What ever happened to "role playing?"

[S'mon]

Here's the GM logic I've seen. Player x is role playing and I give them a bonus to their actions based on the role playing. Player y is not role playing, so he gets no bonuses. That's unfair to player y, so I won't give bonuses. I'm arguing that this is unfair to player x who put out the extra effort and endeavored to make the game more fun and interactive.

Yup, I agree 100% w milotha & psion of course. Role then roll is vastly more fun for me, so it's the way I do it. Good roleplaying is also more fun for me, so it gets rewarded, primarily by making success of attempts easier (lowered DC), though I might (rarely) directly award XP for stupendously good in-character roleplaying where it actually helps develop the characters, furthers a gripping narrative, or similar. After discussing this w fellow GM Stalkingblue we decided that these "roleplay XP" awards should always be split evenly amongst the whole party, though, just like combat XP. So if one PC makes a heart-rending speech that moves the GM to tears, _every_ PC gets an XP award, even though the other 5 did nothing in that particular event. It works the same as for rogues dissabling traps or wizards feebleminding the BBEG in the first second of the combat - that particular achievement might be 'individual', but D&D is a team game and it's the team that's rewarded.

 

[IceBear]

Role then roll is vastly more fun for me, so it's the way I do it. Good roleplaying is also more fun for me, so it gets rewarded, primarily by making success of attempts easier (lowered DC), though I might (rarely) directly award XP for stupendously good in-character roleplaying where it actually helps develop the characters, furthers a gripping narrative, or similar.

I just hope you realize that this is what MOST of us are doing too. Don't want you to think you're doing something different than me for example, or that I feel roleplay is unimportant. I even agree with your earlier statement that certain players play certain characters better than others. My only difference is I'm willing to allow someone who ALWAYS plays the fighter (because that's what he's most "suited" to) to play a wizard or bard if he wants to (escapism like you said), whereas you make it sound like if he wants to do that and it makes things less fun for you, out he goes. Given I don't have an endless supply of players (and most of them are my friends) I tend to try to be more understanding of what THEY want.

I personally feel that it's not 3.x that's causing this rollplay not roleplay issue. It's the culture of the new gamers. As someone else pointed out, a lot of people coming into the hobby are from computer RPG backgrounds, whereas most of the old timers' first experiences with fantasy and RPG was from reading. 3.x was designed to be more accessible to the common masses, but I don't consider that a fault of 3.x (I WANT more players). What people do with the rules, in the end, is what they want to do with them based on their experiences. If the most they know about interacting with NPCs comes from a computer game, "I bluff the guard" might be a perfectly natural response from them.

One of my players is the wife of another long term player. He is very charismatic and outgoing so he loves to ham it up while roleplaying. She comes from a corporate background and is older than the rest of us. At first I'm sure she felt pretty awkward and shy around us. "I bluff the guard" might have been her response (to which I would ask for more details, but I wouldn't press her too much). Now, a few years later, she's starting to get into it more. If not for the social rules in 3E being the way they are, she might never have done that because she would never have even tried to "bluff the guard" because she would have felt too shy. Would my game have been better for the past two years if I had replaced her with another player better able to "roleplay"? Yes. But it's been two years and I haven't found another player in all that time and Sandy is a good friend and to not let her play with us when she wanted to would have hurt that. All in all, it worked for me.

Just give these rollplayers time. I'm sure most of them will notice that something's missing and start to roleplay (it is after all, what the game is). For those of you suffering under a rollplaying GM - my sympathies. Perhaps showing him this thread will help. For those of you having fun under a rollplaying GM - great for you too. Bottom line - do what you find fun. I find it unfair (and thus not fun) to allow a player's social skills outweigh his character's when playing (like my two rogues example from earlier) as I don't consider combat to be the most important thing but if I de-emphasize a CHARACTER's social skills then I'm turning the game that way.

Player gives speech, I set DC based on speech, character rolls skills for result of speech (and not all the time, just when it's called for). I guess I'm in Merric's camp

 

[S'mon]

Do you also require your players to fight for real instead of just rolling against orcs?

Cheers!

Hm, if I were ever to hear that comment from a player at my table who'd been asked to roleplay in-character, yes that ****er would be fighting for real in short order (unless it was Lars - he's bigger & scarier than me)

 

[S'mon]

I just hope you realize that this is what MOST of us are doing too. Don't want you to think you're doing something different than me for example, or that I feel roleplay is unimportant. I even agree with your earlier statement that certain players play certain characters better than others. My only difference is I'm willing to allow someone who ALWAYS plays the fighter (because that's what he's most "suited" to) to play a wizard or bard if he wants to (escapism like you said), whereas you make it sound like if he wants to do that and it makes things less fun for you, out he goes. Given I don't have an endless supply of players (and most of them are my friends) I tend to try to be more understanding of what THEY want.

