What ever happened to "role playing?"

[S'mon]

GOOD. You know what? I do things exactly as you describe (give some in-game detail, then make the roll). I don't need a ruleset to hold my hand. I can do just fine putting my own character-interaction meat on the bones of the abstract framework that is the rules.


Hong "MORE ELITIST THAN BENDY NOULG" Ooi

Nice kitten.

 

[hong]

Nice kitten.

AAAARGHH!!1

No way I'm sharing a pussy with you, Oxford boy!

 

[S'mon]

AAAARGHH!!1

No way I'm sharing a pussy with you, Oxford boy!

Nice kitten.

 

[hong]

Nice kitten.

That's the worst roleplaying I've ever seen.

 

[IceBear]

Y'know, I know you were replying to Milotha, but to this...
I gotta say, I love it when someone resorts to name calling. I'd also like to take this time to say that being called an "elitist" bugs me about as much as being called "greedy" bothers Donald Trump.

In other words, I've earned it.

So have I

If you thought I was calling anyone an elitest to bug you, then you misunderstood. I don't consider calling someone an elitest name calling. In any hobby there are certain classifications of the people doing it. I was just restating that you're an elitest (I am too) when it comes to RPGs in hopes that it might remind you to look at things a little less critically. That was all.

Beyond that, I think this conversation has just about burned itself out, especially since the name-calling is starting and I can smell the smoke already. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not people that don't role-play are role-playing.

How it is possible to disagree about whether or not people that don't role-play are role-playing, but we obviously are disagreeing about whether or not people that don't role-play are role-playing.

So, I guess we should all just go back to play our role-playing games...

Whether or not we're role-playing, of course.

I agree, who can tell another group what is or isn't roleplaying or fun for them

Sorry if you thought I was calling you names, but I honestly wasn't.

 

[IceBear]

Bendris - after reading lots of good stuff by takyris in support of the rules & explaining how they're actually meant to work (eg on a recent thread about using the Bluff & Diplomacy skills) I think your best point was your earlier one that it's not the d20 mechanics per se that are at fault, rather an attitude that 3e seems to encourage - perhaps by the way the 3e books are written - that actual roleplay is ancillary & unnecessary to the playing & enjoyment of a "roleplaying game". This may be because many WoTC employees prefer card games & skirmish wargaming to roleplaying. It may be an inverse snobbery directed at World of Darkness-playing "role-wimp" elitists who sneer at D&D simply for being D&D (and I bow to no man in my despite towards that lot!). It may be a pragmatic marketing decision that downplaying the roleplaying element of RPGs is the way to sell more PHBs to the videogame generation.

I don't know what it is. There does seem to be something there, though.

I can get more on side with this. I think that WotC wrote their books to use as few words as possible (didn't they lose money on the first printings?) and to be as accessible as possible to a wider audience (I believe it was their plan to increase market share and to get new players). I believe they may have thought it was a waste of space and money to put in a lot of information on roleplaying as:

1) It may discourage those that don't feel comfortable roleplaying to play the game because now they feel they MUST roleplay as per the books (and that would have just been the authors' roleplaying style).

2) People that roleplay will continue to roleplay anyway. The rulebooks should be the rulebooks. They should preach to you on how to roleplay as not everyone roleplays the same way. Besides, how could they sell Dragon magazines with roleplaying advice then

As mentioned, the DMG has a lot more information on roleplaying (like how to use Prestige classes) so they may also feel repeating it everywhere is a waste of space.

 

[WizarDru]

Well, as stated, I just loaned the thing out, but as I recall, it was hardley anything to hoot and holler about. At best, it provided "background" information that, at best, only contributes to the stage rather than making the stage a "living" component of the game in play.

Could you explain the distinction, because I'm not sure I'm following you. The 3E DMG provides the DM with techniques for creating a game, and several different strategies for creating a campaign. It makes the basic assumption that you'll fill in the details, a concept borne out from WotC's research and decades of example of gamers doing just that. The system wasn't created in a vacuum, it merely provides the players what they wanted. My game isn't like Sepulchrave's or (contact)'s, for example. We use the same rules, but each of us attains a different feel and style. WotC knew that most DMs would use the books that way, and focused more attention on the tools the DM needed most.

As for the rest, I want to assume that you are looking at the 1E DMG (when D&D was still close to its wargaming roots), in which case the information was indeed scarce, but, as I stated, was also in its infancy. The stuff I'm referring to became more noticable as the game matured and grew. With 1E, Gygax and company only had a minimal understanding of what they had started; with 2E, the concept of role-play was fully embraced within every element of the system (i.e., the game was presented as a role-playing game where in the purpose was to role-play).

Ah, so you're really only referincing 2E in this discussion. That explains a great deal. Having never played 2E, I can't really comment other than what I've heard here on the boards. I personally think you underestimate Gygax. From the work he's done since, it appears to me that he simply doesn't favor the same style of play, not that he couldn't have designed AD&D differently. He simply prefers emphasis on the mechanics, and assumes that Role-playing is handled with less reference to mechanics, which you is the style you also prefer, if I'm following you.

My initial impression of 2e was that it was a logical outgrowth of 1e...and since I had grown tired of 1e's many weaknesses, we moved on to GURPS, which had already wooed us away. 3E brought so many players back, IMHO, because it shored up all those areas. What you consider a strength of the old system, I consider a major weakness. That's just the difference of our perspectives, I suppose, and that's fine.

