What ever happened to "role playing?"

[Desdichado]

How long ago were you a new player?

I dunno. Late 70s? Early 80s? Depends on when you count it -- first time I played, or when did I really get serious about it?

How long did it take you to become a good (or at least passable) DM?

I don't know that I am one yet. Still, as some have noted, I don't know that this was necessarily "bad" GMing, or simply incompatible GMing from Loki's preferred style. Loki, you still around? I'd like to hear some more about this.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, but my theory is that the advent of 3E and 3.5 have made D&D more accessible and cooler to the modern day nerd. At the same time (there are lots of these people at my school) the modern day nerd/D&D player is no longer so smart. There are a lot more people, and thus a lot more "dumb" people (typically powergamers/munchkins) playing and DMing today.
PS: feel free to bash me since I'm only 15 and my ideas may be naive

I mark part of it up to better availability. Back in the day there just weren't that many places that carried the books. Waldenbooks might carry the odd book but for the most part you really had to look around for that creepy store that carried the full line of books. If you didn't go to the store you were forced to mail order which took several weeks (6-8) to get your order. Mainstream folks kind of avoided those stores as the one I remembered from the late 70's reminded me of a "Head Shop". Also, back then people who played kind of reveled in the "alternative" nature of role-playing... wearing shirts with pentagrams and growing nasty looking facial hair. They embraced the "forbidden" view of D&D. If you weren't that type of player then you were a closet fan... you didn't openly want people to know you played. Doing so would mean that you admitted to being a nerd and a deviant.

Nowadays, pretty much every mall bookstore will carry a book or two. You can order pretty much everything you need from Amazon and you can get it the next day if you want. With the internet it is easier to find groups in your local area... you used to have to try to convert your non-gaming friends. The myths of D&D causing suicide and satan worship have been dispelled and the "alternative" nerds of the late 70's/early 80's have grown up and are todays doctors/lawyers/professionals... it has been moved into the main stream by the folks who knew it best and know that there is nothing to fear from it.

I think that the earlier editions forced more role-playing as combat really wasn't so miniatures focused as it is now. I never used miniatures prior to 3E. When I (the DM) pull out my Battlemat my Players switch into Tactical Wargame mode and cease to role-play. This is why I've put away my Battlemat and don't use it except in particularly large and confusing battles.

Disclaimer: These are personal observations and opinions and don't in any way insinuate that I believe that these statements apply to every game/gamer in known existance.

 

[Psion]

american badass this is not.

I'm wondering if anyone else gets that reference...

 

[WizarDru]

I'm wondering if anyone else gets that reference...

Not I, Brer Rabbit.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I don't think that 3e encourages "roll-playing" any more than other edition of D&D. 1st Edition had EGG modules with killer dungeons, and 2nd Edition had unbalanced class kits and the Player's Option books.

My view of roll-playing isn't nearly as dim as some people here, though. I'm currently participating in two combat-heavy campaigns (one as a player, one as a DM) that focus on fighting and adventuring, and they've both been incredibly fun to take part in. I once tried a "role-playing" campaign that focused on story and character development, and by the second session everybody was bored out of their skulls.

Note that this isn't a slam on people who do prefer roleplaying-heavy campaigns. I just don't hold to the common belief that "deep immersion storytelling" is an inherently superior style of play to "hack 'n slash."

 

[barsoomcore]

Loki -- broaden your horizons. Or take up the DMG yourself and run a game YOUR way. You just might find you like running games even more than playing them. It's less work than you think (and more work than you think, I'm not sure how that happens but it seems to be the case) and if not always FUN, always ADDICTIVE.

There's really as many types of campaigns as there are DMs. If you're finding everyone's the same, keep looking. Trust me, you'll find people with ideas you never considered viable having all sorts of fun doing things you don't understand.

It's kind of like going to Japan, that way.

When considering what makes any given campaign take on the tone it possesses, the importance of the system in use is insignificant compared to the importance of the personalities involved. People can do things to rules you wouldn't believe. Rules do very little to people.

