What ever happened to "role playing?"

[Bendris Noulg]

Yes, I think that the rest of your post derives logically from this. However, I disagree on this basic point. The purpose of a role-playing game is to have fun. In my opinion, allowing the players to have fun in many different ways is a good quality for a game.

Well, my son has fun tossing a golf ball around in the back yard. However, I think we can agree that he's not playing golf.

Having social mechanics means that a player who dislikes immersive roleplaying can still have fun in the same game where a storytelling-oriented player is.

Bzzt! Wrong answer.

(Intended as humor, really.)

This isn't about players disliking immersive role-playing; It's about players not willing to role-play to a basic minimum that goes even a step beyond declaring an action as one would do in a video game. Anyone remember the old Parlay command from Temple of Apshai? That's what these skills, and the way they are presented, remind me of. It's also why I don't play the (misnamed) CRPGs: They don't contain anything resembling role-play unless you strip down the "role" of a character to its most basic concept (Stealth, Tank, Healer, Caster, etc.) and the actions of the character to the most basic acts (Walk, Talk, Bribe, Haggle, Threaten, etc.).

I've always preferred Pencil-and-Paper games because they have always been more than that. Yet, to attract more players, that's how the game is now presented, and thus that is the standard that is growing from its new found popularity.

Honestly, look at the beginning of the other RPGs WotC has put out. CoC, SW, and WoT all have a section in the introduction with the header "What is a Role-Playing Game" (or similar)*. D&D, the "premier role-playing game", is strangely enough missing this short little passage. And up to now, I've seen very little to indicate that this absense is not intentional. The only thing I don't understand is the reason for it.

* Quandry: I've not seen the Dragonlance book. Is it in there, or is Krynn presented as a setting rather than a stand-alone game?

That's a notable advantage. I have all sorts of different players with different styles in my group, and everyone enjoys himself (at least, they keep asking me to DM ). It's not unlike juggling, and I like having a system that helps me in that.

I, too, have players of differing styles to a degree; At the very least, they role-play to different extents. However, I couldn't share the table with someone that doesn't role-play at all. To me, such a player is a waste of a seat. I mean, sure, these Skills allow people to play D&D without role-playing. But why must people that focus on role-play take the redicule; Why don't the people that by-pass role-play take the heat for not playing the game right? And why must this lower requirement be presented (falsely) as the standard? D&D plugs itself constantly as the "premier role-playing game"; should the idea that it is a role-playing game be a primary consideration to the players?

Now, I'm not saying that everyone should use Bluff rules and opposed Diplomacy checks - but for me it works beautifully because it makes everyone have fun in their favorite way, and I start from the assumption that a successful game is one where everyone has fun. If you start from the (equally valid) assumption that a successful game is one where everyone does exceptional roleplaying, you will naturally reach different conclusions.

Except, like I said, I'll take a poor role-player over a non-role-player. For me, the non-role-player is detracting from the fun of the group by lack of participation. In addition, it breeds resentment for other players who are left wondering why they should put forth the effort while another player is being equally rewarded for less effort.

Another can of food for thought: social skills are in fact a subset of real roleplaying. Namely, they come into play when you want something from an NPC, but there are still a large number of social interactions that don't involve that. And a large number of highly-dramatic events that aren't, strictly speaking, social interactions (combat, for example). They are all events that have a huge roleplaying potential, and that aren't covered by the rules at all.

Actually, we do run our combat "cinematic"; meaning that, in addition to W&V, we often "time out" for a round or two to snip at each other with insults and witty retorts. Probably not the most tactical of play styles, but better emulates the fiction and movies that have inspired us over the years (Examples: The "final battle" in The Three Musketeers, Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker in the galleries in Return of the Jedi).

That said, I agree that these skills are a subset of role-playing, but the question remains: How many are using these Skills in place of role-playing? By your own post, some people at your table are doing just that.

You don't have to test for terror upon meeting a monster (and when you do, it's supernatural), for example, but most people would flee from most monsters. You don't have to test for acting irrational for some rounds when the BBEG kills your brother in front of you, either.

Sanity rules.

Have you ever done something stupid, fully conscious of it, simply because it was what the character would have done? Without any sort of rule enforcement or even encouragement? I did, I do (and when I get away with it, it feels great). Roleplaying is in the player, not in the rules.