Regardless, I guess I just don't see where the rules are to be considered at fault for this. My favorite moments under 1e were part of a homebrew game that was so jerry-rigged, it barely resembled 1e. I don't recall 2e as being regarded as some golden age of Rp-ing...but I do recall 2e being when some of the most interesting settings made their debut. However, my most fond memories of D&D come from pre-2e, and our RPing had nothing to do with the system, it had to do with the characters and the story. Some of the best role-playing moments I've ever had were under GURPS and 3e. My experineces would tend to lead me to believe that the GM and the players are the final arbiters of whether a game will be any good or not, and that has nothing to do with what your ruleset of choice is. YMMV.

 

[billd91]

Bendris - after reading lots of good stuff by takyris in support of the rules & explaining how they're actually meant to work (eg on a recent thread about using the Bluff & Diplomacy skills) I think your best point was your earlier one that it's not the d20 mechanics per se that are at fault, rather an attitude that 3e seems to encourage - perhaps by the way the 3e books are written - that actual roleplay is ancillary & unnecessary to the playing & enjoyment of a "roleplaying game". This may be because many WoTC employees prefer card games & skirmish wargaming to roleplaying. It may be an inverse snobbery directed at World of Darkness-playing "role-wimp" elitists who sneer at D&D simply for being D&D (and I bow to no man in my despite towards that lot!). It may be a pragmatic marketing decision that downplaying the roleplaying element of RPGs is the way to sell more PHBs to the videogame generation.

I don't know what it is. There does seem to be something there, though.

I think there's actually nothing there at all. The 3E rules are no more encouraging of "rollplaying" (by the way, a perfectly valid way of playing any RPG because even if you're relying on dice to determine all social interaction, you are still taking the role of a free-willed individual who can react differently to different situations, you are taking on a role - whether it's an immersion-style role-playing or tactical role-playing may be an interesting question, but both are definitely role-playing) than any other edition. I'm constantly astonished by people who say differently, especially because I've seen debates like these about role-playing in various forums (though mostly off-line before 1990s) since 1st edition.
The character of the game and how much acting, speaking in character goes on, and so on has always been entirely at the whim of the players and DM. The 3E rules, I think, are only different in that they break up the various social interaction skills (diplomacy, bluff, etc) into individual components that can be specialized in rather than rely on the overarching charisma bonus to reaction modifiers in 1st and 2nd editions.
In every edition you could say "I bluff the guard" and resolve it with a die roll if that was what the DM opted to do. 3E is no different.
I don't think the attitude of 3E is significantly different from 1st edition's as far as role-playing vs roll-playing. Maybe 2nd edition era TSR tried a bit harder to have running plotlines and flavor text in their published adventures, but I've certainly seen a lot of comments from people on these boards that those modules were found to be excessively 'railroading' and constrictive. Apparently that didn't fly too well either.
I don't see a significant difference between the core rules and their attitude for role-playing in any edition.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Bendris - after reading lots of good stuff by takyris in support of the rules & explaining how they're actually meant to work (eg on a recent thread about using the Bluff & Diplomacy skills) I think your best point was your earlier one that it's not the d20 mechanics per se that are at fault, rather an attitude that 3e seems to encourage - perhaps by the way the 3e books are written - that actual roleplay is ancillary & unnecessary to the playing & enjoyment of a "roleplaying game".

Yep, this would indeed be the heart of the matter. And I would agree if the opposing stance was the role-play is ancillary & unnecessary to play Dungeons & Dragons. All I'm really disagreeing with is the idea that a lack of role-playing still equates to a Role-Playing Game (see my pending reply to Icebear for more on this...).

This may be because many WoTC employees prefer card games & skirmish wargaming to roleplaying. It may be an inverse snobbery directed at World of Darkness-playing "role-wimp" elitists who sneer at D&D simply for being D&D (and I bow to no man in my despite towards that lot!). It may be a pragmatic marketing decision that downplaying the roleplaying element of RPGs is the way to sell more PHBs to the videogame generation.

I think all of this had, to some degree, something to do with it. Indeed, where people are asking us to point out hostility towards role-play, there isn't any (aside from clearly biased posting and moderating practices on the WotC boards, that is). However, there is a completely dismissive approach to role-play, and it's this dismissiveness that fails to promote inclusion to role-play. As the game becomes more popular, you end up with new gamers that don't even consider role-playing or, when considering it, they find the concept greeted with posts relating horror-stories of Shakespearian Thespianism and White Wolf angst and other comments that make the concept appear unappealing, unacceptable, or, at worst, the purview of other game systems, and that this is coming from people that have played the game for years.

Again, though, this is related to my actual experience at the WotC boards. That said, it doesn't surprise me that, here, people are of a completely different view, as their experiences have probably not had this facet of the community rub on them to the point of irritation. Indeed, like I posted earlier, I came here because, aside from 2-3 individuals, this place is far less irritating, and the Ignore function handles those individuals quite nicely. For instance, most of the people of the opposing camp have all posted examples of Diplomacy, Bluff, etc., being used as a means of resolving role-play rather than avoiding it. (I was indeed about to agree with Icebear on that until I saw the Elitist comment, see next post...) This is pretty much how I use them (and posted so earlier in this thread). However, my experience at the WotC boards found that suggesting such usage over there doesn't just get you into a debate, it gets you flamed! Or they just call you a troll just for bringing it up.

 

[IceBear]

You know, I really feel bad that you took the elitist comment as an insult instead of a splash of cold water that I meant it as.

I classify gamers (loosely) as casual, serious, and elitist. I consider myself an elitist gamer when it comes to D&D. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I just have to remind myself that my attitudes have derived from my experiences and love of the game that a casual gamer may not have.

Again, I REALLY apologize if you took it as namecalling. I will admit that I wrote that quickly and it probably came out more harshly than I meant. It was my elitism attitude that made me not consider that you've had bad experiences that have lead you to your opinions, and for that I apologize. I honestly feel very bad