What ever happened to "role playing?"

[Treebore]

There are definite differences in role play and roll play and just over all game styles/flavor. I have been playing in a good group of people since January. Yesterday I quit to go play in another group running Rokugan. Why did I quit? Because I was having more fun going to these games and BSing/talking, and in turn being disruptive, than I was playing the game. As much as I like the group of people they were there to play a game, I was there to BS, because I didn't like the game(s). So now I am with a new group who has a "style/flavor/whatever" that I like, hopefully, so i will be going to play a game instead of passing the time doing disruptive talking.

They have fun dying and just fighting. I like a character who lasts long enough to set goals and achieve them. Their gaming style/preferences were different than mine. As much as i will miss talking with them, I disliked the game even more and moved on to what I hope are greener pastures. Plus i like talking to the new group of people too.

 

[S'mon]

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...

Hi Bendris! I'm really interested to know who this was - if you don't want to say publicly maybe you could email me at simontmn@ntlworld.com
There used to be an "In-depth Roleplay" board at WoTC - is that gone now? AIR it was more "So, you want to add a bit of basic roleplaying to your minis wargame...", but none the worse for that.

 

[S'mon]

Because it is probably a better perspective than what hong considers roleplaying?

I agree with the Sholari Analysis.

 

[S'mon]

I would have agreed that Bendris might be overstating his case where it not that in my own game campaign, _where I am the GM*_, and where by and large I have an above-average group of players, I have encountered the same problems he's noted. We went through a phase where actual in-character roleplaying had almost died out in my game. I was miserable, and I didn't know why. In hindsight, the 3e mechanics had encouraged us to slip into a form of "roll-play" that just didn't give me what I wanted from the game.

*Been doing it over 20 years, too, so you'd think by now I knew what I wanted.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So long as you are still having fun, understanding that that is what's occuring is irrelevant. One does not need to know what genre a game, movie, book, or other form of entertainment fits to enjoy it. The issue only ariseswhen you slip from one to the other, fial to see it, and cease to have fun. Which brings us to...

I was miserable, and I didn't know why. In hindsight, the 3e mechanics had encouraged us to slip into a form of "roll-play" that just didn't give me what I wanted from the game.

Honestly, you want us to believe that after 20 years in the hobby, how the books are written could lead you to forget to role-play? Things that you'd already absorbed over a couple of decades of experience just fled your head when you got the new books? The new rules didn't remind you enough, and seduced you to the wargaming side of the force, or something?

"These boys need a refresher course! It's all ball-bearings these days!"

I'm sorry if this isn't flattering, but would not a more plausible base explanation be that you folks got distracted, lost a bit of enthusiasm and/or got a bit lazy for a while? It is a bit easy to blame others for things you don't like. Gaming groups do go into slumps that are not caused by the rules...

 

[Zappo]

I'll skip some points where I'd only repeat myself - we'll have to agree to disagree there - and get to where I can say something new.

I'm glad you mentioned D10 (I assume you mean Storyteller). Lots of people consider the WoD games as some of the games that most greatly encourage roleplaying. Yet, the Storyteller system has social mechanics that are way, way more detailed than D&D - and it even has some mechanics for those non-social events we mentioned before. I think this is a final proof that the presence of social mechanics at least doesn't impede roleplaying, isn't it?

Maybe it even helps it, to a point, and this leads me to the considerations about D&D editions. I've started with OD&D, switched to 2E, and switched to 3E. In OD&D, we did basically no roleplaying as we think about it today, not for several years at least. I think the concept was completely absent; the intro adventure was a dungeon with apparently random rooms and no plot, after all. Nearing the end of our OD&D period, we were occasionally doing something different from fighting, but we were still just playing ourselves in different bodies. I attribute that to the sheer amount of time we'd been playing (5 years), and to the fact that we occasionally played other games.

Enter 2E. For a while, nothing changes. As the DM, I'd like the players to roleplay more, but I can clearly see that they see it as a pointless chore.
Around this time, we also started Vampire. That's when I noticed the weird thing: players would do decent to good roleplaying in Vampire and not in D&D, no matter what. And this even though our Storyteller hardly ever gave XP for interpreting the character, or used the rules about regaining Willpower by following your align... sorry, nature/demeanor.
Back then, I believed that carrot/stick was the way to go to get your players to do something, but here was the proof that I was wrong. Why?