Yes, and congrats. However, the question is whether the rules inspire role-play or roll-play. By the fact that the bar has been lowered (rules that permit role-play to be bypassed, GMs that don't treat PCs that are role-played differently than PCs that aren't), I'd say no, the rules do not encourage role-play. And that's the problem; If role-play isn't encouraged by the rules, and roll-play is presented as the way it's done (and with some designers posting examples at the WotC Boards of these rules in play that verify the later while scoffing at the former), then the question of where the game is heading in the future comes into doubt.

I can handle people not role-playing in their games. I can handle the rules providing a crutch for it. What I don't like is the idea that "the world's premier role-playing game" not inspiring role-play beyond the most basic of stereotypes. Perhaps if the view was that role-play is the standard and that those who don't role-play are removing elements from the game, there wouldn't be a problem. However, if a GM (like me) pipes in that some degree of role-play is necessary (as it is at my talbe), and people start calling "foul" for whatever reason (in this case, fairness to non-role-players), I can't help but view the attitude of the community as being backwards.

An interesting thing of note is that most of the participants in this thread have (to my knowledge) been playing for a while; most of us prior to 3E's release based on replies here and other threads we've all participated in. I'd be curious to know how many posters here lean (or stand directly within) the Deep Immersive style that discovered D&D after 1999. All this speculation about what the rules inspire or encourage is kinda moot unless we actually have people posting statements akin to "I've been playing since 2002 and our preference is..."

Would kind of settle the debate, don't you think?

 

[takyris]

Well, the replies of one person, or even ten, would simply be anecdotal evidence. Anyone who logs onto ENWorld is in the upper echelons of interest in D&D to begin with, methinks, which is going to skew the answers as well.

Bendris, one logical note: I don't think it necessarily follows that because D&D has lowered the roleplaying-requirement bar, it has therefore encouraged lesser roleplaying. That could be true, but it does not have to be true.

For counterexample: As a writer, I am in a hypothetical writing group. Writers often have trouble producing, due to real-world stress and the like. Let us say that the group starts with a minimum writing requirement of four stories per year in order to remain in the group.

Person A writes six stories and has no trouble.
Person B writes four stories, the bare minimum.
Person C writes no stories, because they're so wrapped around the axle about having to write a story every three months that they get completely blocked. In fact, they end up leaving the group before the question of their eligibility even comes up out of sheer frustration (note: This is hypothetical, but it's based largely on actual events, and C did in fact drop out).

Now let us say that the group goes, "Hey, man, we were trying to encourage writing, not make people who couldn't do it as well get so frustrated that they left. Let's lower the requirement to two stories a year."

Person A, who was already an obnoxious overachiever, continues to write six stories per year.
Person B should be divided into B1 and B2. B1 keeps producing 4 stories per year, because it's do-able, while B2 slides back a bit and only does the bare minimum.
Person C should also be divided into C1 and C2. C1 leaves the group anyway, because 2 stories is still 2 more than they could really produce, and they can't even handle that much. C2, though, says, "Okay, 4 stories was too much, but maybe I can do 2 stories a year." C2 gets his act together and puts 2 stories together -- or at least one and a short scene of another. He does something.

Now, let's say that this hypothetical situation is roleplaying and not writing, and that D&D has indeed lowered the bar for minimum roleplaying level by adding those skills. I don't know that it has lowered the bar, necessarily, but I do think that it's made roleplaying easier for those who aren't good at it -- it gives them somewhere to start. Perhaps, in your mind, that's lowering the bar. But I digress...

Person A is always going to be Person A. The people who really get into the roleplaying will always do it.

Person B could conceivably dip down, like B2, instead of continuing on at his old good roleplaying level, like B1. I believe that B2 is the person you're focusing on in your "Why this is bad" scenario. But I don't think that there are that many B2s in the world. I just don't see it as that big a concern.

Person C might still leave, and really, if that's the case, then Person C was never a good fit for the group to begin with. But if Person C goes the C2 route and at least gives it a shot, when he otherwise would have DEFINITELY left, then that's a good thing for the roleplaying market.

The question, of course, is in the numbers -- how many B2s we have, and how far do they fall, versus how many C2s we have, and how far they rise. The A's are always going to be there, and, to be impersonally rude, an A who insists that he can't be an A anymore because of the new rules is most likely either a glory hog, or is not very good at building a character who represents, by the numbers, the concept he wanted. Not saying that about anyone here.

