Roll-playing, is it utterly condemnatory?

[ph0rk]

I disagree, especially at high levels. When you have to factor in ability buffs, power attack, the effects of being enlarged, bardic music, recitation and more, and lots of it changes every round... well, it's a lot harder than just writing down "1d12+5" or something.

eh? does being enlarged and bardic music happen so rarely you can't plan for it? The party knows its abilities, and the buffs likely to be cast. Write them down if you can't add them quickly. If it changes every round, all the more reason to jot it down.

If you add it in your head each round, and are slow enough to slow combat down, I'd say you are doing it wrong. For a recent character I jotted down his damage with each weapon, with power attack at full, at half, and when raging, and also against humans.


-----

players that suck can monopolize the game, either through role playing or roll playing - this does not in itself make either style of play 'bad' in all cases.

In the case of characters that are optimized or specialized in a particular facet of the game (the dungeon-crawling rogue, the rock'em sock'em fighter, the glib bard), these characters are often specialized at the expense of other areas.

-----

From my experience, he would probably not use the killer combos to their most effective. Not intentionally, mind you - he would most likely "do what the character would do".

What, so the well-trained fighter is just going to decide not to fight their hardest in a life or death melee... just because? Thats what the character would do... if they were suicidal!

A power-gamer wouldn't even consider what the character would do. He'd look over the battlefield, ponder for a moment on the most effective target and combo, and them methodically implement it. Is that what his character would do? Would he really stop in the middle of a vicious melee (while being attacked by other people!) and figure, "hey, I could trip that mage and get an AoO - that's like a free hit!" and then run over and do it?

Yes, if he was able to figure out it was a mage. Choice 1: stand your ground, get cut to bits, and eventually nuked when the mage finished with the rest of your party. Choice 2: suffer the penalty from disengaging and charge the mage; he/she can dish out much more damage in a round and will most likely harm you more if left alone than if charged and tripped.

You can call it self preservation, selfless defense of the party, or just experienced. A fighter-type knows how to fight; that means more than swinging the pointy end at the soft squishy bits.

Your examples sound like you'd prefer players not use tactics much while playing - if that's how your group likes it, fine. I prefer to play my characters (fighters too) as if they had an int of 6 or better.


-----

It seems a thread on this topic pops up about once a fortnight. Is the idea that some people play the game differently that difficult to swallow?


roll playing and role playing are not mutually exclusive.

However, I wouldn't want to play with anyone that picked one to the total exclusion of the other.

 

[Belen]

It seems a thread on this topic pops up about once a fortnight. Is the idea that some people play the game differently that difficult to swallow?


roll playing and role playing are not mutually exclusive.

However, I wouldn't want to play with anyone that picked one to the total exclusion of the other.

The issue keeps getting muddled. It's not the roll versus role, although that is an easy descriptor to give it. The main issue is miscommunication between the people playing the game.

 

[Quirthanon]

One thing I didn't see mentioned here, are the emotions brought forth by having someone tell you you're playing your character wrong. No one has a say in how I make my character, except maybe the DM making and limiting rules. If I make a character within the rules of a campaign it’s not your problem. If you’re not having fun because my character is good or bad at something, either get better to compete or fill the void. I really didn’t show up to have someone berate me about my character or my playing style.

I know that when I create and play a character I don’t want someone telling me I’m wrong. If I create a character that’s good at combat it doesn’t mean I’m a rollplayer and if I make one that’s not so good it doesn’t mean I’m a roleplayer. Effectiveness in combat it not a good indicator of playing style.

The idea of creating a character to be sub-par to make it better for roleplaying is ridiculous, not many people on this planet get up and say “I’m going to do less than I can today, just to make a more flavor full person.” It really sounds like the “role” playing has the idea that all characters should be equally good at all things, or in most cases poor to bad at most things.

I would like to know when and where roleplaying meant having a nerfed or least effective character. I know some have pointed out that they like to roleplay min-maxed characters, but the
common theme is you can only roleplay if your character isn’t great at what he does.

 

[DragonLancer]

Originally posted by Psion.
Just what's wrong with Final Fantasy, pray tell?

If I come away from a game having told a story as rich and compelling as FFVI or FFVII, I would feel I have accomplished something.

I’m happy for stories to be as rich and compelling as those of the FF series, but that’s not what I’m saying. Everything about it is big, over the top, and although the games have a detailed story/plot, they are pure and simple a show case for kewl combats and sparklies. D&D is about role-playing. Sure, combat is a big part of the game but it should not overshadow the role-playing aspect, which sadly it does in the case of roll-players, who are only there to create the biggest, baddest, overpowered character they can.

