What ever happened to Role Playing?

[rounser]

Need I spell this out again, level of discussion of rp is not a good indicator of the level of rp in the majority of games.

Maybe not, but the evidence (buying habits, online discussion) begins to mount that that's where gamer's heads are primarily at.

Anecdotal evidence from my own experience backs this up; the majority of DMs I've played with seem to be concerned with the macro-level integrity of their homebrew settings first, their house rules and whatever third party crunch they incorporate second, and adventures almost as an afterthought, pretty much winged off of a few notes...interesting NPCs as even more of an afterthought. Maybe I've just run into an atypical selection of DMs?

 

[jasamcarl]

Maybe not, but the evidence (buying habits, online discussion) begins to mount that that's where gamer's heads are primarily at.

Anecdotal evidence from my own experience backs this up; the majority of DMs I've played with seem to be concerned with the macro-level integrity of their homebrew settings first, their house rules and whatever third party crunch they incorporate second, and adventures almost as an afterthought, pretty much winged off of a few notes...interesting NPCs as even more of an afterthought. Maybe I've just run into an atypical selection of DMs?

I will say that hasn't been my experience, but then, I don't know what your standards are. That is the other amazing thing about the nebulous 'quality of roleplaying'..its deeply subjective.

And the marketability of fluff products does not indicate a dearth. It simply indicates that no agent has a qualtative or quantitative advantage in fluff, and thus trading is not viable. It means that the local market of ideas, i.e. the group, produces fluff that has more meaning for the group. Is that really that difficult to understand?

I'll never understand the mystique some see in having fluff (usually the stuff they already have an inclination for) published. I love the nerdy ego that implies...

 

[rounser]

I'm talking about emphasis, with or without published material, although if you want to hijack this discussion into another "crunch good, fluff bad" generalisationfest then that's your prerogative. The crunch/fluff dichotomy is disingenious overgeneralisation in the first place, and smacks of a lack of understanding of what makes rpg products tick. What is an adventure, crunch or fluff? A book of monsters? Classes? Spells? A macro-level setting? A low-level setting? Anything other than hard mechanics versus flavour, and the distinction borders on useless obfuscation.

 

[jasamcarl]

I'm talking about emphasis, with or without published material, although if you want to hijack this discussion into another "crunch good, fluff bad" generalisationfest then that's your prerogative. The crunch/fluff dichotomy is disingenious overgeneralisation in the first place, and smacks of a lack of understanding of what makes rpg products tick. What is an adventure, crunch or fluff? A book of monsters? Classes? Spells? A macro-level setting? A low-level setting? Anything other than hard mechanics versus flavour, and the distinction borders on useless obfuscation.

Go some two posts back..I made it pretty clear what I considered a reasonable amount of fluff. Basically an immediate context to mechanics that is evocative of something, preferably fantasty related. Those would include monster entries and adventures. There is no false dichotomy in what I'm saying. Setting info = pure fluff, monsters=crunch.

And just so we are being honest, almost everytime you have debated the issue of published material with someone, including me, it has almost always been about flavour. Please don't mischaracterize the debate. And that is really what is being debated here; does the lack of fluff from outside agenst, proffessional or not (such as messageboard members) indicate a lack of rp. Read your own post..you used published products as 'evidence'.

 

[BSF]

Wow! This thread has begun to amaze me.

I enjoy the Role Playing and I enjoy the Game. I enjoy the RPG.
That is what DnD is about right? Not that DnD is the only RPG out there. Heck, I have several other RPGs on my shelf.

If I just wanted a game, there are plenty of options out there. Various sports, card games (I am not talking about CCGs), board games, dice games, etc.

If I just wanted to Role Play, I certainly don't need rulebooks.

RPG's provide an agreed upon standard on how I can role play with a bunch of other people. The game mechanisms help all of us agree upon a standard for advancement. In theory, the experiences in the game world help the player explore new paths for character development. Sometimes, these experiences are ruled by the game mechanics. Sometimes, these experiences are purely role playing driven. Sometimes, it is a combination of the two. That is what I, and the people I game with, have agreed upon.

Does it work that way for everyone? No. Am I fine with that? Yes. Why? Because I believe that everyone plays RPGs for different reasons. Some people want to have a good time with their friends while maxing out a character into a killing machine. Some people want to explore the character as they acquire more power and the killing monsters for treasure and experience is almost a background mechanism. IMO - Many people fall somewhere in between.

Are there people that are playing in a RP light group that don't realize it could be played differently? Possibly, but I don't really know. I do think are more people playing in groups who want to play differently but cannot get more RP elements integrated into the game, for whatever reason.