You're arguing, by my (increasingly strained) metaphor, that the B2's are going to get lazy, while others seem to be arguing that the C2's will be inspired. And the truth is that both sides are right. Somewhere, someone is going to do what you suggest, and someone is going to do what the other side suggests. As I said, if we had numbers, we could prove which happened more once and for all, but I doubt we ever will, aside from anecdotal evidence that really adds nothing to the conversation. For my part, I agree with you that some people will coast on interpersonal scores instead of roleplaying if given the chance, but I see the chance to ease new players into the game as worth that price. But that's probably because I'm one of the obnoxious A's -- as are most ENWorlders, I suspect. Most of us are going to keep plugging along regardless.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, the replies of one person, or even ten, would simply be anecdotal evidence.

True, but it would be the basis of actual case discussion instead of hypotheticals. The beauty of hypotheticals is that, with enough thought, any outcome can be determined as the logical result.

Anyone who logs onto ENWorld is in the upper echelons of interest in D&D to begin with, methinks, which is going to skew the answers as well.

Probably, yes.

Bendris, one logical note: I don't think it necessarily follows that because D&D has lowered the roleplaying-requirement bar, it has therefore encouraged lesser roleplaying. That could be true, but it does not have to be true.

<snipped for berevity>

Person A is always going to be Person A. The people who really get into the roleplaying will always do it.

Person B could conceivably dip down, like B2, instead of continuing on at his old good roleplaying level, like B1. I believe that B2 is the person you're focusing on in your "Why this is bad" scenario. But I don't think that there are that many B2s in the world. I just don't see it as that big a concern.

Person C might still leave, and really, if that's the case, then Person C was never a good fit for the group to begin with. But if Person C goes the C2 route and at least gives it a shot, when he otherwise would have DEFINITELY left, then that's a good thing for the roleplaying market.

I can see where you're getting at, but (from my perspective) the problem is a little different.

Let's say that C2 is the minimum (i.e., not a lot of quality, but an effort is made), than C2s are acceptable. Granted, I would prefer B1s and As, as they tend to help keep the game flowing, but I can and will work with C2s.

B2s would worry me slightly. At the very least, I'd see someone that was a B becoming a C and would be worried that the individual isn't enjoying the game. Thus, I would try to figure out what was wrong and, hopefully, get the guy back up to B.

Now, what worries me about the rules is that they tell C1 that not only should he stay, but that his effort is equal to A, which is untrue, and that his lack of effort should be equally rewarded, which is patently untrue.

I certainly hope that this doesn't over-strain your metaphore too much, but I think this does, indeed, tackle the issue as I see it.

For my part, I agree with you that some people will coast on interpersonal scores instead of roleplaying if given the chance, but I see the chance to ease new players into the game as worth that price.

Ah, but here's the contradiction. I'm all for "easing" them in; gawds know that most of us didn't become "A"s during our first game. However, how do we do this? By the individual groups? Well, that lets me know that new players I meet are being eased in. But does that say anything about the rest of the community? Does that tell me that you are easing them in? Does it tell me that S'mon, Zappo, or Umbran are easing them in?

(Note: I'm actually fairly sure all of you are to some extent, but that's just a guess and thus I used your names as an example...)

Thus, I can only consider the facts as I know them. And they are:

1. The rules as written.
2. The perception by some that this is how the rules are meant are used.
3. The posts of at least one of the main designers of 3E indicating that #2 is indeed true.

Now, I posted earlier in the thread that 3E not requiring RP was good for the industry (no, really, check on page 1); I only jumped back into the fray, as it were, because the issue of what the rules inspire has become the topic. And, given the three points above, I can only deduct that the answer is indeed "no".

As such, it does fall on us, the "upper echelon" players (hmmm... I like that.), to indeed stand up and say, "this is how it's done." And, hopefully, to do it without getting a bunch of grief from folks that like it the other way.

 

[hong]

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.

Ab3 does this better than you.

 

[hong]

Let's say that C2 is the minimum

Why?

(i.e., not a lot of quality, but an effort is made), than C2s are acceptable. Granted, I would prefer B1s and As, as they tend to help keep the game flowing, but I can and will work with C2s.

Why is "who Bendy Noulg can work with" the benchmark when it comes to game design?

Now, what worries me about the rules is that they tell C1 that not only should he stay,

Why?

but that his effort is equal to A, which is untrue,

By what metric?

and that his lack of effort should be equally rewarded, which is patently untrue.

By what metric?

 

[S'mon]

Why?

Why is "who Bendy Noulg can work with" the benchmark when it comes to game design?

'Cos Bendy is one of the cool kids.

 

[hong]

'Cos Bendy is one of the cool kids.

