Zappo said:
Right. So? As long as he doesn't annoy Real Golfers, where's the problem?
With my son? Nothing, really.
(A bit of advice, though... Never ever ever called a Golf player a "golfer". They resent it--at least, the rich ones I caddied for did. You don't call Football players "Footballers", after all.)
My point is that, eventually, as role-play is removed from the game, you cross a treshhold where you are no longer playing an RPG but are instead playing a tactical miniatures battle game. Which isn't necessarily bad, so long it's understand that
that is what's occuring.
At the very least, I have a hard time considering a game that doesn't involve any sort of effort to role-play a role-playing game.
Think of it like this: Battletech presented a miniatures (card-stock stand-ups, whatever) battle game in which you commanded heavy mecha armaments around a battlefield conducting warfare. However, with Mechwarrior, that game progressed into an RPG, where the pilot's skill was now able to influence the use of a mech as well as provided a gateway to playing within the setting but off of the battlefield. This, to me, is a clear illustration of the difference between a tactical miniatures battle game (Battletech) and an RPG (Mechwarrior).
3E, through it's design, is both of these in one. However, the game is presented as an RPG in-total, and I don't believe this is the truth. If there is no effort to role-play, it's not an RPG.
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.
I certaintly don't expect people to meet them. After all, if I joined a group and found that it was, indeed, a tactical miniatures battle game and not a role-playing game, I'd be mature enough to admit that *I* don't meet the parameters for that group. At the same time, I'd be a little blustered about being invited to a miniatures game that was advertised as an RPG.
Role-players taking the ridicule? Never happened once in my life, not by anyone above 12. It's usually the opposite.
Actually, I used to hang out at a particular "official" website that, if you mentioned having a leaning towards RP-focused games, you'd be swamped on by dozens, automatically accusing you of being a "thespian", claiming that I ignore the rules (when they wouldn't have a clue if I did or not), and so forth. That a designer of 3E was posting similar crap, and that the moderators were obviously unwilling to do anything about that (yet were immediately involved if a debate turned
against these people), was a clear sign of the company-line in regards to such thing.
Yes, I know, such things don't happen here too often (that's why I come here, after all, and why I barely even lurk there anymore). But I consider the situation, via my personal experience, to be undeniable (although I concede that those not sharing my experience may not see the situation from the same angle).
If roleplaying is an "effort", as opposed to something you like doing, I too wonder why I should do it, reward or not.
Just about anything we do is an effort. Hell, min/maxing and powergaming are an effort, but no one questions whethor or not they should do it (beyond, of course, determining if they like doing it or not). After all, I like my job, but it's an effort. I like raising my kids, but it's an effort. I like tending to my yard, but it's an effort.
In short, just because something is liked doesn't mean it stops being an effort to do. Also, don't confuse effort with "working yer arse off to do it".
Yup. Newbies. And before long, they either stop doing it, or leave the group. Treating adults like adults works.
I agree. As such, I would hope that I can speak as an adult on the boards and be honest about it.
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.
But, see, I'm not claiming that either is true. What I am saying is...
First, that players that don't want to role-play don't really want to play an RPG.
Second, that a game played without role-playing isn't a role-playing game.
I just want folks to be honest about
how they play representing
what they are playing. In this case, if they aren't role-playing, then they are in fact playing a tactical miniatures battle game and not a role-playing game. This isn't an attempt to stimey, persecute, or even alienate everybody; Just a desire to see that this division does indeed exist and that pretending that they are, indeed, the same thing is just rediculous.
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.
Agreed.
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.
This would be fine
if some platform was presented from which to move from one to the other. Something, in print, from the source. Not just articles in a magazine (that someone might or might not be subscribed to), but something
within the game. The problem I see is that the "noobs" come into the game, with no encouragement or motivation to role-play. They hit various boards (particularly the "official" boards) and see things like "thespian" "wannabe Shakespears" and other derogatory terms being labeled onto those that prefer role-play (which, I admit, is true in
some cases, but unfortunately the terms are used in prejudicial form that doesn't distinguish one from the other). Then they get invited to an "RP-focused" game and turn it down because they've been spoon-fed a heavily biased and undeniably incorrect view of what such games are like.
Granted, this prejudice has indeed existed for some time, but with todays media (particularly the internet), and with the "official" boards being a magnet for such attitudes, I see a bigger problem then existed earlier. That being that there is little-to-nothing promoting the inclusion or importance of role-play while there is a vast availability of infleunces pushing people
away from it.
See, I don't have a problem with the new player that keeps the game at its most basic components (the tactical miniatures battle game) and then gets bored and leaves. What I have a problem with is the new player that
would have stayed had something "more" been presented to him, but instead was convinced by the culture and the rules that the tactical miniatures battle game was all there was and thus moved on.
Here's my own anecdote... When I came into the game, all I could find to play were the "tactical gamers". Role-play at a minimum; kill the critters and steel their stuff. Okay, fine. And while this was the 1E era, and that RPGs were still in their infancy and thus strongly tied to their wargaming roots, this was to be expected. However, in reading various magazines, I knew there was something more to the game. I knew some gamers down the street, and they clearly made it obvious that more was there, although my being in Jr. High and their being close to college, my P's weren't too keen on me spending my Fridays and Saturdays there. At any rate, I knew more was out there, I just had to find the right group.
Eventually, that did occur, and around this time, 2E hit the scene, and the game had
clearly evolved away from being a tactical miniatures game and was soundly and securely it's own animal. And
this, to me, was a good thing. It showed RPGs as being something different (or, more specifically, it showed that D&D had joined the other RPGs in their seperation from their wargame roots). Yes, 2E made the mistake of assuming that everyone, everywhere, was RPing the same way, and to the same extent, and this led to official material that was completely out-of-whack with many players. But it wasn't
that bad (at least, most of the complaints I've read people make about 2E
never occured in our games, and therefore I blame the players more than the rules).
However, with 3E, we see a knee-jerk reaction from "the source", as it were. While attempting to remove the inadequecies from the rules (i.e., the merging of RP to the mechanics that resulted in abuses made by poor gamers), they have over-reacted, presenting a game
independant and unhindered by role-play, and in-which the elements of role-play are nearly completely absent outside of a few basic stereotypes (with those being the stereotypes that many people are just plain tired of). Combined with the attitude found at the "official" site, you don't just get an environment that fails to inspire more role-play, but actually encourages new players
not to role-play for several reasons.
1. There is no motivational reason within the rules to do so (outside of XP variants, side-bars, magazine articles, and the like).
2. An environment at the "official" site where the "real" role-player is rediculed and belittled for a mutlitude of reasons ranging from "thespianism" to ignoring/not using the rules (which, in most cases, is incorrect to the point of bigotry).
(I had more but my kids bugged me for lunch, so the list stops here for now because I lost my train of thought...)
To sum it up, what I fear for the game is that potentially great role-players will leave the game for lack of role-playing (possible going off to play d10 or some other system), while the tactical miniatures battle gamers will become overly predominant because they believe that they are playing the game "right" (and that, over time, their predominance will make them "right" by default). Personally, I'd rather not see that happen.
