Strategy or role-playing game?

[Mishihari Lord]

So, you've attracted people to your gaming circle who fit into your idea of how to play, but those who have personal limitations would not be welcome? They would be a "problem player" because they were shy or socially awkward? And thus you would exzclude them? That seems very limiting, very "high-school clique"ish. Not everyone is as skilled as everyone else at things like "emoting" and "fast-talk". It seems, according to you, that they should not be allowed to play characters who are good at "fast talking", or people who are skilled negotiators, because they are not.

This is hardly high schoolish or cliquish. I don't run with people that prefer to walk. I don't dive with hydrophobes. I don't game with people who can't or won't roleplay. The nice thing about being a grownup is that I'm free to associate with people who share my interests and make friends with those who do the same things I want to do. If someone doesn't want to roleplay or is unable to do so, I'll be his friend and do other things with him that we both enjoy, but he won't be at my game.

 

[Storm Raven]

This is the argument that always comes up in these discussions, and it's still full of ... um ... air.

Why is it okay to have players play characters who are better than themselves at one type of thing, but not another?

Design decisions as to what a player does and what a character does should be based on what makes sense fun-wise rather than an irrational need to handle everything the same way. Lock picking, running, and jumping might be fun but are generally too much trouble, so the "fun rule" says the character does them. Taking damage - no fun - the character does that too. Memorizing spells - too much work to be fun - characaters do that. Talking and persuading NPCs - fun, easy to do - the players do that.

"Fun, easy to do", unless you are bad at it. Or worse than your character. Please explain why a shy player should be prohibited from playing character who is a skilled diplomat.

 

[Storm Raven]

This is hardly high schoolish or cliquish. I don't run with people that prefer to walk. I don't dive with hydrophobes. I don't game with people who can't or won't roleplay. The nice thing about being a grownup is that I'm free to associate with people who share my interests and make friends with those who do the same things I want to do. If someone doesn't want to roleplay or is unable to do so, I'll be his friend and do other things with him that we both enjoy, but he won't be at my game.

"The shy and socially awkward guy isn't allowed to hang out with us".

I can't think of anything more "high-school clique"ish than that. You can dress it up all you want, but you are acting just like the "cool kids" did when they made fun of others for role-playing in high school and wouldn't invite "geeks" to any of the cool parties because they weren't "socially acceptable".

 

[Slobber Monster]

This is starting to sound like a granularity issue - meaning the number and nature of decisions and rolls used to resolve a situation. The social interaction rules don't support complex decision making. If you're in physical combat you have dozens of options and many chances to make decisions. In social interaction you have very few options and often just one decision. If you ran combat this way each player would make a single decision and a single roll per combat, and would conquer or die based on the result. Boring. I prefer grainy interaction if the encounter is of any importance. One way to do this is to use the DM's judgement. If you have a DM who's any good at all and players who are willing to trust him this works very well. Alternately, you could use more sophisticated social rules, but D&D doesn't have them, and they're very difficult to design well.

I agree about the granularity issue, but at least for me it only takes a small stretching of the core social rules to accomodate my needs. I find that a typical exchange of any importance contains a number of lies, threats, and/or offers, and I would roll a separate Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy check for each with previous results applying circumstance modifiers to future rolls. There's still some fiat involved, but it manages to involve character skills and player choice alike.

 

[Ganders]

I've almost always used miniatures with D&D, since the first time it was called D&D, and through the AD&D versions. So the grid-and-miniatures bit never phased me. And I really believe that role-playing works just fine with v3.5 if the group wants it. Still, I have a bunch of explanations of why people say this.

1)
The I-move-I-shoot-you-move-you-shoot feel of combat is definitely different. Turn-based action like that is more like a board-game or card-game or, dare I say it, M:tG game. It makes for less narrative action, more measurements (probably makes the game go a little faster and be easier to manage too, which explains why so many types of games are made this way). The old system had initiative rolls, but not in the same manner. Actions in AD&D were simultaneous -- you'd all describe your actions and then they would be resolved. For instance, two fighters could charge at eachother and meet in the middle. In today's game one of them would 'go first' and charge, the other one wouldn't get to move at all. Really, the only thing missing is 'players move in clockwise order around the table'... maybe that will replace initiative rolls in v4 as a means of streamlining play.