Pah. Brandon Cope does this better than him.

 

[S'mon]

Pah. Brandon Cope does this better than him.

You're just jealous 'cos you're not a Real Roleplayer like us.

 

[hong]

You're just jealous 'cos you're not a Real Roleplayer like us.

Pfft. My ten-inch titanium katana is bigger than yours.

FLAWLESS VICTORY.

 

[Zappo]

Well, my son has fun tossing a golf ball around in the back yard. However, I think we can agree that he's not playing golf.

Right. So? As long as he doesn't annoy Real Golfers, where's the problem?

This isn't about players disliking immersive role-playing; It's about players not willing to role-play to a basic minimum that goes even a step beyond declaring an action as one would do in a video game. [...] However, I couldn't share the table with someone that doesn't role-play at all. To me, such a player is a waste of a seat. [...] Except, like I said, I'll take a poor role-player over a non-role-player. For me, the non-role-player is detracting from the fun of the group by lack of participation.

If you set certain parameters for your games, you will have to find players that meet them. You cannot expect every player to meet them.

But why must people that focus on role-play take the redicule; Why don't the people that by-pass role-play take the heat for not playing the game right?

Role-players taking the ridicule? Never happened once in my life, not by anyone above 12. It's usually the opposite.

In addition, it breeds resentment for other players who are left wondering why they should put forth the effort while another player is being equally rewarded for less effort.

If roleplaying is an "effort", as opposed to something you like doing, I too wonder why I should do it, reward or not.

That said, I agree that these skills are a subset of role-playing, but the question remains: How many are using these Skills in place of role-playing? By your own post, some people at your table are doing just that.

Yup. Newbies. And before long, they either stop doing it, or leave the group. Treating adults like adults works.

However, the question is whether the rules inspire role-play or roll-play. By the fact that the bar has been lowered (rules that permit role-play to be bypassed, GMs that don't treat PCs that are role-played differently than PCs that aren't), I'd say no, the rules do not encourage role-play. And that's the problem; If role-play isn't encouraged by the rules, and roll-play is presented as the way it's done (and with some designers posting examples at the WotC Boards of these rules in play that verify the later while scoffing at the former), then the question of where the game is heading in the future comes into doubt.

I can handle people not role-playing in their games. I can handle the rules providing a crutch for it. What I don't like is the idea that "the world's premier role-playing game" not inspiring role-play beyond the most basic of stereotypes. Perhaps if the view was that role-play is the standard and that those who don't role-play are removing elements from the game, there wouldn't be a problem. However, if a GM (like me) pipes in that some degree of role-play is necessary (as it is at my talbe), and people start calling "foul" for whatever reason (in this case, fairness to non-role-players), I can't help but view the attitude of the community as being backwards.

That's only true if you accept two assumptions - first, that players need to be told what they like with the carrot and the stick; second, that role-playing is the one right way to game. I disagree with both.

For the first: I do have some loose style preferences, though I wouldn't call them requirements. I tell them to newbies, they respect them. It's that easy.
The second is, well, a matter of opinion at heart. There is something that can be said, though. It is an unfortunate truth that many more players are interested in the numbers than those who are interested in role-playing: it could be that by being relatively light on the role-playing aspect, the game can get on more tables and reach more players that simply wouldn't be interested otherwise. Surely this is a desirable thing? Especially considering that Real Roleplaying is a rather advanced stage for a player; the vast majority of newbies are used to numbers and squares and don't feel comfortable at all with role-playing. A kind of soft start, if you wish (remember that D&D is an entry game). I don't know if this is actually the case... food for thought.

An interesting thing of note is that most of the participants in this thread have (to my knowledge) been playing for a while; most of us prior to 3E's release based on replies here and other threads we've all participated in. I'd be curious to know how many posters here lean (or stand directly within) the Deep Immersive style that discovered D&D after 1999. All this speculation about what the rules inspire or encourage is kinda moot unless we actually have people posting statements akin to "I've been playing since 2002 and our preference is..."

Would kind of settle the debate, don't you think?

Yeah, it would. I doubt that anything else could.

Personally, I started playing with OD&D, moved to 2E after 5 years or so, and then I moved to 3E when it was out. I played lots of other games, but the total time spent on all of them together is still less than what I spent playing some incarnation of D&D. We did no roleplaying to speak of while playing OD&D, did some in 2E, and do a lot now with 3E.

Now, I haven't brought editions into the equation yet. I have an opinion about that, but I'll write it later in some other post.