HI Icebear - I think you have a point re the computer influence on new RPGers. When I started playing RPGS aged ca 11-12 those didn't exist and everyone automatically played in-character, in fact the (poor) roleplayer who said "My character does X" rather than RPing it first-person was a figure of derision amongst us - 12 year old boys at a Belfast boarding school, not Shakespearian actors. Roleplaying isn't hard IMO, people just need to get used to the idea, which seems to be harder for new gamers these days.

Re your comment quoted above - hope you don't think I'm being hostile to you, you seem a pretty cool guy (pun! ) despite occasional slight friction w my friend Stalkingblue!
Being the Internet I prob make my position sound harsher than it really is. I'd say 80-90%+ of people can play a wide range of characters entertainingly well. The small minority who can't, some of whom may have serious cognitive disorders like mild autism or aspergers, are likely not able to play any character enjoyably for other players. In the far more common case where a player may just be shy about stretching themselves into new areas, I try to give every encouragement for them to do so, and the results are frequently awesome!

 

[IceBear]

HI Icebear - I think you have a point re the computer influence on new RPGers. When I started playing RPGS aged ca 11-12 those didn't exist and everyone automatically played in-character, in fact the (poor) roleplayer who said "My character does X" rather than RPing it first-person was a figure of derision amongst us - 12 year old boys at a Belfast boarding school, not Shakespearian actors. Roleplaying isn't hard IMO, people just need to get used to the idea, which seems to be harder for new gamers these days.

Re your comment quoted above - hope you don't think I'm being hostile to you, you seem a pretty cool guy (pun! ) despite occasional slight friction w my friend Stalkingblue!
Being the Internet I prob make my position sound harsher than it really is. I'd say 80-90%+ of people can play a wide range of characters entertainingly well. The small minority who can't, some of whom may have serious cognitive disorders like mild autism or aspergers, are likely not able to play any character enjoyably for other players. In the far more common case where a player may just be shy about stretching themselves into new areas, I try to give every encouragement for them to do so, and the results are frequently awesome!

I actually do take everything said with a grain of salt (remember my many references in the other thread about not judgung someone's play style based on a few posts) and I apologize for the friction with SB. It was nothing personal, just like I said in another thread I hate conflict and I perhaps took her tone out of context and felt like she was deliberately trying to cause conflict.

Anyway, I left these forums a couple of years ago because it wasn't fun for me and I think I'm heading out again. I hate conflict and yet I hang out in the rules forum which, by it's very nature, is conflict Just wanted to help, but I can't seem to do so without my blood pressure going up.

So, just wanted to say it was fun and please don't take anything I said the wrong way as I don't know you or your group from Adam so I cannot speak with any form of authority there *sigh* I just hate being bored at work, but I guess boredom is better than high blood pressure

 

[diaglo]

Roleplaying isn't hard IMO, people just need to get used to the idea, which seems to be harder for new gamers these days.

i blame the shorter attention spans, the instant gratification, and the lack of discipline.

but i wholeheartedly agree with your statement S'mon.

as a kid, i remember using a stick or some rocks and my imagination and creating whole games and hours of fun outside.

today, i see kids either taking already made games outdoors or playing in front of the idiot box.... neither of which helps them expand their own imaginations much.

 

[WizarDru]

Exactly, Milotha - by and large actors play great Bards, martial artists play great monks, many soldiers play great Fighters and Rangers, academics make good Wizards, and so on. Mind you I'm an academic and I usually like to play Fighters these days (bit of escapism); but it's clear to me that certain character types suit certain players and make the game more fun for _everyone_, for the GM & for other players.

Gotta say that my experience runs counter to this example, as often as not. I have two SCA members in my group (and two former members, besides), and one of them is a fencing master for the SCA, but he usually plays spellcasters. My wife isn't a martial artists or a thief, but she enjoys playing characters with the 'mace-o-matic' or stealthy rogue. Most of my players prefer variety with each new game, trying out a different type of character. One of my former players who moved out west was very heavily into the martial arts, and he played fighters (not monks) and wizards with equal aplomb.

Now, Robin Laws would be quick to point out that some of my players will play characters with similarities between them, such as the one who usually plays elves with a rapier, or the one who prefers non-spellcasters because they find magic to be confusing and requires too much effort....but that's a whole different thing.