 

[ichabod]

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, but my theory is that the advent of 3E and 3.5 have made D&D more accessible and cooler to the modern day nerd. At the same time (there are lots of these people at my school) the modern day nerd/D&D player is no longer so smart. There are a lot more people, and thus a lot more "dumb" people (typically powergamers/munchkins) playing and DMing today.
PS: feel free to bash me since I'm only 15 and my ideas may be naive

How can you hope not to offend anyone by calling them dumb? If you feel the need to insult people who find different things fun in RPGs, you're a lot more than naive.

 

[ledded]

Welcome, Loki! it sounds like your DM was a dink.

Seriously, I wouldn't blame this issue on 3e or 3.5. The problem of "roll" playing has been consistent in every edition of the game. For me, I saw it most in 1e. Lots of games still have great stories and roleplaying and fun; I think you've just gotten hammered by a spate of bad luck. If you have a chance, swing by the story hour forum for examples of good play.

I have to agree with the 'Cat here.

Sure, these kinds of scenarios have their place and I've trudged through a bunch of them, but the DM should try to be a bit more accomodating and less stereotypical; instantly assigning you to a support role regardless of your character idea is just not fun unless that's who you want to be.

But it's always been there in one way or another. Sure Tomb of Horrors was one of the nastiest modules ever made, but we took it and integrated it into our world and our story and therefore got some roleplaying value out of it.

It sounds like you wanted more role and less roll, and there's nothing wrong with that; me, I favor the roleplay aspect but like some kind of conflict or action (not necessarily combat).

I'd take Piratecat's advice and check out some of the Story Hours, D&D and non-D&D based. His story is a great example of a group of high level characters who roleplay while mightily smacking all that is evil, with a twisted and nefarious RBDM constantly thinking up interesting and spellbinding twists for them. There are plenty of others out there that sound like great games to be in.

Hang in there, you'll find the game you like one day. I've been lucky; I've played with the same group of great roleplayers for 4 years now, every week, and with every different game we play there is always a lot of fun and excitement to go around.

 

[SSquirrel]

Heh it's funny...the game I just started in has a guy who JUST bought 3.5 and the only 3.0 he'd done was KOTOR and Neverwinter Nights. He had played 2nd Ed as well, but had never GMed. I've played for 17 years but didn'twant to GM as I don't GM often and am about to start a campaign in my other group and don't want to burn out with 2 groups. The rest of our group is made up of a total newbie who liked old school Might & Magic and such comp games and wanted to try it, a couple that has played lots of Shadowrun, Earthdawn, some CoC and possibly RIFTS, but no D&D since 2E, one girl I'm not sure of, me, my wife who has played Rolemaster, White Wolf and CoC as well as D&D over the last 3 years in 3.0 and our gf who has played pretty much the same as her.

Our new DM is an actor and thus wants lots of RPing and he's running the early Necromancer adventures (Wizard's Amulet, Crucible of Freya and Tomb of Abysthor...on Freya now) and the group is fabulous. Lots of good RPing and fun, it took us about 9 hours for Wizard's Amulet b/c of all the RPing and I've seen reviews complain it's a 3 hr adventure heh. Newbie DM but knows what he wants and the group is happy to go along and it's great.

Just wanted to post a counterpoint to the whole "newbie DMs can really suck sometimes" angle *grin*

Hagen

 

[takyris]

Ditto the folks who said that this was one part "type of game" differences and one part "DM arms race" issues and one part "far too many people". I agree with Felon: It was an Orc and Pie adventure, and that doesn't seem to be what you were after. Having the orcs maximize their tactics is actually good roleplaying on his part, assuming that the orcs have average intelligence, but having them be immune to morale penalties (ie, fighting to the death of the last orc instead of running away once half the group is down) may be odd (unless they're cultists or something), and having them be the same level as the party and greater in number is not wonderful as a DM, unless his goal was to convince you to leave.

If my team ran into that kind of resistance, they'd think, "Hm, they seem out of our league. We head back to town and either hire mercenaries or look for some other way to solve this... or we just ditch it as impossible for us."

Well, no, maybe not. If my team ran into a party of orcs that were their level and outnumbered them by half... they'd be dead. My tactics are better than that.