What ever happened to "role playing?"

[IceBear]

I'm trying to stop posting on these forums, but it's hard. However, perhaps it's how I'm feeling now that is a part of the rollplay problem. Yes, perhaps the rulebooks should have added some roleplay advice and "color" rather than just the rules. However, the rules are the rules are the rules - it's up the GM and the group as to how transparent they are to the story. I also still see roleplaying advice in an ongoing column in Dragon magazine every month, so there still is some.

One thing that I've noticed personally - when I spend a lot of time arguing about rules on these forums I become more aware of the rules to the point that perhaps my game suffers from it. Before the Internet, before I found these forums my focus was on the campaign and the story I was telling. Rules were secondary. However, when I spend a lot of time debating the rules or reading about people debating the rules I become too rules orientated and move more towards a rollplayer than a roleplayer. So, that's even a better reason for me to basically stick with the Story Hour fourms.

I guess I disagree that the 3.x rules are the "cause" of rollplay vs roleplay. I personally think they are neutral. I started with the red box set and then 2nd edition and I don't remember much in those rulebooks offering advice on roleplaying. We did it on our own and got advice from Dragon magazine (and there still are roleplaying advice columns in it). I think it is more that the rules themselves have been brought to the fore-front via discussing them so much. About the only time any of my old group and I noticed the rules was when a player would disagree with my interpretation of a rule (which wasn't that frequent). Now people spend hours even days debating a rule to death or a scenario that might never happen in a real game. Suddenly the rules have been put ahead of the story. That's more the community's fault than the rules. At least here we have the excellent Story Hour forum that shows how good the stories and roleplaying can be.

 

[diaglo]

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.

altho, i don't disagree that many roll-players existed in the older days.

i didn't game with any.

so don't blame me for your shortcomings.

 

[hong]

I'm trying to stop posting on these forums, but it's hard. However, perhaps it's how I'm feeling now that is a part of the rollplay problem. Yes, perhaps the rulebooks should have added some roleplay advice and "color" rather than just the rules. However, the rules are the rules are the rules - it's up the GM and the group as to how transparent they are to the story. I also still see roleplaying advice in an ongoing column in Dragon magazine every month, so there still is some.

Eh, there are some people around who need to take out insurance on their tinfoil hats. Don't let them faze you.

Putting advice along the lines of "you can ignore anything you don't like" in a rulebook is pointless. First, the smart gamers will know this anyway, so it's wasted on them. Second, the dumb gamers will use this to shoot themselves in the foot by thinking up inane and unbalanced house rules, or discarding rules on a whim, so it's dangerous for them. Third, contrary to what certain tinfoil-hat wearers might believe, people don't exist in a vacuum, and will eventually pick up on this, from the tinfoil-hat wearers themselves if nobody else.

I guess I disagree that the 3.x rules are the "cause" of rollplay vs roleplay. I personally think they are neutral. I started with the red box set and then 2nd edition and I don't remember much in those rulebooks offering advice on roleplaying. We did it on our own and got advice from Dragon magazine (and there still are roleplaying advice columns in it). I think it is more that the rules themselves have been brought to the fore-front via discussing them so much. About the only time any of my old group and I noticed the rules was when a player would disagree with my interpretation of a rule (which wasn't that frequent). Now people spend hours even days debating a rule to death or a scenario that might never happen in a real game. Suddenly the rules have been put ahead of the story. That's more the community's fault than the rules. At least here we have the excellent Story Hour forum that shows how good the stories and roleplaying can be.

You have to distinguish between wars on forae like the Rules board, and issues that arise in actual gameplay. Wars on the Rules board are quasi-philosophical in nature, like arguing over how many angels can fit on a 5' square pinhead: most have absolutely nothing to do with how the game is played in the real world. Similarly, just because wars on the Rules board can go for weeks is not an indication that the same happens around the table. You'll get obsessive types who actually will drag out an argument for weeks in real life, but that happens regardless.

 

[WizarDru]

altho, i don't disagree that many roll-players existed in the older days.

i didn't game with any.

so don't blame me for your shortcomings.

So you were out of touch with most D&D gamers back then, as well?

 

[Umbran]

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.

And if you leave out Dragon, I think you'll find there isn't much more roleplay advice in older editions than in the current. The rulebooks have always been light on the roleplay advice. This, then, becomes more of an issue about the content of Dragon magazine than it does about the game as a whole.

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.

As a rules-system the thing already takes up something like 700 pages. And roleplay is more difficult to teach in text than rules. Meaning that a solid treatment of roleplay would take at least another 700 pages. This would be unweildly to say the least.

