What ever happened to "role playing?"

[Toben the Many]

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.

Here's my take on the whole thing.

Everything's a pendulum. The height of the "role-playing" craze came out with Vampire and White Wolf's World of Darkness. People got back into live-action roleplaying. Now, the pendulum has swung back the other way. People are back to the table with their miniatures and maps. But the pendulum will swing back the other way eventually.

I think that people who say that 3rd Edition caters more to "roll" players certainly have a case. The rules are far more complex, more involved, and detailed than they ever have been before. The more rules intense a game is, the more it "caters" to roll-playing. The less rules-intense a game is, the more it "caters" to role-playing...simply because you have alot more room to "make it up as you go."

Now, that being said, I think 3rd Edition, despite its deep rules system, caters more to roleplayers than its predecessors in 1st and 2nd Edition. And I can prove this. Go open your 1st and 2nd Edition Player's Guides and Dungeon Masters guide. How much of those books is dedicated to roleplaying? Next to none. The 2nd Edition Player's Guide has about a page or two on the subject, and the 2nd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide has a chart of NPC personality traits.

In 3rd Edition, there's actually advice about how to create a campaign world, how different characters approach a situation; metagaming; versimmiltude; etc.

So what happened? Why are all of these people going back to rolling instead of roleing? Here's my theory. Back in 2nd Edition, there was a large push towards roleplaying, because the system was soooo loose:

"I want to jump across the chasm!"
"Okay. Um. Roll a Dex check?"
"Why not a Strength check? I'm using my Strength to jump across."
"Um. Sure. Whatever. Wait, aren't you wearing armor?"
"Yeah. So? Can't I try?"
"Um. Okay. But you have a -4 penalty. I guess."

It was loose, but we all loved it. We played it. Winged it. Enjoyed the hell out of it. Then came 3rd Edition. Everyone started back at ground zero. No one knew the rules. No one knew what you had to roll to jump across a chasm (but now they do). So in order to become familiar with the rules again, people sat down, took their time and went by the book. I think it was at that time many of my buddies who were used to the "loose-and-free" mentality of gaming got discouraged.

Now, years later, we're still in that by the book mode. Partly because not everyone is still not 100 percent cool with the rules yet. (Especially because of 3.5) We might be 90 percent cool, or 80 percent cool, but few people are 100 percent cool with the rules.

Those who fear the fate of roleplaying fear not. I feel the pendulum swinging back. You might have to wait a couple of years, though. It'll also depend on how well White Wolf's new World of Darkness works, too.

 

[Zappo]

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...

Ah, ok - I thought we were still on the implied setting. Anyway, this sorta depends on the point of view. The way I see it, having more detail in character design leads to better roleplaying, for example because I can now represent a professional diplomat | casanova | non-spellcasting scholar | nobleman, while before 3E this was simply impossible without reworking the rules. Again, notice that systems that are praised for good roleplaying tend to have a large amount of details. Even D10 has more combat rules than most people think.

...while role-playing is made into a virtual non-factor.

As I've widely explained in this thread, I don't think that's true. IMO, the roleplaying aspect in 3E is at worst not decreased, and at best increased.

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.

I've welcomed this "over-regulation" with open arms, and I'm the DM. I was sick and tired of 2E adventures and plots where every other NPC had access to magic that broke the rules. What do you tell the players when, after defeating the BBEG, they want to make their own floating castle? Or defend their fortress with doors that are impossible to open with anything short of a wish or the right password? Or have permanent spells that cannot be dispelled? Answer: you tell them something lame that equals to "it was a plot device, you can't have it", thus kicking suspension of disbelief in the nuts. The mystery lies in the PCs not knowing the explanation to something - but if the explanation doesn't even exist, that's no mystery, it's just lameness.

 

[Zappo]

I think that people who say that 3rd Edition caters more to "roll" players certainly have a case. The rules are far more complex, more involved, and detailed than they ever have been before. The more rules intense a game is, the more it "caters" to roll-playing. The less rules-intense a game is, the more it "caters" to role-playing...simply because you have alot more room to "make it up as you go."

Uhm, Storyteller has massively more complex psychological/social rules than all editions of D&D put together. Interesting theory, though.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Uhm, Storyteller has massively more complex psychological/social rules than all editions of D&D put together. Interesting theory, though.

At the same time, what disproves that theory only verifies mine: That the rules, provided in a context that promotes role-play, will promote role-play, where as rules that are presented in a context void of role-play, won't.

Even the name ("Storyteller") speaks for itself.

 

[Zappo]

At the same time, what disproves that theory only verifies mine: That the rules, provided in a context that promotes role-play, will promote role-play, where as rules that are presented in a context void of role-play, won't.

Hence the setting-rules synergy which I proposed some posts ago (if by context you mean setting).

 

[diaglo]

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

hong you just came off of my ignore list. am i gonna have to put you back on it.

you really were starting to make some sense on other threads.

now you are losing me again.

must be an East Hemisphere/ West Hemisphere thing.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Hence the setting-rules synergy which I proposed some posts ago (if by context you mean setting).

Honestly, I'm going to say no. By that I mean that the Storyteller rules and the general themes they promote would remain whether they were producing World of Darkness or Mary Poppins (although I'm sure their popularity is definately related to WoD ).

 

[Zappo]

Honestly, I'm going to say no. By that I mean that the Storyteller rules and the general themes they promote would remain whether they were producing World of Darkness or Mary Poppins (although I'm sure their popularity is definately related to WoD ).

Did you know that there is a RPG based on the Street Fighter videogame? Yeah, the hadoken game. Whacking each other in cool ways, and not much else. I think fans are making Mortal Kombat supplements, too. Guess what system it uses? Begins with 'S'. No, I'm not joking.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Did you know that there is a RPG based on the Street Fighter videogame? Yeah, the hadoken game. Whacking each other in cool ways, and not much else. I think fans are making Mortal Kombat supplements, too. Guess what system it uses? Begins with 'S'. No, I'm not joking.

Well, if you wrote a game based on Fiddler on the Roof, how much combat would you include?

Having not seen the game, though (for that matter, I don't remember ever hearing of it), I'm going to make a minor assumption that it does, yet again, give weight to my stance: The same rules, provided in a context void of role-play, don't promote role-play.

Of course, not having seen the rulebooks, I have no way of knowing what context they are applied. I mean, if a game is written to be noting more than Streetfighter-styled kombats, then why would it promote anything else? Although, as I stated earlier, I would have a hard time viewing such a game as an "RPG". A game? Yes. A "Fighting Game"? Most definately. But a "Role-Playing Game"? Heh...

To which I have to ask: Were all those "massively more complex psychological/social rules" included into Streetfighter, or were they trimmed out due to irrelevancy?

 

[Silver Moon]

Lots of games still have great stories and roleplaying and fun....If you have a chance, swing by the story hour forum for examples of good play.

Seconded! My gaming group goes heavy on the role playing. Readers of my current story hour will note that we've now played out nine game nights without a combat encounter.