What ever happened to "role playing?"

[milotha]

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.

I too have witnessed a similar trend with gamers that have been playing since 1e. They had moved on to 2e and happily embraced a more role-playing style. Then happily moved on to 3e due to better mechanics, where the game slowly descends into a roll play fest. I've then watched these gamers go, D&D isn't a good game because it isn't a true role-playing game. They then leave the game for another system like Storyteller. It's sad.

I find it funny that people are both arguing that 3.X is good because it allows non role-players to roll play out the social skills, and yet at the same time that the social skills don't discourage role-playing. You can't have it both ways. If you want D&D to be a role-playing game, you need an incentive to get people out of roll playing and into role-playing.

 

[takyris]

I too have witnessed a similar trend with gamers that have been playing since 1e. They had moved on to 2e and happily embraced a more role-playing style. Then happily moved on to 3e due to better mechanics, where the game slowly descends into a roll play fest.

Odd. I've noticed the opposite. The rules have given some of my players who would ordinarily stick with fighters or quiet clerics the chance to play bards or socially strong rogues, and they've grown more confident with roleplaying through doing so.

And, if we're going for anecdotal evidence, then I should also note that one of my players was the son of God, and he said to me, "Wow, the social skill system of the d20 system doesn't discourage roleplaying!" So I believe I win the anecdotal evidence war, because really, what trumps the son of God as far as anecdotal evidence?

(By the way, if the son of God wants to play in your campaign, avoid comments about clerics being too powerful...)

I've then watched these gamers go, D&D isn't a good game because it isn't a true role-playing game. They then leave the game for another system like Storyteller. It's sad.

Of course, Storyteller has rules for social activities that are just as laid-out as the social rules in D&D. In Storyteller, however, the GM is officially directed to lay out the story with the use of social skills to bypass certain obstacles in mind. If you look through the 3E DMG, I believe you'll find sections about letting social skills bypass combat-planned encounters, and getting good XP and everything. DMs starting D&D with 3E might well look at that and plan better, more social-skill-friendly adventures than the DMs who've been playing since OD&D and know that D&D is about finding ugly monsters, killing them, and taking their stuff. The official use of social skills as a mechanism that can alter situation might well be a powerful step forward for social skills, making them officially part of the game and making it officially a good idea to make situations that are best resolved through said skills, just as a good DM wants to make certain situations that are best resolved by Hide checks (or Invisibility spells), Climb checks (or levitate spells), or Open Lock checks (or Fireball... er... Knock spells). A good DM, by the rules as bloody written, makes social skills, and the attendant roleplay element, not only allowable in the game, but essential to the adventure*.

* If that's the kind of adventure that DM and his players want to run. Some groups want low combat and lots of roleplaying. Some want lots of skill checks. Some want lots of combat. Some want lots of overland travel and description. Some want to just teleport to the next plot bit. There's nothing wrong with a DM who says "screw social skills, this is gonna be a fight-a-thon", unless he doesn't make it clear to his players that he's running a fight-a-thon, and unless he doesn't listen to what his group wants before deciding upon a fight-a-thon campaign.

I find it funny that people are both arguing that 3.X is good because it allows non role-players to roll play out the social skills, and yet at the same time that the social skills don't discourage role-playing. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, yes, you can. There's nothing in those two statements that is directly contradictory. A player who is not an experienced roleplayer can use the social skills as a stepping stone, but the system of balanced and open enough that a strong roleplayer will only be hampered by it if he tries to play a character without the skill ranks he's trying to convey -- that is to say, if said roleplayer is trying to be a stinking munchkin.

Believe me, I've watched an amazingly charismatic player smile at me and then say something hilariously stupid and unflattering because his character had a Charisma of 10. When he wants to play a smooth-talking social powerhouse, he plays a bard or rogue and goes to town, and he is truly scary to behold.

If you want D&D to be a role-playing game, you need an incentive to get people out of roll playing and into role-playing.

My group doesn't -- well, I correct myself; my group needs no rewards beyond the "solving encounters through communication and social skills" stuff that's, y'know, written right there in the DMG, in which the party gets XP for getting past an encounter and doesn't lose hit points, spell slots, or item charges in the process. Or do you want XP for roleplaying stuff that actually doesn't affect the game? You want extra bonus XP for talking in character? Why is your group so hung up on getting rewards? Sounds kinda like rollplaying disguised as roleplaying, since we're getting so comfortable slinging these derogatory terms around. "Sure, we want to delve deep into our characters' psyches, provided we get XP for doing so." I mean, really.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So I believe I win the anecdotal evidence war, because really, what trumps the son of God as far as anecdotal evidence?

Atheism.

 

[takyris]

Side note: I just realized what was really bugging me here.

There's no differentiation being made, in many of the "D&D is just rollplaying" arguments, between "roleplay" and "success". Most of the complaints I'm hearing boil down to "my character couldn't win without having the scores to do that social stuff, and that's not fair". And that's what really grates on me.

1) As soon as you make roleplaying about winning, about gaining levels and furthering the plot and getting more stuff, you're cheapening it -- and the people in the group who would roleplay will find their voices drowned out by every mediocre roleplayer in the group shouting, "I'm feeling angst right now!" in hellish unison, often while wearing a black T-shirt with an ankh prominently displayed.