Would more guidelines for how to roleplay help? I honestly don't know. My desire to choose a character personality, evolve it and explore it and have fun doing so just developed over time. I remember the first few adventures I ran. There was no continuity between them at all. I remember picking up that A- Series of modules and realized that these were adventures that fit together. The idea intrigued me. From there, it wasn't that much of a stretch to try to develop storylines that picked up where the other left off. It took a long time before I realized storylines tend to be too linear. Story arcs are the way to go! But, that is all game mastery.

Through that development came the idea that you could play a character with a distinct personality. A character that would experience different events and might have traits develop in response to those. Kind of like a real person. With an evolving campaign would come evolving characters! At least, in theory. In any event, that is how *I* want to play my characters. It is also how I encourage my players to play their characters.

Would it have been easier to get to that point if there had been something in the books that explains that concept? I am not sure. Many books have those sections. Different authors/publishers put a different emphasis on it. It seems like it was more an evolutionary process, regardless of how much reading material there is on the subject. I also think it depends on how you are introduced to the hobby. If you are introduced by somebody that understands these concepts, you can learn by example. The group I run for is mostly late high-school/early college aged. The past two years have been interesting as I try to encourage them to focus more on the character rather than the combat. I think they are coming around. I hope I am doing a good job offering an alternative view of light RP wargaming.

It seems that this debate is breaking down into one perspective arguing that DnD doesn't do enough to encourage RP. That there are no clear-cut guidelines on how you integrate Role Play into the Game. The other perspective is arguing that more explicit rules are unnecessary and, perhaps, undesirable because they try to quantify something that is, basically, subjective.

For those in the first camp, what would you suggest on how to correct the problem? What guidelines for integrating RP would you offer? What incentives would you use to encourage players to RP the character? I would love to hear your ideas, especially if it will enhance my enjoyment as a player and as a GM.

 

[BSF]

Maybe not, but the evidence (buying habits, online discussion) begins to mount that that's where gamer's heads are primarily at.

Anecdotal evidence from my own experience backs this up; the majority of DMs I've played with seem to be concerned with the macro-level integrity of their homebrew settings first, their house rules and whatever third party crunch they incorporate second, and adventures almost as an afterthought, pretty much winged off of a few notes...interesting NPCs as even more of an afterthought. Maybe I've just run into an atypical selection of DMs?

*laugh*

OK, I don't buy much fluff heavy stuff. I have my own ideas on what I want my campaign world to be like. I find good fluff to be interesting, but I would rather be building my own good fluff.

My NPC's are not afterthoughts. Well, that's not entirely true. If the characters decide to stop somebody in town and ask for directions, they will have an NPC that I make up on the spot.

I am concerned about what I integrate into my home-brew campaign. I want to know where everythig fits and I want to know what crunch has a place in my game.

But, I hardly thinks that says anything about the RP involvement in my game. If I have to divide my time, I would far rather think through the personality of my NPC's rather than the stats. Of course, I find that once I have figured out what "makes the guy tick", I have an easy time statting the NPC out and building an adventure with that if I need to.

 

[rounser]

Those would include monster entries and adventures. There is no false dichotomy in what I'm saying...And just so we're being honest, every time you've debated the issue, it's been about flavour.

Every time I've debated the issue, it's been about adventures in particular, which I think should be emphasised above macro-level setting material and what I consider semi-redundant splat, and which you're now calling crunch?

Okay, there's two false dichotomies for you - in what sense are adventures anything but flavour under the hard-nosed view of crunch? There's no mechanics - it's all encounter locations, plot and NPCs. Second false dichotomy - what you want me to be arguing and what I actually argue are different things, jasamcarl - simply because I don't support your view that crunch is the only way doesn't mean that I'm taking the polar opposite view - I'm pro-adventures, not pro-fluff, unless you define it as such...which you don't?

 

[kenjib]

There are ways to intrinsically support roleplaying and D&D does not take a very aggressive approach as regards to some of these. On the one hand, as compared to 1e and 2e there is extended support for non-combat related activity in the expanded skills and feats system. Non-combat related magic hasn't really improved all that much though -- just a little bit.

On the other hand, from a actions-rewards perspective, D&D really hasn't improved at all for roleplay support at the system level. What kind of behavior is D&D designed to encourage? You are rewarded for killing creatures and avoiding traps with XP and gold. You spend XP and gold to get better at killing creatures and avoiding traps. At the system design level, you are still basically left on your own as far as most activity beyond this is concerned. The story award XP variant is a great example of this, as essentially it just tells you to wing it -- i.e. make the stuff up because you're on your own.

