Roll-playing, is it utterly condemnatory?

[Bendris Noulg]

Gone for three days and look at the mess I come back too...

So much to reply to, I guess I'll just keep it simple:

1. Henry's right; WotC is catering to what sells, look to other companies for good role-playing products.

2. Henry's loosing it; no one in their right minds can overlook Magical Midieval Society unless their setting is completely alien (i.e. Barsoom, Gor).

3. Role-Playing rules!

4. 3E's CR system requires PCs of X Level to be of Y Power in order to confront a CR Z Scenario; this makes it problematic to do anything with your Skill Points and Character Feats (1st, 3rd, 6th, etc.) outside of increasing roll-playing efficiency without being imporperly labeled "ineffective" (worsened by the fact that the GM is likely to put you up against a CR Z Creature rather than consider what your character actually can do because that's what the rules instruct him to do and thus giving false credence to the misconception).

That said, I posted most of my beefs on the thread that was going on this topic earlier in the week (most of which, naturally, I was correct about ).

 

[Asmor]

What's with all the hating on the books? I think it's WotC's job to provide us with rules, not setting. I could really care less that Lord Kookamunga, feeling slighted by King Albrect of Dandelion Mountain, slaughtered an entire kingdom in the year 438 Q.X. I can get great ideas for settings and games and characters quite literally anywhere. Movies, TV, video games, books, magazines, newspapers, walking down the street, sitting and thinking for 10 seconds, sleeping, showering, tieing my shoes in the morning, whatever. I buy RPG books because I want to see systems for making my vision into, er, reality, as it were. Have you ever tried writing a complete roleplaying game from scratch? It's pretty damn difficult, and takes far more time than I'm willing to invest. On very rare occasions they hit upon an idea that strikes my fancy... Actually, I think Planescape, and Sigil, is the only published setting I've ever looked at and immediately felt drawn to. And you know what? I didn't get into it from the Planescape book. Hell, I didn't even play D&D back then. I got hooked from the videogame Planescape: Torment (which, incidentally, was far more like an interactive story than a video game. You gained ludicrous amounts of XP, quite possibly more than from combat, by going through dialogs and paying attention and asking the right questions. Sure, it was all scripted, but it was amazingly detailed and flavorful and they really let you play it however you want, whether a dastardly villain only in it for the gold or a saint who thought helping others was its own reward, or somewhere in between. Hell, it was even possible to beat the final boss of the game through dialog!). I later bought the Planescape setting PDF from Wizard's website and enjoyed the read quite thoroughly, despite the fact that any rules information in there was totally useless to me.

Flavor can be taken from anywhere, what makes RPGs RPGs IS the rule system. That's all there is to it. If it weren't for the rules, you'd just be sitting around playing make believe (which, and here comes another flagrant digression, can actually be quite enjoyable... I remember in seventh grade me and several friends would play and switch who was the "GM" and there were no rules involved at all. We just said what we did, the GM told us what happened, and that was that. All you roleplaying purists should probably give that a try, it might be right up your alley, and you'll never have to worry about one of those nasty min maxers again)

EDIT: Oh, and just as an aside, will someone please show me an example of any game at all that includes characters but is not a role playing game? Whether you're playing the role of a thimble determined to build a hotel on Boardwalk or a lone fighter pilot in deep space just trying to survive against a veritable sea of ever-splintering asteroids with just your booster and your blaster, every game that has any sort of character is a role playing game. Even the people who decide they want to play the role of "Optimal Long-Sword Fighter the Brave" are still playing a role, just not the role you want them to be playing.

 

[FireLance]

What's with all the hating on the books? I think it's WotC's job to provide us with rules, not setting.

I take that perspective too, but it's only my perspective. I find it much easier to create setting, or fluff, or whatever you choose to call it, than to create good rules, so I buy stuff that give me more rules and make the rest up. I can see why others might want the opposite, though.

Oh, and just as an aside, will someone please show me an example of any game at all that includes characters but is not a role playing game?

Any session with a railroading DM. No, wait - that's performance art .

Whether you're playing the role of a thimble determined to build a hotel on Boardwalk or a lone fighter pilot in deep space just trying to survive against a veritable sea of ever-splintering asteroids with just your booster and your blaster, every game that has any sort of character is a role playing game. Even the people who decide they want to play the role of "Optimal Long-Sword Fighter the Brave" are still playing a role, just not the role you want them to be playing.

I remember reading this great short story about a game of chess from the perspective of one of the pieces. Yes, you can have character and emotion in any game, even one with characters as min-maxed and as broken as the Queen .

 

[hong]

What I find disturbing is that you believe that you're in the minority, but insist that everyone else is doing it wrong.

The Bendies of the world operate on the principle of negative reinforcement. If ten people say it is a foolish thing, that constitutes evidence it is a wise thing. If ten thousand people say it is a foolish thing, that constitutes irrefutable evidence it is a wise thing. The more isolated their opinion, the stronger it becomes.


Hong "it's a bit like homoeopathy that way" Ooi

 

[Asmor]

The Bendies of the world operate on the principle of negative reinforcement. If ten people say it is a foolish thing, that constitutes evidence it is a wise thing. If ten thousand people say it is a foolish thing, that constitutes irrefutable evidence it is a wise thing. The more isolated their opinion, the stronger it becomes.


Hong "it's a bit like homoeopathy that way" Ooi

Quite true. I know growing up I found myself (and still do to an extent) disliking popular things I'd never even tried simply because they were popular, and trying and enjoying unpopular things (which I genuinely enjoyed, but probably would never have tried if they had been popular). I think it was from being brainwashed that I should be an individual and thinking the vast majority of people are losers, but in the end, I realized that regardless of whether I liked what everyone else liked or disliked what everyone else liked, I was still letting everyone else dictate my interests.

I try (keyword: try) to be a bit more open minded to the popular now as well as the unpopular, but there's still a conditioned kneejerk "it sucks" response to anything that becomes too popular too quickly.