Enter Planescape. This is what actually started moving something. A detailed, roleplaying-centered setting, not a system. It showed that you can do exceptional roleplaying in D&D too, and it didn't need rewards for that. That's what prompted people to start making characters that weren't a bunch of numbers, and it did it quickly, too.

My conclusions to this point: you want RP, you must have a good setting. The system can only do so much. It's not D10 that does the magic, it's the WoD. It makes lots of sense - the rules are only your interface with the setting, after all. I wonder if your opinion that 2E is the edition which mostly encourages roleplaying is at least based on this? After all, 2E had all the most original and evocative settings of all D&D.

Enter 3E. Boom. We played a short campaign to learn the rules, and then I said "let's start a new PS campaign", and everyone came up with detailed characters, interesting background, and played them to the hilt. It was... sudden. Compared to what we had before, it was greatness squared, and it keeps getting better (and it eventually infects newbies, too). Before 3E, we never dreamt of having entire sessions without combat.

So there's more than setting, too. I've been thinking long and hard about this. Here's my opinion: the presence of social skills in D&D 3E says to players "There Is More Than Fighting" on some deep level. That, and the fact that XP are awarded for overcoming challenges rather than killing monsters, and a lot of other nuances. 3E is not perfect in this aspect, but it is far superior to previous editions.

Concluding, I think that having 3E and a good setting is the best way to get people to enjoy roleplaying. And no, the metasetting that's implied in the game isn't enough, and a homebrew made by a newbie doesn't qualify either.

 

[S'mon]

Honestly, you want us to believe that after 20 years in the hobby, how the books are written could lead you to forget to role-play? Things that you'd already absorbed over a couple of decades of experience just fled your head when you got the new books? The new rules didn't remind you enough, and seduced you to the wargaming side of the force, or something?

"These boys need a refresher course! It's all ball-bearings these days!"

I'm sorry if this isn't flattering, but would not a more plausible base explanation be that you folks got distracted, lost a bit of enthusiasm and/or got a bit lazy for a while? It is a bit easy to blame others for things you don't like. Gaming groups do go into slumps that are not caused by the rules...

Hm - I dunno. When I started 3e in 2000 with new players, we still had role-playing alright. It was my first time GMing regularly for 8-9 years. Over time the group lineup changed. Some time around late 2002/early 2003 I guess, I had several players who weren't that keen roleplayers and some seem embarrassed to RP. In-character roleplay just sorta vanished. I was keen to keep my players and I really don't think at the time I noticed what was happening. We got into a certain form of play that is viable per the 3e rules, but fundamentally unsatisfying to me. In mid 2003 an excellent new player (Stalkingblue here) joined, and after a few months when she was planning her own game I got discussing DM stuff with her - and I realised what had happened and what was missing.

Yes, it is not entirely the fault of the rules. We're currently running fun 3e games with lots of IC roleplay. I was weak, foolish, whatever. I had at least one poor player (since dropped). However I can't see how the situation could have developed in the first place where it not that 3e appears to present a zero-roleplay approach as an acceptable, non-defective, way of playing the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And this is what's missing from 3E and why it presents itself as a de-evolution of an RPG (regardless of the advancments made in the mechanics) by drawing back to its wargaming roots not just in the rules but in over-all presentation.

There is no such thing as a de-evolution. There is only an evolution in a different direction.

The 3e rules now support playing a role with mechanics that vary based on the role, and allow people who both very much get into character and people who don't an equal chance to shine in social, physical, and combat skills. I in no way consider this a bad thing -- I don't want to force those who don't like to get into character to have to act out a dramatic scene. They can roll a dice, and see the reaction, just like anyone else can. That kind of player may not fit into your game, which is fine. But the kind of player who insists that because he adopted an accent he should get a circumstance bonus to his Diplomacy check is not a player who would fit into my game, where it isn't about how talented a role-player you are, it's about having fun playing a game.