Generally, when it comes to the roll first or role first question, we use whatever is appropriate to the situation. However, as often as not, we avoid the dicerolls entirely when they prove unnecessary. The 'take 10' and 'take 20' mechanic was designed with this in mind. As the PHB says (essentially), "No one critically fails tieing their shoes." We often call these 'torch issues', a phrase taken from Wulf's Story Hour. Essentially, these are boring handwaves. At 4th level, haggling for a scroll, potion or piece of armor is part of the landscape. At 20th level, it's not worth bothering with (while attempting to enlist the aid of a celestial blacksmith to forge a weapon of epic power, on the other hand, is central to the story).

For a DM who's insecure, the kind of behaviors described earlier can be a symptom. 3.Xe's ruleset makes these kind of things transparent to the player, but that doesn't change the attitude which drives it. Under AD&D, the DM would just flat out tell you that something happened, and you, as the player, had to accept it without question. With 3e, consistent mechanics for such interaction were developed and put out in the open. That can be an invitiation to challenge, of course, and a DM not prepared for a conflict from a contentious player (and understand, I'm not implying that applies to anyone here, just that the possibility can exist, and that possibility can lead to the DM taking preventative behavior with no potentional actual need) might implement just those kind of ham-handed tactics. Raising DCs, for example, is probably one part a fear of an abusable skill (usually stealth or interaction skills), one part damage control over a situation he feels he's lost control over ("you've got a bluff of what?) and one part uncertainty as to how to keep the game challenging.
Did you prefer the DM's straight "I say you can/can't" to 3e's mechanic? I personally don't like to play that trump quite so blatantly, because it fosters a 'we're playing against the DM' mentality, instead of a 'the DM has set the stage, now let's create the story' mentality I much rather enjoy. To me, the rules system allows the game to have a reasonably predictable outcome, but introduces enough uncertainty.

I actually think it's not so much the CRPG mentality as the new blood, period. Many folks are returning to D&D after a long hiatus, and many more are just trying it for the first time. I can say with complete honesty that I did some terrible railroading when I first started DMing. Luckily, we had such fun that my players forgave such issues...but the 'rat-in-the-maze' style of DMing was a serious problem back then...again, when people were new to the game, as many are now. As DMs grow more experienced, the better ones learn from their mistakes...and I hope they do, now.

Oh, and Icebear, I hope you stay or at least drop by from time to time. At least keep up on the Story Hours, by thunder. Destan's is particularly good, and pretty soon he'll begin updating regularly again, to name one.

 

[Umbran]

I personally feel that it's not 3.x that's causing this rollplay not roleplay issue. It's the culture of the new gamers.

If it were a new phenomenon, perhaps. But it isn't. It is as old as the game.

I think folks tend to look at "the good old days" through rose-colored glasses or something. They forget that modern RPGs have their roots in wargaming, in which roll-play is the name of the game. They forget that, in the past, there were also a great many roll-players.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think folks tend to look at "the good old days" through rose-colored glasses or something. They forget that modern RPGs have their roots in wargaming, in which roll-play is the name of the game. They forget that, in the past, there were also a great many roll-players.

We don't forget that. Hell, it's my primary argument in support of House Rules (being that D&D started as House Rules for Chainmail).

However, when you look through the older editions, especially Dragon, you constantly read references, hints, suggestions, and encouragement to make role-play a part of the game. This element is intentionally removed from most 3E/d20 material under the belief that rules and role-play are seperate (which I think is complete hogwash). Now, the stated intention is that people play the game differently, from null-role-play to deep immersion, and the rules are intended to be inclusive. However, for the newer gamers, there is little to no reference to the potential of role-play centric games. All that's presented is a heavy-rules system (streamlined, but heavy).

Thus, games that have less role-play, or hold role-play as less important, become more predominant because these new gamers aren't encouraged to do it any other way. On the other hand, with the emphasis on mechanics being so heavy within the rules, these same new gamers are encouraged to min/max, power-game, and roll-play.

So, no, it's not rose-colored glasses, nor is it forgetting that RPGs have their roots in wargames. It's that the current system, and the writting styles of 3E and the manner in which that same style has spread to most OGL publishers, causes a de-evolution in the RPG, bringing it closer to its wargaming roots instead of evolving away from them as it had been for the 27 years before 3E.

As a rules-system, 3.x and d20 is vastly superior to earlier editions. As an RPG, the product falls short by its lack of consideration for RP and too much of an emphasis on the G.

 

[S'mon]

Bendris - I agree w you. This is probably one reason why I find myself using more 1e AD&D stuff from the '80s in my 3e game than I do modern 3e stuff. The whole idea of 'crunch' as an end in itself doesn't sit well with me. The 3e rules are vastly superior to 1e/2e, but the attitude that it's the rules that define the game is one that seems prevalent now, and I've found it to be harmful to the kind of game I like to run.