2)
Any programmer who reads through the 3.0 or 3.5 book for the first time will immediately recognize how 'computerized' it feels. It's terribly easy to imagine programming a computer to go through the steps of combat, one step at a time. Whether this is just an impression, or if it was actually intended this way, I don't know. I'm not going to defend this impression, but I know a lot of people had it. So many people that it can't be ignored. A lot of early reviews (and some more recent ones) were based on this first impression, so that could explain why you've heard it.

3)
Also, there weren't AoOs. Those AoO rules really do change the flow of combat, in a way that old AD&D players don't appreciate. Also readied actions are too reminiscent of cancel magic from M:tG. I acknowledge that this is unfair, and there's nothing truly wrong with readied actions in D&D. But I can't help it, I still cringe every time I see it used during play.

4)
v3 and v3.5 expanded options in a way that broke the shared-reality that millions of gamers had of D&D gameworlds. Dwarven wizards, evil rangers, high-level halflings, and monstrous PCs were all explicitly forbidden in earlier versions. The shared fantasy of 'what the gameworld is like' was permanently broken when such abberations were allowed. It opened up many new options that seem like fun... and also increased the scope, for instance low-magic, avg-magic, and high-magic gameworlds. But the shared experience is gone. It used to be that gamers the world over 'knew' that elves were fighter-magic-users and that humans were the dominant race and boxes-with-legs were not alive and +3 swords were really rare and only one spell could be cast per round. Adventures, modules, stories, and more could be built upon that common understanding. Now all that depends on which setting/gameworld you play. Stories are now harder to tell, they need more background, because that groundwork is no longer solid.

5)
Someone in this thread mentioned the Bluff and Diplomacy rules. This is the best answer. This explicitly and intentionally replaces playing out the situation with rolling dice. Role-play for roll-play, what could be clearer? As someone who played various different games, both home games and scattered conventions, in the 90s, I can see clearly why they did it. There was a large and influential segment of the AD&D fanbase that thought it was best to play without dice or miniatures at all, and the more radical could do away with character sheets too. They were clearly promoting role-play vs roll-play. But somebody, somewhere, decided that no matter how wonderful and dramatic that type of game could be (and btw improvisational acting games can be really amazing and fun), it was not D&D and should be called by some other name. The Player's Handbook in 2000 tried to declare with certainty that the player's ability as an orator should not determine his character's abilities. Bluff, Diplomacy, and a few other things were the game mechanics supporting that decision. Is it any surprise that such folks would say the new versions are more roll-play than role-play? (Disclaimer: this paragraph is all me, I didn't read it from any official WOTC source.

6)
It may be that v3.5 rules just 'seem' more wargamy. This is merely an impression. It could come from something as simple as page layout or even choice of font. Or it could be a matter of emphasis. The new rules rarely point out to GMs/players that the play comes first, the rules second. The new rules make it seem like the tactical rules come first, but you can roleplay in between, when it's not your turn to move.

Odhanan's and Rasyr's posts explain the last two points better than me.

 

[Psion]

Any programmer who reads through the 3.0 or 3.5 book for the first time will immediately recognize how 'computerized' it feels.

Programmer here. Not seeing it. (In fact, trying to write an OO framework that captures d20 character design sort of drives home how fuzzy and inexact some of this stuff is.)

 

[Mishihari Lord]

"The shy and socially awkward guy isn't allowed to hang out with us".

I can't think of anything more "high-school clique"ish than that. You can dress it up all you want, but you are acting just like the "cool kids" did when they made fun of others for role-playing in high school and wouldn't invite "geeks" to any of the cool parties because they weren't "socially acceptable".

I disagree.

You seem to be under one of the misconceptions I read in an article called "geek social misconceptions" - I'm not trying to be offensive here, just citing my source (I hope I'm remembering this right), and that's what it's called. The misconception is that "You're required to partake in all of your activities with all of your friends." I have different friends for different activities. I have friends I work with, friends I go to church with, friends I do martial arts with, friends I game with, and so on. There are few overlaps among these groups. My friends are always welcome to try new stuff with me, but if they don't want do things the way my other group of friends wants to do them, they're better off finding people to play (or whatever) with in the way they enjoy.

Your assertion that I'm a stuck-up "cool kid" is offensive. I'm pretty open to forming friendships with anyone, and as a result I have and have had friends ranging from homeless people to CEOs. I'm a strong believer in the "all men are brothers" philosophy and like to think that I treat everyone with equal consideration and respect. I don't appreciate your projecting whatever issues you're dealing with onto me in this manner.

