Strategy or role-playing game?

[painandgreed]

I think that it is just as much a strategy/role-playing game as it was in the past, however, I must say that the strategy (tactical) elements are much more emphasised in 3E. Things used to be just distances and could be played on hexes, squares, or with a ruler and it went through the trouble in how to use the various systems but they were off in some apendix someplace. Now, everything is just sqaures and much more explanation if given to them and certain movements and actions depend on them (such as Attack of Opportunity due to movement) so the ability to fudge such things as distance and movement in the mind's eye is lost to some degree.

 

[Rev. Jesse]

Interestingly, the DM has adapted a 1st edition adventure (Temple of Elemental Evil) for a 3e game. If you are at all familar w/ this adventure, I think you'll recall that just about anything you bump into down there is fair game for your paladin to pummel. Since we have little interaction w/ non-combatants, I think this reduces the ammount of role-playing in the game to player-player interactions (which are fun, mind you).

My barbarian still makes an attempt to parlay w/ monsters. Usually this means demanding their surrender while power attacking (this has never worked, though).

-Jesse

 

[Rev. Jesse]

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.

Excellent point, Icy. I wish my DM committed himself to a more "GM fiats" rather than let stuff bog down by looking in the rule book.

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

I think that's a player problem, not the rulesset - there's a bigger percentage of new blood coming in these days from the collectable whatever side of things, where 'winning' has a lot more emphasis. I wouldn't blame the rules here, because it sounds like you've got some righteous jerks in your group. I sympathize, because I've GMed the half-ogre with spiked chain from Order of the Stick. Not fun.

 

[Voadam]

"I bluff(/diplomacy/intimidate) my way past him, I roll a 34." intensive role play facilitated by those rules there.

Can somebody give examples of strategy games? I was thinking board games like Succession Wars or Axis and Allies but I'm not sure if that is how it is being used here.

But assuming strategy game is from the position of controlling many units instead of just one character I think its a bit of a wash. In past editions you could have henchmen and followers for high level characters and paladin mounts and familiars (through a spell only though). In the current edition you have auto familiars, druid and ranger companions, leadership feat giving you NPCs many DMs allow players to control, etc. The more NPCs and pets on the players side that PCs control the less immersed in first person roleplaying they are.

 

[Rev. Jesse]

"I bluff(/diplomacy/intimidate) my way past him, I roll a 34." intensive role play facilitated by those rules there.

Can somebody give examples of strategy games? I was thinking board games like Succession Wars or Axis and Allies but I'm not sure if that is how it is being used here.

A good strategy game example might be Warhammer or Mechwarrior.

I don't have a huge problem w/ people using the bluff rules for the most part. For one thing, it can help newbies play a character with a dynamic personality w/o knowing exactly how to roleplay (but you have to teach them at the same time!). It also is helpful for high level characters to identify their powers of persuasion. A 15th level bard should be able to sell ice to an eskimo, after all. Just don't use those rolls as a subsitute for role-playing.

As a DM, you can help to prevent using social skills in place of role-playing by making your players role-play out the action. If they can't describe what they are doing, even to a little extent, then the character won't do it. Then, give bonuses to the social for good role-playing. This will both make the players role-play and rapidly encourage good role-playing.

-Jesse

 

[Jim Hague]

"I bluff(/diplomacy/intimidate) my way past him, I roll a 34." intensive role play facilitated by those rules there.

That's a player style thing, not a rules thing. As a deep immersion RPer, I enjoy having the fallback of just rolling some dice if I can't think of something but my character rightly should be able to.

Can somebody give examples of strategy games? I was thinking board games like Succession Wars or Axis and Allies but I'm not sure if that is how it is being used here.

Think more the old Talisman game, or Betrayal at House on the Hill, which're pretty close to what people're (IME wrongly) comparing 3.0/3.5 to.

But assuming strategy game is from the position of controlling many units instead of just one character I think its a bit of a wash. In past editions you could have henchmen and followers for high level characters and paladin mounts and familiars (through a spell only though). In the current edition you have auto familiars, druid and ranger companions, leadership feat giving you NPCs many DMs allow players to control, etc. The more NPCs and pets on the players side that PCs control the less immersed in first person roleplaying they are.

IME, the more NPCs that a PC is responsible for, the deeper they're drawn into character...as long as consequences are enforced for those NPCs being hurt, lost or otherwise mistreated. Treat them like people as a DM and the players will get drawn along. Treat them like playing pieces, so will your players. That goes for any game, not just D&D.

 

[IronWolf]

I thinnk whether the game is more roll or role playing oriented has more to do with the group you play with than the ruleset. The mechanics are there to make it a purely roll playing game if you choose, but even with them there if the world your DM paints is full of things/NPCs to interact with and the party chooses to react with them then there is plenty of room for immersive roleplaying.

 

[FireLance]

This discussion makes me think of a quote I read from some game designer on these boards about some video game (lack of precision and details can be blamed on my failing memory) along the lines of the game is fun because it allows you to define your own idea of fun, and then gives you the tools to pursue it. If you like car chases, you can have car chases. If you like stealing stuff, you can steal stuff. If you like blowing things up, you can blow things up.

I think D&D gives you the tools to run the game any way you want - strategy mode, role-playing mode, or something in between. What some people may be experiencing is that people who might previously have preferred computer or video games are now becoming interested in D&D, perhaps because of 3e's more consistent resolution framework and better codified rules, and these people approach D&D more as a strategy game than as a role-playing game. As a result, we can no longer assume that a person who wants to play D&D wants to role-play. I don't think that's a bad thing in itself, although if the majority of gamers prefer strategy to role-playing, there could be valid complaints about the "lack of role-playing support". Market forces, eh?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

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.

Well, there's some truth to that charge. Disallowing social characters from using their social skills is not much fun for the social character's player. And depriving the players of their rightful fun is characteristic of a bad DM.

Now, I personally think it's a lot of fun to make my Bluff/Diplomacy/Whatever roll, see how well or poorly my character did, and then role-play that result. What I don't care for at all, though, is having a DM claim the right to decide whether my character succeeds or fails based on that DM's evaluation of my "performance" as a player...which sounds to me like what you're proposing. I say good riddance to that school of gaming thought!

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,

Still are. It's just that there are a lot fewer things uncovered by the rules (and that's a good thing).

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.

If the DM isn't playing by the rules, I'd say they have every right to be upset. And if the DM doesn't know the rules well enough to run the game without breaking them, maybe he shouldn't be DMing.

Sure, there will be times when the DM is doing things a different way for perfectly good reasons that the players don't know about. But in those cases, all the DM has to say is: "Thanks, Bob. I know that's the usual rule, and there's a reason it doesn't apply in this situation." A player who continues to bitch after that is a jerk. Rarely does that happen, however. IME, it's usually that the DM didn't know the rules very well, and gets angry when a rules-savvy player calls him on it.

The bad old days of players having to suck the DM's $&%#@! to get a favorable ruling are gone. Power--in the form of clear and consistent rules--has been stripped from the tyrannical DMs and redistributed to the players. Huzzah!