Second, the dumb gamers will use this to shoot themselves in the foot by thinking up inane and unbalanced house rules, or discarding rules on a whim, so it's dangerous for them.

Oh yeah. It's like playign with nitroglycerine! They suffer in that mortal peril of having a less than golden role-play experience! The Horror! The Horror! Save the poor children who don't know any better!

Sorry, hong, but one of the best ways to learn is to make errors.

 

[jasper]

altho, i don't disagree that many roll-players existed in the older days.

i didn't game with any.

so don't blame me for your shortcomings.

alright guys. That it. We will hunt diaglo down. Steal all his players. Chain him to a couch and make him play with all the bad roll players we can find.

It not the system it is the players. I had first edition people tell me. "My cleric stands up and gives the standard the King is fink! My charisma is 16 roll a reaction roll to see how many rebell!" Poor player was out of his league when I ask for a sample.
It not computer games it is the players. I lost track of the number of times some player or dm added some stupid monster or item from a computer game. Yummy slime molds anyone.
It is not anime, buffy, comic books, or tv nowdays, it is the players. Let see in my first group starting around 1979 we had Talon's rocket propelled sword, sun swords, black star sword, wizards wearing steel skull caps aka Merlin in Excalibur, I lost track of how many pcs had traits of Marvel and DC comics super heroes.
The only two differences between today players and players of yester year are the internet so we can gripe more often and to more people. And more material out there.

 

[Quasqueton]

D&D3 doesn't have much info on role playing? What rule books are you guys reading? The SRD?

Open your PHB and read the entry for any race and any class. The pages are chock full of role playing info. There is more RP info in the D&D3 PHB than there was in the AD&D PHB. (Not sure about AD&D2; would have to open those books again and check.)

I started D&D back in 1980, and I didn't learn anything about RP from the core rule books. I learned through play and from Dragon magazine and from various supplemental books. D&D3 at least gives lots of RP advice, hints, direction, and other info right in the core books.

Quasqueton

 

[WizarDru]

. Let see in my first group starting around 1979 we had Talon's rocket propelled sword, sun swords, black star sword, wizards wearing steel skull caps aka Merlin in Excalibur, I lost track of how many pcs had traits of Marvel and DC comics super heroes.
The only two differences between today players and players of yester year are the internet so we can gripe more often and to more people. And more material out there.

Ah yes....swords with three blades that shoot. "Lords of Light!"


Good times.

Good times.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

And if you leave out Dragon, I think you'll find there isn't much more roleplay advice in older editions than in the current. The rulebooks have always been light on the roleplay advice. This, then, becomes more of an issue about the content of Dragon magazine than it does about the game as a whole.

Advice? Yes, I'll agree that the rules for the previous editions were indeed light on advice. However, they did include things to encourage it. The rules encouraged game environment considerations. The rules encouraged considering characterisation before mechanical gains. The rules encouraged story-focus and campaign-level development. It could be seen in the racial descriptions. It was seen in the classes. It was especially seen in the kits. It was part of the campaign setting descriptions of the various lands within those campaigns. It was part of the Planescape Factions. It was everywhere.

That is what is missing from 3E. It's absent from the rule books. It's absent from the modules. It's absent from the accessories. It's absent from the campaigns. It's absent. Period.

And that's my problem with the rules: It's an RPG that doesn't even attempt to encourage role-play. Indeed, it barely pays it lip-service.

As a rules-system the thing already takes up something like 700 pages. And roleplay is more difficult to teach in text than rules. Meaning that a solid treatment of roleplay would take at least another 700 pages. This would be unweildly to say the least.

I don't think the rules require a solid treatment of role-play. I do think role-play deserves a little more consideration than the 2-3 paragraphs it's given in the DMG, though (and that's not even about role-play, but about games that focus on role-play, which really leaves very little for the new gamer to consider).

All that's given for the new gamer to consider is the "Social Skills", which, as written, don't involve role-play at all. As such, they become the role-play for the new gamer because there is no reference of using these Skills with role-play (which, as far as I'm concerned, is the only way to use them).

...one of the best ways to learn is to make errors.

Here we are in total agreement.

 

[diaglo]

alright guys. That it. We will hunt diaglo down. Steal all his players. Chain him to a couch and make him play with all the bad roll players we can find.

karma has already found me. for the last 4 years now, i've been playing 2000ed and 3.11ed for workgroups.

if you want to hear horror stories about lousy gamers i've got a bunch.

the edition breeds the gamer as far as i'm concerned.

i'd tell you what i really feel about them and the edition but Pkitty asked me to be nice.