Strategy or role-playing game?

[Psychic Warrior]

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.

Yup, that's how I remember (A)D&D too. Looking back at the old rulebooks and adventures it turns out that it really was that way too!

With the amount of rules and sourcebooks out now for 3E I find I am spoiled for choice. I can go as role play heavy or light as I want and still keep (or toss) the stradegy elements I love. Playing 3E hasn't changed how we role play, just peoples preceptions of doing it "right" :\

 

[vulcan_idic]

This section of your response seems to be at odds with what I had been trying to say.

I aoplogize for my misinterpretation of your words.

However, my comment about "rule-playing" (Hey Psion! ) was not about what you mention above. What I was trying to get across was that the 3.x rules not promote role-playing (but they don't not promote them either). What the ruleset does promote is more along the lines of meta-gaming, of over planning a character to the point that a shift in the campaign can very much make the character you were (over the course of numerous levels) developing almost useless. That to make a useful character, most players (and please note that I find EN Worlders to be the exception to this in general) will spend more time pouring over the rules trying to find the best twink or tweak or Prc or Feat or whatever, to make their characters the best possible.

In other words, the gamers (again, EN Worlders seem to be the execption) spend more time worrying about the rules and how they aply to their character (or how their character can use them to their best advantage) than to role-playing the character itself.

So, does that mean that you are not playing in any game that is based on the d20/3.x ruleset?

3.x promotes a very specific style of play. By doing that, it actually IS telling you how to play. Some specific examples include things like the alignment restrictions on Paladins and Monks. Those alignment restrictions are "dictating" how to play.

The experience system is heavily biased towards killing things and taking their stuff. That is another method of dictating how to play. Yes, I know that is not the only way of gaining xp, but it is the predominant method, and as such it reinforces the implicit style of play that 3.x promotes.

As a counter-example, look at the the experience system for HARP. In HARP, you gain xp for accomplishing goals, and it is possible for just about anything to be a goal. Get the ambassador to sign the treaty - goal. Go kill those orcs - goal. Rescue the princess who got lost in the woods - goal. By being goal based, and allowing the GM (and sometimes even the players) to determine what constitutes a goal, it doesn't promote a specific style, thus it is not "dictating" to to you, telling you how to play the game.

As a matter of fact at least 95% of the games I play are in the 3.0/3.5 D&D system. YMMV, and clearly does, but in my experience this system provides precisely the benefits I extolled above. HARP may be a wonderful system (Not sure - aside from various incarnations of D&D the WOD system is the only one I have actual experience with - I've discussed GURPS, Palladium, and Space Opera systems with people, but I've never had the chance to really experience them) and I have not doubt that your experiences with it may differ greatly from you experience with the 3.x ruleset. I do not however see such a bias in the ruleset itself. It can be taken that way, but it can equally well be made a purely social game - I know because I've played it that way. However I feel in this particular difference of opinion it is time to agree to disagree.

 

[Odhanan]

For many players out there who consider D&D a strategy game rather than a role-playing game:
1/ How do you define role-playing?
2/ How do you define strategy?
3/ How are they uncompatible?

 

[Shemeska]

It's a role playing game.

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

It's no less a role-playing game now than in the past, and role-playing is more dependant on the maturity and focus of the players and the DM than it is on the rules being used.

However, that said, the current rules probably cater to and make easier the life of a person who is more interested on the tactical portion of the game. Plus, the 3.5 revision assumed miniature use and heavily promoted that, which is something that helps a tactical style of play, possibly at the expense of role-playing depending on your group and the DM. Alot of the push that makes tactical gaming easier in 3.5 was probably 1e nostalgia, especially w/ regards to the minis aspect. Not wrong or right, but I simply don't care for it at all in any way shape or form.

My own games are more about character development, ongoing plots, and in character dialogue than they are geared towards a tactical style of play. My games are immersive in tone and I assume a heavy emphasis on in character expression and action rather than number crunching, min/maxing, or pushing minis around. You might go a session or two without any combat frankly, depending on what the PCs are doing or looking for. My own style of play is something that people will either love and adore, and if you're used to a tactical style using minis and a battlemap you may feel lost, which has happened for one or two people in oneshot games I've run at Gamedays or at GenCon.

And now, enjoy my evil, yet pretty, casual disdain for and confusion over anyone wanting tactical based gaming as the major focus of DnD.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

The players can jump. The players can't jump as the characters.

The players can talk. The players can talk as the character.

I talk for a living...and I can guarantee you that I can't "talk as" a 15th level bard with a 24 Charisma and 18 ranks of Bluff or Diplomacy or whatever "talking skill" you want to imagine.

