So, I've decided that I hate roleplaying

[wayne62682]

Sandbox campaigns? I'm not a real fan of them. I prefer very intricate and tightly-woven campaign hooks, not what amounts to here's this area, you can go to each of these towns and get "quests", some of them might lead to other quests. Yes, I know that's how quests are in WoW; in WoW I don't mind it - in D&D I dislike it.

Really what I would LOVE to play, nobody I've gamed with has ever liked: Oriental Adventures. I'm a huge fan of Late Han and Three Kingdoms era China and Sengoku/Warring States period Japan, and something like that I think I'd really be able to get into because I'm very passionate about it; I haven't done it in a while but I used to really debate a lot of Three Kingdom stuff.

 

[Wolf1066]

B) I'm more fond of "kick in the door" style play ...

Kick in the door in my game and you're likely to wind up on the wrong side of a TPK - I aim for gritty hard realism rather than "good clean fun"/"I'll hold the narrow pass while you all escape" kind of play and realistically a major gang or organisation is going to have defenses aimed at stopping another major gang or organisation - a small group of 4 "adventurers" is going to be a light snack for these guys.

In order to avoid being someone's light snack, my players take a more strategic approach than head-on "damn-the-torpedoes" assaults when it comes to tackling the big targets so it's definitely more role play than combat. Combat's for when the other party is relatively small and weak or when things go completely wrong and they've got to fight or die.

So far, the only combat the players have seen is a quick run-through to demonstrate a) how combat works in my game and b) why you really don't want to get shot.

The problem I have with my current game (the WHFRP one) is that none of us are really big into the roleplay aspect, but the GM thinks it's the best part (also why he chose WHFRP) and so kind of pushes it onto us, and dislikes when we don't start doing it more often. He tended to do the same thing in our 4E game, instead of tailoring the game to what we wanted it was more of a "You guys aren't doing this the way I would, so I'm going to make you do it my way" kind of situation. The roleplay seems forced because none of us are really into it apart from some occasional dialogue or description, and we get shoehorned into doing it anyways for the GM.

That seriously sucks. If he wants people to play like that, he needs to find people who want to play like that, not deem the players to be "wrong" for wanting a different style of game. And you guys definitely need a GM who is happy with running a more action-oriented game with only a little amount of role play where appropriate.

 

[Galloglaich]

Let me explain. I prefer my roleplaying in very small doses. I don't enjoy having half a session devoted to talking "in character", nor do I like having to speak in first person for my character. I like combat, I like tactical maneuvers, and I like killing things and taking their stuff

Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus. I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group. Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group. I don't like being "forced" to speak in first person with my character; IMO it's perfectly acceptable to say "<character name> tells the guard blah blah blah..." and that is roleplaying. I don't have to engage in dialogue and be all like "Hail, my good man! I am seeking blah blah blah canst thou help me?" like improv theater. Sadly most of the people I've gamed with have not agreed and felt I was not roleplaying "properly" because I don't like speaking in first person.

My old group lost two of its members when my friend's sister and her boyfriend stopped playing (both said they weren't really "into" D&D and were just playing because the brother asked them to). So my friend wanted to try Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and kept saying how great it is and hyping it. So I've given it a shot for about a month now. And I hate it. The system is alright and a unique take, but it encourages so much roleplay and "narrative" that it disgusts me. Since my friend is big into the roleplay aspect, to the point where he dislikes 4e for it's base "heavy combat, light roleplay" mentality, he finds this great. I find it boring as hell. I like my roleplay light and my combat heavy, since combat is where I have the most fun. My friend is the kind I described above, where it's not "roleplaying" unless I'm talking in first person, and he loves how WHFRP pushes the roleplay even to the point of this "party tension" nonsnese that hinders you if you can't agree on something. He even said he loves the system because it focuses on "the party narrative" which just makes me want to barf.

So... what can I do? I've noticed that lately, I don't even have a desire to play RPGs because I want to avoid the roleplay except where absolutely necessary (or the occasional witty remark during combat, things like that), and as far as the combat goes I feel I'd rather be playing WoW because there's no "house rules" to muck things up because someone doesn't agree with the RAW.

Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?

Thanks for posting this. I think you have wonderfully encapsulated the most common WOTC target audience and specifically the ideal 4E fan right here.

Personally, for this type of gaming I'd rather play squad leader, I'm just not that into the kind of middlebrow cartoon world you see in WoW as a combat arena. I have trouble suspending disbelief.

For a perpetual war type of computer game I used to like planetside a little, it was at least sort of plausible. I couldn't get into WoW.

But anyway I think WoTC should go ahead and make 5E DnD a complete "rollplay" game with no role-playing at all, and then maybe they can address the "role-playing" niche with a fresh start rather than combining the two types of game which makes nobody happy. Or failing that Warhammer Fantasy RPG (which is a pretty good game) can take over that niche.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

I'd also like to add that I also equally dislike the kind of phony "Thee and Thou" Elizabethan accent fake Ren Faire fantasy dinner theater type of role playing at least as much as I dislike "roll playing" FRPGs. I think role playing FRPG games should be kind of like a grown up fantasy novel with an edge, and like original REH Conan or Jack Vance, or even maybe a bit campy ala Lovecraft, but not cheese Ren Faire / made for Sci Fi channel films about Chimeras vs. Zeus or something.