2) I haven't heard anything about people roleplaying a low-charisma character and running into any trouble with it. I mean, you guys want roleplaying to matter more, right? C'mon, I'm sure somebody made Charisma their dump-stat once or twice. My group currently has two Cha10 and one Cha8 person, and they just love saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. The Cha10 guys are clueless and direct, respectively, and the Cha8 guy is just incredibly abrasive. We play point-buy. Everyone chose these ability scores for themselves. They're having a great time. They don't expect to win by social skill rolls, because they didn't put the points there -- and they give each other grief in-character, set each other up for hilariously socially inept one-liners, and enjoy themselves a ton. The face-man in the group is the one who wins with social skill rolls, but that certainly doesn't mean that nobody else is roleplaying. If that's not happening in your group, then, well... your group has gotten into the habit of doing nothing except that which leads as quickly as possible to victory, with no side-trips for roleplaying along the way. Your group would, by that definition, be a bunch of rollplayers. Sucks etre vous.

3) Social skills should be required in order to win, even with roleplaying. Just like you wouldn't let a 3rd-level wizard cast Meteor Swarm because he roleplayed it really well, you shouldn't automatically give somebody the keys to the castle just because their Cha10, no-social-skills character made a good point with the royal seneschal. To do otherwise is essentially to cheat. To confuse roleplaying with victory is to completely misunderstand what roleplaying is, and to pervert one of the most important parts of the game.

 

[takyris]

Atheism.

Frell.

Um, I also had Stephen Hawking. The son of God rolled the dice for him, but he did all the roleplaying himself. He also said that the d20 system didn't hamper roleplaying, based on his Nobel-prize-winning analysis. Then he said that the son of God was totally bogarting his dice karma, and Jack Nicholson (the Academy-Award-winning actor, who also plays and my game, and who also said that the d20 system didn't hamper roleplaying) laughed so hard that milk came out his nose.

 

[S'mon]

"As soon as you make roleplaying about winning, about gaining levels and furthering the plot and getting more stuff, you're cheapening it"

(Warning: gonna use Ron Edwards G/N/S words now)

No, we're just playing a Gamist, success-oriented game, which is what D&D does best. I'm no Simulationist player interested only in exploring the State of Being an angst-ridden vampire (or elf) - I like to 'step on up' and crush the orcs, whether by my mighty sword (hi Hong!) or a bit of dirty-Harry style "Feeling lucky, punk?" Intimidation (roleplay backed up by points in Intimidate skill, and hopefully a good roll!).

From stuff you've said here & elsewhere takyris it seems to me you're probably an excellent GM with an uncommonly good grasp of the rules and the writers' intent, although personally I would never use the "play out the dice roll" approach you advocate, which I don't think was the intended approach of Tweet & co (though I could be wrong).

I don't want to come across as a 'role-wimp' - in fact I left (A)D&D during 2e, I found its "Sim-drifted" style unsatisfying. I much preferred the pure Gamism of 1e. In 1e though, although most games revolved around killing things and taking their stuff, the idea that social interaction could be resolved purely with a die-roll, without roleplay, didn't exist. Sure you could kill the Wizard, BUT if you wanted to talk to the wizard you _had_ to roleplay it!

Edwards and co at the Forge think that the more mechanics you have for something, the more you encourage it (same as w reward mechanism). So lots of combat rules = lots of combat, lots of roleplay rules = lots of roleplaying. I disagree w the latter analysis; in-character roleplaying in my experience, because the players can do it themselves (unlike combat or spellcasting) is an area that doesn't _need_ rules at all. Most of the PBEMs I've run only had rules for combat & other physical actions, yet were 99% roleplaying to 1% hack & slash - the PBEM format encouraged that, the absence of rules didn't discourage it.

Does that mean that having rules for character interaction (Diplomacy, Bluff etc skills) is a bad thing? I think, not necessarily. I believe it _can_ encourage people not only to

1) roleplay in-character, but
2) to play characters distinctly different from themselves

Those are two different things! In 1e we routinely role-played in-character, but usually our characters were ourselves (or occasionally an alcoholic dwarf). 3e does seem to encourage (2), the playing of characters different from ourselves, which is what a lot of people seem to mean when they claim 3e promotes roleplaying - the unpleasant, unlikable player can now play the charming charismatic bard. But 3e encourages this playing of unlike-characters partly by enabling an approach where players don't do (1) at all!

I like (2), it's cool, but (1) is much more important to me. Given a choice between them I choose (1).

 

[James Heard]

What if we ARE alcoholic dwarves though?

 

[hong]

But 3e encourages this playing of unlike-characters partly by enabling an approach where players don't do (1) at all!

So?

I like (2), it's cool, but (1) is much more important to me. Given a choice between them I choose (1).

So?

 

[hong]

I find it funny that people are both arguing that 3.X is good because it allows non role-players to roll play out the social skills, and yet at the same time that the social skills don't discourage role-playing. You can't have it both ways. If you want D&D to be a role-playing game, you need an incentive to get people out of roll playing and into role-playing.

Your entire argument hinges on a specific definition of "roleplaying" which is not universal, and never has been. Therefore, your argument is null and void when it comes to convincing someone who doesn't use that definition.

 

[S'mon]

So?

So?

So you, Hong, are wrong, and we are right, and your game is a deficient, defective form of D&D, thus your opinions are valueless whereas our opinions, being those of an educated "role-play elite", are the opinions that should be followed unquestioningly (certainly unquestioned BY YOU) by everyone for all time.