Any more than I can jump like a 15th level monk.

The distinction you and others are trying to make here is completely arbitrary. It's just a holdover from the Golden Age of Gaming, when there were no mechanics for social interactions, and the only way to resolve such things was to "role-play it out."

I recall those days quite clearly, and I have no desire to return to them. The Golden Age...wasn't.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Finally, I'm going to add something that will probably be a bit controversial: when I'm sitting behind the screen, I'm running a roleplaying game, not a public mental health project - if a player wants to play a silver-tounged rogue but can't string together a coherent sentence in or out of character, then 'im.

Truth at last!

Now why can't the rest of you be as honest about it as The Shaman?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The distinction you and others are trying to make here is completely arbitrary. It's just a holdover from the Golden Age of Gaming, when there were no mechanics for social interactions, and the only way to resolve such things was to "role-play it out."

The distinction is not at all arbitrary. It is determined sensibly by noting that resolving social interaction through roleplaying and other stuff through dice provides the most fun to the players. "Having fun" always trumps "needless rules consistency" in my book. This varies by group of course, but a lot of groups operate this way simply beacuse it works well.

I have yet to see how rolling for social interaction provides any benefit at all in actual play over DM judgement.

Truth at last!

Now why can't the rest of you be as honest about it as The Shaman?

I basically agree with everything Shaman said. He put it very well.

 

[Psion]

Today's watchwords are: Not a dichotomy.

Let's apply this to things we are discussing here:
Role-playing or strategy? Why, both, because it's not a dichotomy.
Roll the dice or role play it? Again, not a dichotomy.

I was visiting my wife's forum and was shocked and annoyed by the black-and-white thinking there. Perhaps I have just been ignoring the same thing going on in my own stomping grounds.

So, what have we learned today kids?

That's right. Many situations and choices in gaming are, what's the term? Not a dichotomy.

That is all. Thank you.

 

[Storm Raven]

The players can jump. The players can't jump as the characters.

The players can talk. The players can talk as the character.

That is a false distinction. This amounts to one more response of "just because". I'm sorry to tell you this, but "just because" isn't a rationale. It isn't even an answer.

On the one hand you tell Bob, the player of Conan the adventurer, "Okay, if you want to talk your way past the guard, you need to talk your way past me. Your social skill ranks don't count, I want to see how well you do the talking."

On the other hand, you tell Bob, the player of Conan the adventurer, "Okay, if you want to jump the 10 foot wide chasm, roll your Jump skill and see how far Conan goes."

But, there is no more reason for you to do that with social skills any more than there is reason to tell Bob, the player of Conan the adventurer, "Okay, if you want to jump the 10 foot wide chasm, try to jump this 10-foot gap I've drawn on the floor, and if you make it, so does Conan."

Basically, what you are doing is saying "you are playing a character, but that character is just you with different skin, he has the same personality, the same social skills, and the same personal magnetism as you do." That is a very limiting view to take. And it is based on the fasle distinction that your character's physical and social attirbutes are somehow "different".

 

[Jim Hague]

The distinction is not at all arbitrary. It is determined sensibly by noting that resolving social interaction through roleplaying and other stuff through dice provides the most fun to the players. "Having fun" always trumps "needless rules consistency" in my book. This varies by group of course, but a lot of groups operate this way simply beacuse it works well.

For you, perhaps. I've had players (at odds with Shaman's experiences) who're either new to roleplaying, or unsure of what to do, that make their best effort to roleplay and fall short. But they have characters with a good Bluff or Diplomacy. According to you, they should get no breaks at all - they can't roleplay, so screw 'em, right? As has been pointed out, and is an important point you and some other posters seem to miss - characters are not their players. This is a fundamental truth of the game, and unless you can produce a gnomish illusionist, I challenge you to say otherwise.

I have yet to see how rolling for social interaction provides any benefit at all in actual play over DM judgement.

Well, then you're missing a fundamental design principle of 3.0/3.5 - the rolls are there to remove the arbitrary nature of social interaction present in previous editions. They're there to make things fair and level all the way around the table. The GM is meant to be a fair and impartial judge. And since we're bringing in personal experience - yes, a glib or very outgoing player can easily overshadow more timid or less experienced players at the table. Again, the skills and rolls are there to level the field for everyone.

The rolling of skills like Bluff and Diplomacy shouldn't take the place of roleplaying, but neither should they simply be ignored because you're feeling snotty and elitist and have decided to impose your style of play onto your players whether they will or no because it's 'real roleplaying'.