I know a lot of people like that kind of playing style as well of course. Maybe they could make a spin-off genre for that as well...

G.

 

[Wolf1066]

Sandbox campaigns? I'm not a real fan of them. I prefer very intricate and tightly-woven campaign hooks, not what amounts to here's this area, you can go to each of these towns and get "quests", some of them might lead to other quests.

So you prefer a "train trip" sort of game where the GM has everything mapped out in advance?

A number of other people here utterly detest that style of play, personally I don't mind it - or sandboxes, for that matter. I do like to have some means of shaping the tale - like having a number of ways available to achieve the desired result rather than "Sorry, the campaign specifically calls for you to find Mr X and buy the potion from him, you can't just smack him over the head and take it" - but I don't mind if the GM has come up with an interesting train trip through engaging "scenery" and we can make up our own minds about how we tackle each of the set scenes along the way.

i also like sandboxes where you can decide, "stuff it, let's go here and see what's happening".

Each style of game has its merits and downsides.

Most of our last AD&D game was a train trip - fairly much linear dungeons that you go through taking each passage, room and group of monsters in turn until you've cleaned the place out. Then you meet another stranger in a tavern who tells you where the next adventure's going to be. Quite enjoyed it, wandered from adventure to adventure, cleaned out a number of tunnels, dungeons, catacombs and cave systems, became a filthy rich 14th level character. Along the way, we surprised the DM a number of times with our inventive ways of dealing with the encounters she threw at us.

Also enjoyed wandering around the Traveller universe choosing where we went based on how much we could sell our cargo for and what we could buy cheaply there that would fetch us a good profit elsewhere - and then getting into scrapes because miner bars with signs saying "No Spacers" are just too much of an outright challenge to ignore...

 

[wayne62682]

So you prefer a "train trip" sort of game where the GM has everything mapped out in advance?

Not necessarily everything mapped out. I don't mind some possibilities for changes based on our actions. I do, however, prefer there to be an actual plot with some "forks" based on what happens, instead of a fully-open sandbox where anything happens and there's no real story.

Since I like to make very specific themed characters that are tightly woven into the storyline, I've found I can't effectively operate in a sandbox because I have no idea what "fits" the campaign. The worst thing for me is a game where I can't create an appropriate character but I'm left to my own devices, not because I'm not creative enough, but because I like my gams to feel like an actual story from the start. I was never a fan of games where the story isn't even developed until midway through, because it doesn't feel like an actual story.

Let me give an example to illustrate the type of player I am, and the type of player I "dislike". Let's say we as a group agree to do a kind of dark, gothic campaign where the ultimate goal is that the PCs liberate their town from an evil vampire lord who has ruled it; so the campaign will feature lots of undead and dark horror. Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign. That's what I enjoy. On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Let me give an example to illustrate the type of player I am, and the type of player I "dislike". Let's say we as a group agree to do a kind of dark, gothic campaign where the ultimate goal is that the PCs liberate their town from an evil vampire lord who has ruled it; so the campaign will feature lots of undead and dark horror. Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign. That's what I enjoy. On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.

That's good stuff, I see what you're talking about. Your paladin is a good character, strong motivation. That's something I often see missing from PCs. Lots of detail about what they can do, nothing about why. I'm probably to blame myself as GM for not giving more guidance.

 

[Zhaleskra]

There are many different definitions of "role playing" and I can't say that any particular one of them is "wrong". Strongly disliked by me, but not objectively wrong.

An interpretation I strongly dislike is "you're role playing because you're playing a role". By that interpretation, Monopoly is an RPG, after all, you play Landlords in that game.

I don't mind if players aren't super immersive, but I do want some minimum. For example, instead of "I haggle with the shopkeeper for a lower price" I at least want "I explain I could get it cheaper elsewhere." Naturally there are times when you can't be as creative, and that's fine too.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Let me give an example to illustrate the type of player I am, and the type of player I "dislike". Let's say we as a group agree to do a kind of dark, gothic campaign where the ultimate goal is that the PCs liberate their town from an evil vampire lord who has ruled it; so the campaign will feature lots of undead and dark horror. Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign. That's what I enjoy. On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.

You are certainly not alone in this one.

One of the biggest things we've done in our group is sitting down and making characters AS A GROUP. No more of this go off and make characters by yourself stuff anymore. Sure, the mechanical nuts and bolts stuff you can do at home. I'm talking about the stuff that actually matters - like personality, background, whatnot.

I really, strongly believe that a coherent group (or group template as some call it) is key to a good campaign.

 

[wayne62682]

You are certainly not alone in this one.

One of the biggest things we've done in our group is sitting down and making characters AS A GROUP. No more of this go off and make characters by yourself stuff anymore. Sure, the mechanical nuts and bolts stuff you can do at home. I'm talking about the stuff that actually matters - like personality, background, whatnot.

I really, strongly believe that a coherent group (or group template as some call it) is key to a good campaign.

Yes, yes, 1000x yes. EVERY group I've been with have always been of the mentality making characters as a group limits their creativity (I had some players actually say this) so it's something I never get to experience, and I hate it because I agree 100% that a coherent group who fits well together makes for a much more enjoyable atmosphere than the old "you guys meet in a tavern" scenario where nobody really gets along and the only reason they stick together is for the metagame reason that they're all playing the same game. I hate that with a passion.