. Why? I'm a quiet person by nature, not exactly passive, but certainly not outgoing. Therefore I have difficulty playing robust characters as well as a lot of other people do. I don't have anything against it per se, just that I'm not very good at it, and there are other things I'd rather do at the table, so practicing it to get better doesn't really seem like a good use of my time.

Now, I play in a group that, in one very real sense, could probably get through quite a few sessions without ever consulting a source book. If the RAW don't make sense for a certain situation or it would make a better story to bend them or ignore them completely, they'll do it. That rubs me the wrong way because I never really know what the rules are going to be in any given situation. Basically, it's a game that looks like D&D, kind of walks in a similar way to D&D, but doesn't really quack like it much at all to me.

I'm fine with playing with them because they're all friends of mine and I don't really have time to go searching out other games (where I might not like the people at all), but I'm starving for opportunities to draw the sword/rapier/greataxe/big-freakin'-hammer and let loose for a bit. Why should I have to ignore one of my sources for fun and, indeed, the time I apparently waste by actually thinking about the way I make my character's stats, not just his personality, instead of just picking whatever catches my eye in 30 seconds of glancing at a book?

I got off on a bit of a rant here, but I can't help it that I don't get into character as easily as everyone else--even if I've taken the time to flesh out a personality, a background, and all the other squishy stuff that heavy roleplayers like to do before they even put pencil to paper on the character sheet, not even knowing if their character is going to live long enough to make all the handwringing about whether their second cousin is a bard or a mage worth the time it took to write it.

 

[Fifth Element]

I was aware of the difference, and I know what the OP was saying. My point is, with regards to both comments, is that different levels of roleplaying are fine.

That's fine, but your previous post stated:

In the OP's case, it seems that the other players don't want that. You can call it sickening and insulting but he's the odd one out and should be either fitting in to how the majority plays or finding another group IMO.

Which reads that you thought Testament was calling the OP sickening and insulting, which is certainly not the case. No one called the OP sickening and insulting.

The fact that you believe that different levels of roleplaying are fine indicates you agree with Testament's assessment of Clavis' comment (at least to a large degree).

 

[Psion]

I'd say that if you're not rolling dice, the D&D system isn't doing that much for you.

It's not interfering with me. It's not stuffing some rules-dictated behavior down my throat. It's not punishing me for deviating from some rules-defined behavior rules that fail to capture the nuances of my character.

I'd say for what I want out of a roleplaying game, that is what a system should be doing. I hate having the system interfere or step in the way.

 

[Clavis]

Some clarification of my position.

A player who creates a mechanically strong character, with a complete personality that is role-played well, is not a powergamer. They are a Good Player. It is not knowledge of the rules and the ability to apply them that makes someone a powergamer. Nor is it a simple preference for playing strong characters. In fact, as a DM I like it when good role-players players create mechanically strong characters, because it increases my options for creating scenarios, and therefore makes the game more fun for me.

Powergamers, on the other hand, are the people who get no joy out of anything but creating super-powerful characters to pretend to kill things with. Ask them to role-play, and they'll tell you their character is a silent killer. They're the kind of players who have their characters attack other PCs, who refuse to interact with NPCs on any but the most juvenile level, and who refuse to accept any limits on their character's powers due to the campaign and story.

Perhaps some people will think I am confusing "powergamer' and "munchkin" There does seem to be a move to "re-claim" the historically derogatory term "powergamer". Remember, if you role-play well, even if you create a mechanically very strong characters, I don't mean you when I say "powergamer". Even if you self-identify as a "powergamer", I am not referring to you when I use the word. I am referring to the anti-social jerks and bullies that chase people out of our hobby. The Original Poster appears to be dealing with just such a player.

 

[LostSoul]

It's not interfering with me. It's not stuffing some rules-dictated behavior down my throat. It's not punishing me for deviating from some rules-defined behavior rules that fail to capture the nuances of my character.

