D&D General The adventure game vs the role-playing game

[overgeeked]

I would be interested in everyone's take on this. As we all know, all players want different things from d&d and other rpgs, the DMG does a pretty good job of laying this out on page 6 - Know Your Players section. But I have noticed that more and more, over the past few years, players at the table tend to fall into one of 2 camps, and each wants little to do with the other type of game. On the one hand you have the adventure gamers, who want to explore a dungeon or other exotic environment, filled with good combat encounters, which hopefully feels like a living, lived in environment. This player is very interested in character builds and options, but much less in exploring character personality. On the other hand, you have the role-players, who are most interested in creating and stepping into a character, acting in character (possibly voice acting) interacting with NPCs and roleplaying social scenarios. I have tried to accommodate both types at my table, but im finding that each type of player is often board to tears during the time spent on the the other style of play, and am beginning to wonder if I would be better served to just pick a style and market my game to that type of player. I do think that different styles of play can lead to a rich gaming experience, but I see more gamers getting frustrated and less able to compromise.

I am interested to see what you have to say. Do you see this particular divide in your gaming groups? A different type of divide? Or do you find players that enjoy both aspects more or less equally or can compromise? I would love to hear your feedback.

To a point I agree, but not entirely.

For me, I want to explore a dungeon or other exotic environment, with some good combat encounters, which hopefully feels like a living, lived in environment. I couldn't care less about character builds but do want many options. On the other hand, I am interested in creating and stepping into a character, acting in character, interacting with NPCs, and roleplaying social scenarios...up to a point.

I think either extreme is duller than dirt. If it's all combat all the time, it's boring. If it's all roleplaying all the time, it's boring. You need a good mix.

I'll call out optimizing and builds here because I think they warrant a bit of attention. D&D, especially 5E, is honestly already on easy mode. It's hard for characters to die. It's baked into the math of the game that characters can easily win almost every single encounter, even without going hardcore cheese like the five-minute workday or broken-ass builds. I like not knowing the outcome. I like being challenged as a player and for my characters to be challenged. Optimizing and builds remove a large part of what little challenge there is in 5E. It's like damn, easy mode isn't easy enough? You need to make it trivially easy? That sounds mind-numbingly dull. Especially if the player in question is focused on combat as the fun part of the game. You like combat but want to make absolutely sure that you're never at risk and never challenged in the slightest way ever by going for some god-like build? Sure, I guess. But then there's zero tension or drama. Zero story or fun. But, some people don't want challenge or excitement, they just want to win. You win D&D by playing it. You don't win by trivializing what little game is there.

 

[pumasleeve]

The real question is not what to do when you have groups interested in A and bored by B, and another group interested in B and bored by A. The most practical solution to that is to organize your groups so that they are homogenously one type or the other.

No, the REAL question is ... what has happened to all the players that enjoy both equally? Is the polarization getting more extreme, and if so, why?

Yes this is pretty much what im getting at. My intention was not really to start the "roleplay vs rollplay, which is better?" debate, which i agree has been ongoing for decades and is entirely subjective, but to discuss that, from my experience there are currently two entirely different games trying to coexist under the banner of d&d, and this is leading to frustration at the game table. These being the adventure game and the roleplaying game.

 

[Lanefan]

Contrast that with a DM who is following the play loop, describing pithily at the start of the turn any changes to the unfolding drama, then asking with a sense of urgency "What do you do?" Combine that with players who know that the faster they resolve their own turns, the faster their next turn comes back around and suddenly combat isn't boring. Particularly if the players actually care about the stakes.

For players that seem to want to eschew "roleplaying," which as you suggest is not a good word for what they're likely actually wanting to avoid, it's often because there are no stakes to the scene.

Thing is, sometimes it's fun to do stuff in the game where there are no pressing or important "stakes" involved; where for example we just roleplay the PCs sitting around the campfire telling stories of past adventures. Sure we might bore the hell out of the DM - unless the DM has an NPC in the party who can share in the campfire chatter - though I know if I'm the DM it just gives me a chance to crack open a beer, sit back, and be entertained for a bit.

Otherwise, if everything always has stakes attached all you're really doing is stressing out your players; and as people are most likely playing in order to reduce stress rather than add to it, this seems somewhat counterintuitive.

 

[iserith]

Thing is, sometimes it's fun to do stuff in the game where there are no pressing or important "stakes" involved; where for example we just roleplay the PCs sitting around the campfire telling stories of past adventures. Sure we might bore the hell out of the DM - unless the DM has an NPC in the party who can share in the campfire chatter - though I know if I'm the DM it just gives me a chance to crack open a beer, sit back, and be entertained for a bit.

Otherwise, if everything always has stakes attached all you're really doing is stressing out your players; and as people are most likely playing in order to reduce stress rather than add to it, this seems somewhat counterintuitive.

Sure, sit around the campfire and interact with each other. Fine. But what I'm saying is it's good to know when that's run its course and move on, perhaps by having fire-breathing owlbears riding flumph swarms attack the camp.

This is a game of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils in worlds of swords and sorcery. It says so right on the tin. If stakes like that stress people out, maybe there are other games more to their liking.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"If stakes like that stress people out, maybe there other games more to their liking."

Pretty much anything PBTA, where interaction between yourself and your other group members is at least as important as your interaction with the world around you.

 

[iserith]

"If stakes like that stress people out, maybe there other games more to their liking."

Pretty much anything PBTA, where interaction between yourself and your other group members is at least as important as your interaction with the world around you.

Yeah, it's just there you now have to worry about whether the other character puts a sex move on you and makes a Roll+Weird and do a deep brain scan. It's good to be a Battlebabe in these situations.

Different kind of stress, I suppose. Pick your poison.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I can't imagine playing a Fantasy Role Plying Game without both adventure and RP. IME they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[DemoMonkey]

They are not mutually exclusive.

They aren't mutually dependent either.

 

[iserith]

Roleplaying is just deciding what your character does. So it's roleplaying to swing a sword at an orc and it's roleplaying to try to negotiate with the king or to try (and fail) to have a worthwhile conversation with the lone wolf edgelord drow PC. This roleplaying might be active (1st person) or descriptive (3rd person). But it's all roleplaying. You literally can't play the game without roleplaying.

What most people are referring to, it seems, is acting which is just how you communicate the roleplaying (including cringey accents) or engaging in discussions between the PCs or PCs and NPCs in scenes with no stakes in them. Some people love this. Others don't. Some, like me, see it as necessary to the game experience, but like anything else, shouldn't be overdone. Ideally acting is done in all pillars of the game in my view including combat challenges. My players are portraying their PCs' personal characteristics (personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw) through the game regardless of the nature of the scene. It doesn't hurt that this is incentivized with Inspiration, of course.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

They are not mutually exclusive.

They aren't mutually dependent either.

They share an immersive area between them; and if they do not. one is no longer playing an RPG. YMMV.