Strategy or role-playing game?

[Rev. Jesse]

Last night, my DM made the comment that third edition makes D&D a strategy game, so I asked him what it was before 3e, and he said it was a role-playing game. Previous DMs have made similar comments, stating that 3e is designed to be easily functional with computer games. Now, I submit to your that D&D is no less of a role-playing than it was in the past, and that role-playing content is largely determined by the group and the adventure. We are currently doing a full-out dungeon crawl, so sure there’s less role-playing.

Is there something about 3e that diminishes the importance of role-playing? I would concede that in the core PHb and DMG that there is less advice about role-playing than there should be and that D&D is now more of a team based effort than before, but I don’t think that the current set of rules discourages role-playing any more or less than the old rules.

Any thoughts?

-Jesse

 

[Storm Raven]

Last night, my DM made the comment that third edition makes D&D a strategy game, so I asked him what it was before 3e, and he said it was a role-playing game. Previous DMs have made similar comments, stating that 3e is designed to be easily functional with computer games. Now, I submit to your that D&D is no less of a role-playing than it was in the past, and that role-playing content is largely determined by the group and the adventure. We are currently doing a full-out dungeon crawl, so sure there’s less role-playing.

Is there something about 3e that diminishes the importance of role-playing? I would concede that in the core PHb and DMG that there is less advice about role-playing than there should be and that D&D is now more of a team based effort than before, but I don’t think that the current set of rules discourages role-playing any more or less than the old rules.

D&D, in the past, was even more of a strategy game. Distances measured in inches, no attention paid to non-combat skills or abilities, adventures that consisted of lists of monsters in complexes of rooms, and so on and so forth. Sure, one could role play, but there wasn't a whole lot in the game rules themselves that supported it.

 

[JimAde]

The amount of role-playing in a game is far more a function of the group than the rules, I agree. Current D&D publications do, I think, encourage a tactical/wargame approach by devoting huge chunks of print space to rules mechanics alone.

On the other hand, when I run a game rules mechanics are the thing I want help with (that is, time savings) and I prefer to handle the role-playing bits myself anyway.

I've run 1st/2nd edition AD&D and D&D 3.5 and the amount of role-playing was very high in both cases. But I've always been fortunate to have excellent players.

 

[Beale Knight]

The amount of role-playing in a game is far more a function of the group than the rules, I agree. Current D&D publications do, I think, encourage a tactical/wargame approach by devoting huge chunks of print space to rules mechanics alone.

On the other hand, when I run a game rules mechanics are the thing I want help with (that is, time savings) and I prefer to handle the role-playing bits myself anyway.

Agreed. There's as much role-playing in the game as your particular group wants and supports.

So much of the rules is devoted to combat and battle strategy, and representing it sort of accurately on the table top, because that's just the of thing you can't "act out" in character around the table (or living room, or kitchen, or where ever your group plays).

The rules for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive (and maybe relevent charm spells) are about all you need to run a full night of role-playing your characters in the royal court. Those rules don't take up a whole lot of page count.

 

[Crothian]

its all how the DM plays it. if the DM plays it like a strategy game it will be one.

 

[fusangite]

Is there something about 3e that diminishes the importance of role-playing? I would concede that in the core PHb and DMG that there is less advice about role-playing than there should be and that D&D is now more of a team based effort than before, but I don’t think that the current set of rules discourages role-playing any more or less than the old rules.

Any thoughts?

I think 3.5 gives a GM more freedom in determining what level of roleplay is appropriate for his campaign. Now, there are all kinds of out of combat interactions that can be resolved with dice, roleplay or some combination to the two. It is true that the more coherent rules give a GM less room to manoeuvre which could, I suppose, affect opportunities for roleplay but for the most part, I don't see the argument.

 

[BryonD]

A good roleplaying game is a rule set that establishes a good mechanical model of a reality into which a group of players can provide the roleplaying.

I think that if you are looking for the roleplaying between the covers of a book, you will never find it anywhere.

 

[Henry]

Interestingly, while the older D&D versions were strategy oriented, the fact that the newer versions go through a lot of trouble to codify as many types of activities in combat as possible mean that some people perceive it as being more tactically oriented. In addition, the fact that mechanical character development has gone simply from "this is your class & race" to "this is your class, race, feats, skills, templates, etc." means that people perceive it as more strategy oriented as well. The truth is, there's as much roleplaying capability as there ever was; in fact, there's as much as if we were LARPing cops and robbers as kids.

 

[IcyCool]

Sure, one could role play, but there wasn't a whole lot in the game rules themselves that supported it.

As opposed to now, where you pull out your "Diplomacy sword" and engage in social combat. And if you tell your players that they should roleplay their way through the encounter rather than just rolling, you are apparently a bad DM.

And don't even get me started on the inflated importance that the rules have taken on with the players now. Before, things not covered in the rules were up to the GM, and so players generally had less of a problem with the GM's ruling. Now, I've seen players get belligerent with GMs on what should be happening in the game, or they feel somehow cheated if the GM were to make a GM call instead of using a rule.

I don't know if there's just more of a PCs vs. GM mentality nowadays, or what, but I've definitely noticed a change. Maybe it's just the gaming circles I've been in lately, but sheesh. My current campaign is ending sometime before February next year, and it's going to be a cold day in hell before I gm for some of my current players again - if I pick up the D&D 3.x GMing mantle again at all.

 

[Jim Hague]

Oy, this old saw. Ok, here's where I get a little bitter.

I think the alleged 'videogame-y feel' that so many people go on about is utter, complete bunk. On another board (which'll remain nameless), this was the first and biggest 'argument' put forth by 3.0/3.5 detractors. When pressed, none of these pundits could actually produce any proof to back up their claims and opinions; the closest anyone came was admitting all they'd read of 3.0/3.5 was a single article in Dragon several years ago, and playing Neverwinter Nights.

So where does the claim that earlier editions had more roleplay come from? Here's my opinion:

TSR products for 2nd/Advanced had amazing, incredible worlds: Al Qadim, planscape, Ravenloft, Birthright, Dark Sun. All of which were very, very flavorful and roleplay intensive by their very structures. When 3.0 hit the shelves, it was with WotC's full intention that 3rd party producers take up the slack...so no world provided. Combine that with the 'back to the dungeon' rallying cry of the marketing department, a lot of people got it into their heads that the new edition was 'just a wargame/just a videogame', and refuse to budge and admit that they're flat out wrong. Matters aren't helped by people who, nostalgically and bitterly, defend previous editions as being somehow 'superior' simply because they like them and are used to the oddities of THAC0 and the bizarre saves.

IME (and YMMV), 3.0/3.5 have more roleplay built into the system than previous editions...if that's how you tune your campaign. If you de-emphasize things like skills in roleplay and cultural/style/regional/social Feats, then yes, the campaign'll resemble a wargame, complete with Cookie Cutter Fighter #412, Wizard #16 and Generic Rogue Bob. To a greater or lesser extent, the boardgame 'feel' is mitigated or entirely eliminated by a good DM, campaign and players utilizing mechanical means to help roleplay along.

Sadly, as with many things, 3.0/3.5's detractors can be given proof, examples, anecdotes and more and yet maintain their unreasoned position. Does that mean previous editions were bad? Not at all. It simply proves the old saw - 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink', substituting gamers for horses, and thinking for drinking.