Originally posted by Piratecat.
I sure disagree. That's not how you play the game -- or me, for that matter. But it smacks of pretension to announce that this style is wrong for everybody. D&D came from wargaming, remember, and it's really no insult to you if some people prefer to play it that way.

Yes, D&D does have as its basis a war game. But almost 30 years later D&D is not a war game, it’s a role-playing game. I’m not expecting people to dress up the part and handle every possible aspect of the game IC. That’s silly, but there is more to it than hack and slash, and overpowering your character – which is the one downside of feats in the current edition.

Now, I know I’ll get jumped here, but after all this time someone does have to say it, roll-playing IS wrong in my eyes. It’s not pretentious to say that. D&D was never meant to be played like a computer game. Perhaps its just how the game is evolving, but I see too many people posting on boards across the net who play this way, and I am appalled that its seen as the standard.

Originally posted by Rushlight.
If you have a group of power-gamers and you add a role-player, then the role-player really doesn't usually have much chance of affecting the other players' enjoyment of the game. He won't be the best at diplomasizing (is that a word?) or the best at fighting. He won't step on anyones toes. No problems for the power-gamers.

But swap that around and you have a problem. I have a roll-player in my current group and the amount of unhappy conversations I have had with the role-players is untrue. The roll-player can easily steal the enjoyment of the game for everyone else, myself included.

Originally posted by Umbran.
What, you claim to know what was going on in the mind of the designers, such that you know the One True Way the game was meant to be played? You a telepath, or something? Beware your presumption. Some of those designers read these boards on occasion, and one of them may well decide to contradict you.

Especially when it does not seem you've read the 3.x DMG (around and about page 8 of either edition) where it explicitly points out that there are many different valid styles of play.

Oh, I’ve read the 3.x books and I know there are different styles of play, have no fear. And yes, I do believe that I know which the best of them is. You can call that arrogant or pretentious if you like, but the point remains that the game was not meant to be roll-played, it was meant to be role-played.
The problem is (as I said above) that the roll-playing style has taken a hold and is in effect spoiling the game. My players and I are appalled that the game is slipping into roll-playing. Where’s the fun in playing like that? The designers are simply catering to those who come from the videogame background, who are used to superheroic, superpowerful characters with nothing in the way of real roleplaying. I stand by my view that we need to get away from the roll-playing, powergaming aspect and get back to proper gaming. Yes, that’s my view and I’m sticking to it until someone can proove me otherwise.

Originally posted by BelenUmeria.
For instance, it seems that DnD gaming is slowly devolving into real time Neverwinter Nights, sacrificing depth of RP with kewl "builds." Story has become frosting rather than any real impetus to the game. The "complete" books resemble a video game "expansion pack" rather than any real discussion of the how and whys of playing a class.

…

I mean, if a newbie experiences the game first through Neverwinter or Everquest, then they will expect to play tabletop like neverwinter or everquest. The newbie will expect to take anything that is available in the released tool box books while expecting the GM to create combat encounters with a story. Heck, even the RPGA has embraced this trend. It is very close, if not identical, to a MMORPG.

MMORPGs and game like Neverwinters are created to serve players. These games are also created so that players are optimized for combat etc because that is the focus of their games. Obviously, you cannot interact with NPCs other than through scripted lines etc. Thus, many new players have no idea there would be a need for this. They understand social skills like diplomacy, but again, this is an area to max out in order to roll for the scripted plotline etc.

Exactly. And that’s what we need to get new players away from. Hell, we need to get some established players away from that style of playing.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I was talking about this with some friends recently, one of whom invariably plays a complete gunbunny in any modern setting--the character who can, within six seconds or less, put every single bad guy into traction or a coffin. And her take on why she builds characters that can do this was kind of interesting to me:

She hates combat. As in, despises it. The longer the fight, the less fun she has and the less involved in the game she becomes.

But unfortunately, some plots require a fight here or there, and she decided that her best solution was to just start making characters that can end fights long before they get boring for her. If it's going to be a combat-centric game, she sits down and crunches the rules on her own, bounces ideas off the rest of us, and basically does everything in her power to build a character that lets her do "the fun stuff" while at the same time being able to effectively ignore or obliterate any adversary that might dare to take her on.