For a counterexample of how to more closely tie roleplaying behavior into the rules, Riddle of Steel has Spiritual Attributes. These count as both something similar to action dice as well as experience points and are tied to roleplaying aspects of the character. Thus, you might have a Spiritual Attribute for serving your king faithfully. When acting relative to this, whether it be defending a client in the courts, standing up to an angry mob with rhetoric, stealing a rival's secret plans, trying to gain the king's personal affections, or meeting your foes on the field of battle, you can act with greater ability and you become more powerful as a result. Thus, it clearly rewards and encourages different types of behavior than D&D does and creates a different game dynamic in terms of the relationship between the DM, the players, and the game world. This is not to say the game is better than D&D, but just that it has a different focus.

I don't think it's completely fair to say that roleplaying is always fully supported by all RPGs the same and that it's entirely dependent on having good players. The system can also encourage this type of play more actively than D&D does. Nevertheless, sometimes I see this repeated almost like a religious mantra. It's not the system, it's the players. It's not the system, it's the players. I agree that it's mostly the players, but the system does have a significant effect and roleplaying does not always have to be relegated to the realm of intangibles.

None of this is a criticism of D&D nor am I saying that you can't have great and immersive roleplay with D&D. D&D is a great game, but different games focus on different things and encourage different behavior.

 

[Tsyr]

Riddle of Steel's SAs induce no ends of problems. They are not, IMO, a good way to encourage roleplaying. Because simply put, there is too much leeway in what they actualy mean, yet far too much control in your actual advancement. Say you spent your entire life honing your skills, dueling, slaying men by the hundreds. Now, if your SA was something to the effect of Drive (Become Famous), that could tangibly improve your skill. If you had Drive (Protect Homeland), that wouldn't give you any improvement.

Personaly, I'm against anything that would intrinsicly tie your advancement to your roleplay. I'm also against using mechanics to define your character's personality.

Stunts in Exalted, now, that's a nifty way of trying to bring out the flavor of the setting in your roleplaying. And it doesn't try to force you to do certain things to get anywhere in life, or define your personality.

 

[hong]

Patrick, it is not a wise idea to provide ammunition to your opponent.

Let me guess, you got a 'D' in debate class because the teacher didn't want to see you back next year. Your idea of a rousing intellectual debate is a round of "Are so!", "Am Not!" endlessly repeated until laryngitis sets in. Your parent's attempts at socialization failed so utterly the only insults you can think off are the ones that apply to you.

You are barely amusing. Easily aroused to irate prattle by comments most adults have no trouble dealing with. But in your case adult is overestimating your level of maturation. You saw in my words an insult, and so set out to show the world I had you pegged, even though I never named you specifically.

No, you assumed I was talking about you, and determined to prove me right. When, by remaining silent, nobody would've been any the wiser. Open mouth, insert foot, advertise the event. In that you succeeded marvelously. You let your hurt feelings put you in harms way.

Poor child. Should I feel sorry for you? Should I ignore your weak attempt at a put down? Should I overlook your lackwit attempt at humor and ignore your posting. Should I assume you were upset about something else and taking it out on someone who couldn't effectively retaliate? Should I take into account your delicate condition and not take advantage of your lack of interpersonal skills?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

So anyway, in an effort to retrieve the hidden messages from the Secret Masters which are present in every piece of nonsense text, and knowing that Google is the latest shopfront for the Conspiracy, I put it through a few cycles of Babelfish:

Patrick, is not he an intelligent idea to fix ammunitions to the disposition with his competitor. valutilo left, he has received ' the D ' in the category of you the discussion same you, because education has not wished to consider the return you he after the year. Its idea of an intellectual discussion rousing is a circulation "is therefore", "the morning no", you repeat to the infinitum before the interior with laryngitissaetze. the tests yours of the parents to the socialization therefore extremely to leave only humiliations that you can think to him far far are those that stop to apply them. As soon as they make. * easy to wake up prattle angered of the zum that it note to him the greater part of the adult no effort, using. But in its sobrestimaciones of the case of the adult the its level of the development. They have seen them to put humiliation in the my words and therefore, to even demonstrate to the world which I have left him verduebeln, if I never call it specifically. No, you approval which I have spoken on you and celebrate to examine inside if towards the line. * if, of the calm rest, somebody ' sees, he of a way or the other that the intelligent one. The opened opening, annoncieren the case with the foot of the use. With that one, to him they follow amazing. Its sensitivity has the damages in the left place you to you to the interior to damage a way. Poor boy. He would have sadly to feel odore for you? He would have to neglect his excessive weak one of the person of the attempt ready towards the bottom? I if, to examine his lackwitversuch with the atmosphere and to neglect its recording. to accept would not have you you have inclined in the anchor something and to take it in anybody, the retaliation that could with effectiveness to the outside? It would have to take that yours conteggi meant of the condition some to him and not to take a use from its deficiency of Zwischenpersonalfaehigkeitenfnord in the consideration? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

I think it makes _much_ more sense now.


Hong "you can even see the fnords" Ooi