 

[Slobber Monster]

It seems to me like some people have a rather narrow sense of what "role-playing" is, as in more acting/theatre equates to more role-playing. To me the theatrical approach is just one way of doing things, and is no more or less "role-playing" than a third person descriptive approach. Either can be done with or without the support of social resolution mechancs.

 

[diaglo]

Programmer here. Not seeing it. (In fact, trying to write an OO framework that captures d20 character design sort of drives home how fuzzy and inexact some of this stuff is.)

3.11ed for workgroups based on the 2000ed.

 

[Jim Hague]

2)
Any programmer who reads through the 3.0 or 3.5 book for the first time will immediately recognize how 'computerized' it feels. It's terribly easy to imagine programming a computer to go through the steps of combat, one step at a time. Whether this is just an impression, or if it was actually intended this way, I don't know. I'm not going to defend this impression, but I know a lot of people had it. So many people that it can't be ignored. A lot of early reviews (and some more recent ones) were based on this first impression, so that could explain why you've heard it.

I've got plenty of programmer friends, and none of them've seen this. I think this is a case of what someone thinks something is like, rather than what it is.

3)
Also, there weren't AoOs. Those AoO rules really do change the flow of combat, in a way that old AD&D players don't appreciate. Also readied actions are too reminiscent of cancel magic from M:tG. I acknowledge that this is unfair, and there's nothing truly wrong with readied actions in D&D. But I can't help it, I still cringe every time I see it used during play.

Incorrect - AoOps were there, simply folded into the attack roll or used by GM fiat. AoOps are the most frequently maligned - and misunderstood - part of the system, IME, which is sad. They're easy to adjudicate - does a given action (like concentrating on movement through a threatened area) leave a character open to attack? Then it's an Attack of Opportunity.

4)
v3 and v3.5 expanded options in a way that broke the shared-reality that millions of gamers had of D&D gameworlds. Dwarven wizards, evil rangers, high-level halflings, and monstrous PCs were all explicitly forbidden in earlier versions. The shared fantasy of 'what the gameworld is like' was permanently broken when such abberations were allowed. It opened up many new options that seem like fun... and also increased the scope, for instance low-magic, avg-magic, and high-magic gameworlds. But the shared experience is gone. It used to be that gamers the world over 'knew' that elves were fighter-magic-users and that humans were the dominant race and boxes-with-legs were not alive and +3 swords were really rare and only one spell could be cast per round. Adventures, modules, stories, and more could be built upon that common understanding. Now all that depends on which setting/gameworld you play. Stories are now harder to tell, they need more background, because that groundwork is no longer solid.

There hasn't been a 'shared gameworld' experience since 1st edition. Or are you trying to maintain that a psychic half-giant from Dark Sun, a faithful but doomed Ravenloft knight, a born-to-rule noble from Birthright and a bog standard AD&D character share a world? And even the impression that 1st edition had campaign portability is bunk - everyone had house rules of one sort or another. They had to, to customize a campaign and in some cases to give basic functionality to the system.

5)
Someone in this thread mentioned the Bluff and Diplomacy rules. This is the best answer. This explicitly and intentionally replaces playing out the situation with rolling dice. Role-play for roll-play, what could be clearer? As someone who played various different games, both home games and scattered conventions, in the 90s, I can see clearly why they did it. There was a large and influential segment of the AD&D fanbase that thought it was best to play without dice or miniatures at all, and the more radical could do away with character sheets too. They were clearly promoting role-play vs roll-play. But somebody, somewhere, decided that no matter how wonderful and dramatic that type of game could be (and btw improvisational acting games can be really amazing and fun), it was not D&D and should be called by some other name. The Player's Handbook in 2000 tried to declare with certainty that the player's ability as an orator should not determine his character's abilities. Bluff, Diplomacy, and a few other things were the game mechanics supporting that decision. Is it any surprise that such folks would say the new versions is more roll-play than role-play? (Disclaimer: this paragraph is all me, I didn't read it from any official WOTC source.

My experience differs entirely, from playing to GMing to writing for D&D products. A player's ability to do some task should never factor in to what the character can do, save in the most general terms. I love roleplaying, but if I'm tired or out of ideas, having the rules to fall back on is a good thing. Likewise, effort counts - if someone is trying to get into the game but isn't a great roleplayer, I see no reason at all to revert to high-school antics and freeze them out. Even the very worst roleplayers can develop, and the best roleplayers can be horrific tyrants at the table. All the addition of skills has done is put power in the hands of the players - having the rules there means that the field is level, finally.