Which doesn't bother me or anyone else in the group at all; I think we're all pretty much sold on the idea that it's not at all a bad thing for any of us if one character is built to accomplish an often unsavory task like combat with ruthless efficiency. I suppose making challenges that fit the entire group can be tricky, but that generally just means the GM makes the big, important challenges more or less peaceful in nature, and we all like that, too. So it's win-win, all the way around.


...maybe I should recommend this book to her husband for an anniversary gift. I bet she'd put it to very good use.

--
makes me wonder if there are any other combat-monsters-by-necessity out there

 

[Thotas]

Usually, I read all the way through the thread before replying, so to lessen the likelihood of saying exactly what someone else said, and I really want to read this one too, but I'm going to respond immediately, so sorry if I am unknowingly quoting someone. I love to create characters with backgrounds and goals and quirks, every alignment, race, class, and gender. But with all the diversity that comes with that, the one "boring cliche" I always seem to include is that every single one of them wants to live through whatever hell the DM has in mind for them. What this translates to is that if I'm playing a character with a Strength of 8 and a Wisdom of 8, I rely on Charisma or Intelligence to survive instead. I'm assuming that people in dangerous jobs in real life try to aquire the skills and equipment to survive another day, and still manage to actually have personalities. Role playing is something that happens outside the game mechanics; I've even seen people do personality bits with their generals in Squad Leader, fer cryin' out loud. Crunch and fluff exist in separate worlds, but really good game design or playing gets the one to support the other somehow. For example, I rolled up a character last night who has a crazy high Will save for a first level character. I've decided that her personality should reflect this in her not being crazy about being told what to do. So she doesn't let anyone boss her around, and when she has to save vs. some kind of compulsion, she often makes the save. The min-maxing and the roleplaying back each other up. That's my personal style; anyone else do that?

 

[coyote6]

My character (a cleric/rogue/lasher) is fairly efficiently designed, even with the clerical levels that are a holdover from 2e. I can produce a whole lot of damage with a whip when I need to. Since some of the other players are primarily GURPs adherents and aren't as adept with the D&D ruleset, there's occasionally some widened eyes at my damage potential.

They're GURPS adherents? And they can't optimize? Inconceivable!

 

[FireLance]

Oh, I’ve read the 3.x books and I know there are different styles of play, have no fear. And yes, I do believe that I know which the best of them is. You can call that arrogant or pretentious if you like, but the point remains that the game was not meant to be roll-played, it was meant to be role-played.
The problem is (as I said above) that the roll-playing style has taken a hold and is in effect spoiling the game. My players and I are appalled that the game is slipping into roll-playing. Where’s the fun in playing like that? The designers are simply catering to those who come from the videogame background, who are used to superheroic, superpowerful characters with nothing in the way of real roleplaying. I stand by my view that we need to get away from the roll-playing, powergaming aspect and get back to proper gaming. Yes, that’s my view and I’m sticking to it until someone can proove me otherwise.

I can't prove otherwise and I'm not going to bother. My fellow roll-players and I are just going to continue running and playing in roll-playing games because we enjoy it. We will continue to support the gaming industry by buying books and supplements that cater to roll-players. We may even write a few ourselves, if we have the time and think that we're good enough. If there are any other people who would like to join us and play like us, either those new to gaming, real role-players or other roll-players, there will always be a space open at our table. And I wish you the best in finding more real role-players that you can enjoy gaming with as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with D&D becoming a table-top Neverwinter Nights. If it doesn't work for you, no one is making you do it, so do what works for you. If it works for someone else, you've really got no right to say "You're NOT PLAYING D&D! You're NOT ROLEPLAYING!" to them. You've got no more right to condemn their game, hold the rules in contempt, or see them as somehow inferior. We're all playing a glorified game of cops-n-robbers.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm totally OK with people playing D&D for whatever reason suits them, whether role-playing or roll-playing.

That said, I find myself holding back from posting in threads asking, "whats the optimal build for X?" with the answer, "whatever suits the character best!" I shoot for personality and character first, mechanics second. Still, I am probably one of the better in my games at creating mechanically efficient PC's.

I had one PC who was optimized for Power Attack, Cleave, and criticals via his Keen scimitar, and he was exceptionally good at what he did. Still, I created him with the idea that he was a gullible, easily decieved man, and on occasion I purposefully declined Will saves that were offered me to resist a particular suggestion - the PC was just the kind of guy who believed people.

In short, I think that whatever way you play the game is fine, so long as all the players are having fun.