In short: I'm in the Hong school of thought.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But it kinda seems to me that you're overplaying the slippery slope a bit. I understand that you have to base your beliefs on your own experiences, but I'm trying to base my beliefs on the possibility that more than just my own experiences should be counted. I haven't run into the problem at anything anywhere near the level you've described it, and I think you're selling the current system short.

The system? Nah, I don't think so, since I'm definately in the "problem's with the player" camp. On the other hand, I believe that the "cure" is best put into the rules somewhere, and with enough detail to make a difference (although, like someone posted earlier, an in-depth look at role-playing would be a book unto itself (indeed, isn't that what this Robin Law person wrote?). I just think it should get enough mention throughout the books so that it's not forgotten, overlooked, or determined to be irrelevant within the sea of Feats, Prestige Classes, and varioius other Power Ups that are also part of the game.

I think if that were the case, a lot of the discussion of what 3E inspires or doesn't inspire would be moot because then we would know that people's choices are based primarily on their own preferences rather than what's given the most attention by the designers. (Yes, in my proposed "mentioned throughout" model, the Rules would still be the bulk of the material, but those rules would be re-inforced as a tool for role-play rather than the reason for it. Of course, that's half-pushing into the topic of the "Rules should serve the Game" thread...)

There used to be an "In-depth Roleplay" board at WoTC - is that gone now? AIR it was more "So, you want to add a bit of basic roleplaying to your minis wargame...", but none the worse for that.

Yes, that board was started by my recommendation (heh...), but I stopped hanging there as other problems with the community got too irritating for me to deal with any longer.

It was just renamed (about a year ago) as Character Development. The Min/Max Board was also renamed to Character Optimization. Reason being that the boards ended up lending themselves out to the two distinct styles (i.e., you couldn't ask for a simple mechanics boost on the Min/Max board without either (A) getting ripped on for not being super-maxed or (B) got entire character maps when you only wanted help with a single facet, while the In-Depth Board was generally slow, misunderstood, and constantly plagued by a troll that also happened to be a Wizo's husband and thus seemingly free to, well, be a troll--and thus adding to my perception of how "role-players" get treated, I will admit ) and ignoring anything in-between the two. I don't know how they've evolved since that time, but here's the link (looking at them now there does seem to be a bit more traffic then it had a year ago).

So long as you are still having fun, understanding that that is what's occuring is irrelevant. One does not need to know what genre a game, movie, book, or other form of entertainment fits to enjoy it. The issue only ariseswhen you slip from one to the other, fial to see it, and cease to have fun.

Oh, I definately agree that it's irrelevant when it comes to having fun.

However, I don't think it's irrelevant when discussing the game and how it's played. The reason being that, in comparing the various ways we play, some people come up with this idea that a game devoid of role-playing is a role-playing game. I don't care if you are role-playing 3rd Person or 1st Person (Long or Short), it's all role-playing. However, when the game has no role-play (i.e., "I'll let my Diplomacy and the d20 talk for me..."), whether someone is having fun or not is irrelevant; It's not a role-playing game.

Now, like I said, the game is very much written so it can be played to either extreme (even freeform is legit, although the rules-lawyer in me doesn't gel with it personally). I just think it's rather simple logic that No Role-Play = No Role-Playing Game. On the spin side, I also only think this is a problem when a Tactical Miniatures Battle Game is presented as a Role-Playing Game simply because the rules that support both don't clearly demark the difference between them, particularly if the presentation seems to be more in support of one for lack of discussing the other.

 

[MerricB]

Heh. I mostly agree with Zappo.

The kind of role-playing you get in a group is so dependent on the members of that group, and especially the DM. I use the rules for diplomacy checks, bluff checks and sense motive checks all the time. Does that mean my players don't roleplay? Not at all.

They roleplay a great deal, because I give them the opportunity to roleplay.

The ability to roleplay, and to roleplay well, is something that is learnt, not inborn. The more you play with groups that use a lot of roleplaying, the better you get at it. This is regardless of what is in the rules.

As with other people, the least role-playing I did was with AD&D. Why was that? Because I wasn't an experienced role-player. Nor was my DM.

That's the key to this entire business.

Cheers!