What ever happened to "role playing?"

[MerricB]

I just think it's rather simple logic that No Role-Play = No Role-Playing Game.

The other part of that is No Rules = No Role-Playing Game as well!

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Fair 'nuff, but maybe you're seeing a problem that doesn't so much exist. Maybe people see all of it -- read every book cover to cover and note the parts that stand out in thier minds. And maybe they see it, and aren't interested in it. And maybe that's the majority. And maybe *that's* who the designers designed the game for -- the majority, the things that stick out, the things that a lot of people would find the most fun, because that would make them profitable as a company.

It could be that no one is forgetting these -- just that they think that feats, prestige classes, and "power ups" are a lot more fun than immersing oneself fully in an alternate reality.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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?

I wouldn't know... I was just pulling a system out of my arse as an example. I could have easily said Cyberpunk.

Seriously, I flipped through a V:tM book once, and a thread a few weeks back had me take a good look at Exalted, but I don't actually own any of these or had them in-hand long enough to know. I just know that I've heard/read the d10/Storyteller games being referred to as a game for "angst-ridden thespians", so it seemed the ideal example to use for people leaving d20/3E in search of "more".

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.

Well said... Ehr, written.

That is an interesting observation about the implied/default setting. And that's yet another difference between the various editions. Sure, 1E/2E assumed Greyhawk just like 3E does, but the constant reminder that "individual games/compaigns can/will vary" and similar statements kept the mind-set of the rules from locking-down onto any distinct pattern or methodology (You would get that from the group and/or setting, and often did so with the knowledge that the next group/setting would likely be different).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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

A bit behind in your Star Trek Lore, ain't ya?

Seriously, I do see what you're saying, so allow me to rephrase: While D&D evolved into a game were RP was as important (or more so considering that RP was built into the system on several levels) as mechanics, the fact that the system can now be played without role-play feels like a step backwards as an RPG despite the improved mechanics.

Which, consequently, is why I see two games within the rules, one being an RPG and the other being a tactical miniatures battle game (although I must admit that I didn't put my "finger on it" until last night...).

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

As Hong is on my ignore list, I'm not particularly sure what that school of thought is. At the same time, there's a reason for him to be on that list, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't care.

Fair 'nuff, but maybe you're seeing a problem that doesn't so much exist. Maybe people see all of it -- read every book cover to cover and note the parts that stand out in thier minds. And maybe they see it, and aren't interested in it. And maybe that's the majority. And maybe *that's* who the designers designed the game for -- the majority, the things that stick out, the things that a lot of people would find the most fun, because that would make them profitable as a company.

It could be that no one is forgetting these -- just that they think that feats, prestige classes, and "power ups" are a lot more fun than immersing oneself fully in an alternate reality.

And, as I said back on page one, that it appeals to the majority is not a bad thing. However, my point of the idea of RP being lost in the "sea" of mechanics is that a good number of players (those that would at least attempt to role-play, specifically) have no point of reference in which to do so. Even the points of the game that would be role-play are presented in a strictly-mechanical context by way of Intimidate, Bluff, and Diplomacy and thus point away from RP rather than promoting it.

As several people have said (including myself), good role-players aren't instantly "templated" onto new players the first time they sit at the table. It takes time, experience, and experimentation. But the question I would ask is, "Do the rules seem to quicken this process or detract from it?" And, I must admit, if I was looking for an RPG (specifically), and my introduction to D&D was 3E, I'd have likely passed it up based on the rulebooks. Granted, another d20 game might have caught my attention (as many like WoT, Bab5, Conan, etc., have a history of literature, movies, and television to give a "role" introduction before even seeing the game), or I might have moved on to something else entirely (the aforementioned WoD setting and the d10/Storyteller system, for instance).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The other part of that is No Rules = No Role-Playing Game as well!

Well, reread the sentance I wrote before the one you quoted me on. You might have missed something.

 

[Zappo]

I wouldn't know... I was just pulling a system out of my arse as an example. I could have easily said Cyberpunk.

Seriously, I flipped through a V:tM book once, and a thread a few weeks back had me take a good look at Exalted, but I don't actually own any of these or had them in-hand long enough to know. I just know that I've heard/read the d10/Storyteller games being referred to as a game for "angst-ridden thespians", so it seemed the ideal example to use for people leaving d20/3E in search of "more".

Heh... well, I know you understood what I was trying to say, but I'll clarify anyway for completeness: games with massive rules for social encounters, emotions and dramatic scenes are generally considered to be good for "deep immersion roleplaying". I think this suggests that the few social rules of D&D are a good thing after all. (It may be worth adding that I think Storyteller exceeds in the opposite direction - too many rules dictating what my character wants and feels).

That is an interesting observation about the implied/default setting. And that's yet another difference between the various editions. Sure, 1E/2E assumed Greyhawk just like 3E does, but the constant reminder that "individual games/compaigns can/will vary" and similar statements kept the mind-set of the rules from locking-down onto any distinct pattern or methodology (You would get that from the group and/or setting, and often did so with the knowledge that the next group/setting would likely be different).

Hm... odd, I think that previous editions had a much stronger metasetting, making deviation from it more difficult than the toolbox-style 3E. Think at the class/race restrictions, for example.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Think at the class/race restrictions, for example.

Ah, but these were altered in several of the published settings (Al'Qadim Dwarven Sorcerers, for example), serving as examples of modification/customization rather than bolt-locked restrictions. (Although, personally, I prefered the variant that had advancement slow-down after reaching max level instead of screaching to a halt...) In comparison, we now have the opposite standard: Everything should be available to every race, and good luck talking some of these players in accepting anything less.

 

[Quasqueton]

I wonder if Bendris Noulg is really this deluded, or if he is just trolling. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and think he is trolling. He's doing well at it too, unfortunately, keeping this ridiculous concept alive and this thread going for page and page.

Quasqueton

 

[hong]

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.

If people are having fun, why should they care whether or not Bendy Noulg thinks it's a roleplaying game?

 

[hong]

As Hong is on my ignore list, I'm not particularly sure what that school of thought is. At the same time, there's a reason for him to be on that list, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't care.

Sure you don't, Bendy. Sure you don't. Heh heh.