What ever happened to "role playing?"

[hong]

So you, Hong, are wrong,

Are we trying to get into my sig again?

and we are right,

These people get to use the royal "we":

All other clones must wait in line. HTH!

and your game is a deficient, defective form of D&D,

Speaking of clones, Brandon Cope also does this better than you.

thus your opinions are valueless whereas our opinions, being those of an educated "role-play elite",

Ah, a Cambridge boy.

are the opinions that should be followed unquestioningly (certainly unquestioned BY YOU) by everyone for all time.

No, Brandi, it's not going to work, no matter how many clones you use.


Hong "yes, IHBT, GTBOA" Ooi

 

[S'mon]

Oxford, actually. University College.

 

[hong]

Oxford, actually. University College.

Ah, a Cambridge boy, IYKWIM.

 

[S'mon]

Ah, a Cambridge boy, IYKWIM.

???

 

[hong]

???

No, even that isn't going to make my sig.

 

[Zappo]

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.

Maybe because the players now expect restrictions to make sense, rather than being apparently random. A higher bar, if you like. There are plenty of 3E settings that do not allow everything in the PHB for very valid reasons. The Warcraft setting forbids clerics (and halflings IIRC), modifies several other races, changes some other classes. The Ravenloft setting does just as many modifications. When the higher bar of making sense is met, players don't complain.

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.

This is what you get when you learn roleplaying with the carrot/stick method. Take away your reward, and you stop doing it. So 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.

No, you don't. The two statements are not contradictory. See my previous posts.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Maybe because the players now expect restrictions to make sense, rather than being apparently random. A higher bar, if you like. There are plenty of 3E settings that do not allow everything in the PHB for very valid reasons. The Warcraft setting forbids clerics (and halflings IIRC), modifies several other races, changes some other classes. The Ravenloft setting does just as many modifications. When the higher bar of making sense is met, players don't complain.

So, we raise the bar for making detailed, number-driven characters with all their Skills, Feats, and Multiclassing/Prestige Class combos... We raise the bar for tactical combat choices... We raise the bar for what are considered acceptable campaign conditions...

But then we lower the bar for role-playing..?

 

[Zappo]

So, we raise the bar for making detailed, number-driven characters with all their Skills, Feats, and Multiclassing/Prestige Class combos... We raise the bar for tactical combat choices... We raise the bar for what are considered acceptable campaign conditions...

But then we lower the bar for role-playing..?

Why do you say so? It's quite the opposite. Establishing that restrictions must make sense is a roleplaying-related requirement. From a crunch point of view, there is no difference between "you can't play a cleric" and "in the Warcraft setting, there are no traditional D&D-style 'gods' and playing a cleric wouldn't make much sense".

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Why do you say so? It's quite the opposite. Establishing that restrictions must make sense is a roleplaying-related requirement. From a crunch point of view, there is no difference between "you can't play a cleric" and "in the Warcraft setting, there are no traditional D&D-style 'gods' and playing a cleric wouldn't make much sense".

Actually, I'm not complaining about campaign conditions (I'm a major fan of them, as my non-Elf/non-Cleric campaign is testimant to)...

I'm just pointing out that, for a role-playing game, it's kind of ironic that character design, combat, and mechanical restrictions (where applicable) are made more detailed and complex while role-playing is made into a virtual non-factor.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I run a group with serious, heavy roleplaying, but at the same time, smash a barmug in the face, kick in the junk combat.

For the most part, I've found that, like anything else, the rules don't inhibit roleplaying or encourage it.

We don't let the rules make the game. They serve the game. This thread seems a lot like the "Do the rules serve the game?" thread, where people are wondering if the rules should be the end all be all of all the game.

In there, I pointed out the habit that seems to be growing that all non-mechanic prerequisites for feats & PrC's and templates and everything else should be removed.

If roleplaying is so important in gaming, than why are so many people clamoring for the removal of those non-mechanics from the game? Why do you hear the battlecry of "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" whenever the players find out that thier GM won't let them be half-dragon, half-dragon, half-golem, half celestial Sorcerer Rune Mage Barbarian True Necromancer Red Wizard Blackguards?

"But I make all the prerequisites, and everything is supposed to be for the players as well as the GM!" is heard.

I think roleplaying is subtly discouraged because the players can fully audit the GM, the game world, and a lot of the mystery is gone? Before, if the mage tower had a cool floating section on a cloud, it was just accepted, now, there had to be mechanics behind it, it has a certian DC forumulae for dispelling, and even what colour it can be is regulated.

See, it's not the roleplaying that you guys are actually missing out on, it's the over-regulation on everything has a tendency to stifle everything, allowing some to gain what they finally wanted: A game that dances to thier tune with no mystery, nothing unknown, a complete lack of mystery and inherent magic within it.