I'd say for what I want out of a roleplaying game, that is what a system should be doing. I hate having the system interfere or step in the way.

What I meant was: look at what D&D does for you if you want to (for example) go explore a dungeon. All sorts of stuff for that. Another system (let's say Star Wars d6) might not get in the way, but it doesn't have as many dungeon-exploring tools.

I think a system can do more than simply not interfering to support a style of play. Using the system should enhance play.

 

[Oryan77]

Why, exactly, would a powerful spellcaster probably not guily of actual wrongdoing consent to being arrested by untrustworthy racketeers?

Why do you think your only option is to get arrested? Why do you reply as if that's what I was saying the player should have done?

Showboating, IOW.

Yes, you think it's showboating, I get it. You've spammed that 4 times now. :\

(Or am I jumping at the chance to use the word playstyle now?)

Naw dude, playstyle is an ok word cause it sounds normal. Plus, people don't just post a message just so they can say, "Sounds like you're accusing him of a difference in playstyle". But people waste their time in a heartbeat just to post, "Sounds like you're accusing him of BadWrongFun" just so they can get the chance to use that lame word.

Which reads that you thought Testament was calling the OP sickening and insulting, which is certainly not the case.

Hey wait a second...I'll be the first one to admit that I am sickening and insulting. You just haven't smelled me lately

Perhaps it's time to step back and decide whether you'd like to take a break from GMing, look for a different group of players, or adjust your expectations of the game. If your game continues as it is, it sounds to me like you will soon become a burned-out GM, and that won't be fun for anyone.

Yeah I've thought of that same thing. I'm fearing that I'll be one of those guys that posts a thread whining about being burned-out and quitting D&D. I love D&D! I just can't seem to find a group that I love playing D&D with. It's really hard to find gamers with a playstyle close to mine. Maybe I should try finding a group where I can be a player for awhile.

BTW, I'm not saying that the player is doing anything wrong as far as his playstyle goes. You're right about him thinking he is roleplaying his PC. I may not think it's roleplaying but I can see how someone like him would think so. I just have a hard time DM'ing that type of playstyle. I put the fault on me because I can't accommodate that playstyle and all I do is get people upset when I try to make it fun for myself by nerfing powergamey things.

The problem is that the pcs never negotiate, but when you get one to negotiate he dies because of it. Now, if nothing else, it seems like you've set it up so that another pc will never surrender to an npc.

Believe me, I've realized that same thing afterwards. I've actually ran adventures where they surrendered and were imprisoned 2 times before (and they escaped with their loot both times). I didn't even intend on capturing them in this adventure. I figured they could overcome the encounter (even if it meant fleeing). I was just playing in character and decided the BBEG would rather kill this person than deal with him as a slave. But this player does a LOT of metagaming and I agree with you that I will regret my actions from the last game. :\

I am referring to the anti-social jerks and bullies that chase people out of our hobby. The Original Poster appears to be dealing with just such a player.

Well this thread wasn't supposed to be about powergaming being bad or anything. I'm just wondering what different types of roleplaying might be because I met a lot of people saying they roleplay but when I roleplay with them they don't roleplay back. So I've realized that I must have my own interpretation of what roleplaying is.

Also, the player in my group isn't anti-social or a jerk. He's the typical D&D player who has a powergaming playstyle. He doesn't mean to cause problems and he isn't intentionally disruptive. It's just a difference in playstyle that seems to clash only with me since I'm providing him what he wants (hack-n-slashing).

 

[Pseudopsyche]

What do players think roleplaying is? I'm wondering if I just have a different interpretation of it from playing with my actual friends from my hometown. Do people think it's roleplaying if you occasionally shout out "Charge!" before a battle or if you tell the DM, "I'll try to heal Bob's unconscious PC with a cure wand before I retreat"? I mean, the particular player I mentioned won't even spend gold on beer or tavern food because it's a waste of money that could go towards scrolls. He just uses his rations & water and the player sits quietly & reads the Spell Compendium while other players are having drinking contests with NPCs in the tavern. I don't believe any well-roleplayed character would enjoy to live off of rations & water. :\

I would define role playing as pretending to be a different person than you are. In the context of D&D, role playing means choosing your actions by imagining what your character would do in the situation that the DM describes and that the other players shape.

By this definition, the behavior of the powergamer in the OP's game--attacking first and asking questions never--isn't intrinsically bad role-playing. He could just be role playing a self-important, bloodthirsty bully. Or he could care less about role playing and just want to skip ahead to rolling dice.

I do find that many players place "role playing" on the opposite end of a spectrum with "combat". I suspect that this division arises from the published rules' focus on combat encounters. Endless books describe how to arbitrate the uncertain outcomes of physical conflict, but few rules govern social encounters (sometimes even called "role-playing encounters"). You could argue that many books contain plenty of fluff, but in practice this material describes the setting of the game, in lieu of giving more concrete advice to players about how to play the "role-playing" aspect of the game.

So another way to address the question of "what is role playing" is by examining where role play fits into "role-playing games" such as D&D. One answer is that role-playing is what fills in the gaps in the rules that define combat encounters. The answer I would give is that role-playing is the point of the game, and the combat rules simply add drama to the otherwise forgone conclusion ("I slay the ogre.") and to provide a concrete common ground among players ("Okay, we're all level X and can easily handle encounters of level X.").

Needless to say, the game is most fun for all involved when the players (including the DM) are on the same page. To what degree is the point of the game the combat encounters or the collaborative storytelling (or both)?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I've realized that with my current group, since only 1 out of 4 players is big into roleplaying, I've turned into nothing more than a hack-n-slash DM....and I hate that.

I ran a group of eight players. Those eight ran the spectrum of player types. I was in a similar situation of being frustrated until I realized that I was part of the problem. Silly me, I wanted everyone to be as invested in my campaign as I was. It didn't happen no matter how hard I tried, what incentives I gave. Eventually I figured out the makeup of my group:

I had a couple of players who wanted great Roleplaying - they argued with shopkeepers, struck up conversations with NPCs who weren't even NPCs, they were people in a bar with no game relevance whatsover. For those players, I worked out situations where they could roleplay and shine.

I had one Powergamer. The toughest of the tough creatures somehow always ended up attacking him first. He had hard fought battles, almost always won (with varying degrees of help needed) and had his chance to shine.

I had three players who really were there just to roll some dice and have some fun. They were the easiest to deal with, as long as I didn't have a night where we didn't have a single combat encounter.

I had three players with intense backstory (one of the great roleplayers from above, the other two less so). They wanted to have relevance in the campaign. I sometimes incorporated elements of their backstory into both combat and non-combat encounters. Things they did in one session would become relevant in another. They loved it.

This last group was the one that meshed best with my own enjoyment. When I stopped trying to draw the powergamer or the casual gamers into the deeper story, or roleplay encounters with them, my frustration level went down a lot. It was a lot of work making sure everyone had something to enjoy in the game, but as long as I made sure I didn't try to beat the square pegs into the round holes, I got to really enjoy myself. Sure, I had less fun when running the big combat for the powergamer, but he had less fun when I was working on story elements with the players who liked that, and he didn't try to ruin their fun by forcing everything into a fight, so why should I try to force him into caring about the story?​

Long explaination, but you mentioned in the OP that you had one of 4 players who liked roleplaying. So, do some roleplaying with that one player, let the others fade into the background for a little while, and let youself enjoy the roleplaying for that time. Later, roll out the big fights again. So the others don't feel like they are being ignored all the time.

If you need to, explain what you are doing to everyone. If the powergamer can't handle letting someone else have some fun, and so tries to ruin it, then that is a different problem than gaming style and he should probably find a different game. Likewise, if you cannot handle players who don't want to meet your expectations for roleplaying, find a new group and don't complain if you cannot find one suitable for you.