What ever happened to "role playing?"

[Bendris Noulg]

If you thought I was calling anyone an elitest to bug you, then you misunderstood.

No, I figured you were calling Milotha an Elitist to bug Milotha. But it is a name that's been tossed at me at the WotC Boards (and thus why I consider it "name calling") and so I tend to jump on it when it comes up. If we're going to go with labels, though, rather than name calling, I'll take "In-Depth Rules Lawyer".

(Granted, it's usually my rules rather than the Core Rules, but I'm a stickler for them either way... )

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

Fun I agree with. However, I don't agree that role-playing is as loose in definition as to include moving miniatures on a square-spaced map and declaring social Skill check. Like I've said, there's nothing wrong with playing D&D without role-playing (nor is there a problem with people having fun doing that). At the same time, I feel that, sans the role-playing, D&D becomes changed entirely to a game of declared actions with a random resolution. That very much brings it out of "role-playing" into being nearly identical to a board game. Consider the game Life: At the beginning, you have the choice between diving into Blue Color Work or putting yourself through college, with the spinner determining how well you do at either. Applying the concept that declared action/random resolution equals a role-playing game, Life is an RPG (as are Monopoly, Mouse Trap, and a host of other board games), which is why reducing role-play to that level seems silly.

 

[IceBear]

No, I figured you were calling Milotha an Elitist to bug Milotha. But it is a name that's been tossed at me at the WotC Boards (and thus why I consider it "name calling") and so I tend to jump on it when it comes up. If we're going to go with labels, though, rather than name calling, I'll take "In-Depth Rules Lawyer".

(Granted, it's usually my rules rather than the Core Rules, but I'm a stickler for them either way... )

Fun I agree with. However, I don't agree that role-playing is as loose in definition as to include moving miniatures on a square-spaced map and declaring social Skill check. Like I've said, there's nothing wrong with playing D&D without role-playing (nor is there a problem with people having fun doing that). At the same time, I feel that, sans the role-playing, D&D becomes changed entirely to a game of declared actions with a random resolution. That very much brings it out of "role-playing" into being nearly identical to a board game. Consider the game Life: At the beginning, you have the choice between diving into Blue Color Work or putting yourself through college, with the spinner determining how well you do at either. Applying the concept that declared action/random resolution equals a role-playing game, Life is an RPG (as are Monopoly, Mouse Trap, and a host of other board games), which is why reducing role-play to that level seems silly.

Please see my last post. I don't consider an Elitest as having anything to do with rules. I consider it a title in which your passion for the game and YOUR game in particular, may sometimes cloud your opinions and judgement. I'm VERY guilty of that.

I agree that without "roleplaying" D&D becomes more of a board game or a tactical wargame. But that's my opinion. There are others that disagree with that, and to that I will always say as long as you're having fun I won't tell you that you are wrong. I hope that eventually they will start to roleplay like I did, but they may not. So, I try to put aside my "elitist" views and leave them to experience the game as I once did.

I just disagree that it's the fault of the rulebooks, but given your experiences at WotC forums, I can understand why you feel that way.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Ah, see, here we have two factors that are colliding into the effect we're trying to describe here...

1. The concept that experienced gamers will fill in the details on their own leads to the minimalist approach of discribing the possibilities for the new gamer.

2. The "D&D is kewl" image of 3E marketing both drawing in new players who now have less references to role-playing to encourage it.

See, that's kind of the problem with this discussion; folks are asking for specific examples, where as I believe the situation is caused by a synergy of factors WotC has produced within the community via marketing ("Taking it back to the dungeon!"), buzz-words ("Balance"), and lack of inclusion ("The tools, the whole tools, and nothing but the tools, so help us Hasbro.").

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.

And nothing wrong with that. What I fault is the lack of mention for anything beyond those tools. Yes, it's true, the DMG does talk about this stuff here and there, but one might consider the posts made asking abot the social skills. Most of them are of two camps:

1. GMs griping about their players not willing to role-play.

2. Players griping about their GMs insisting that they role-play.

Kinda speaks for itself, don't it?

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.

Ah, actually, I'm a fan of Gygax. Not as hard-core as some, most assuradly, but his material (even in d20) remains fairly solid even if a tad dry. And one cannot overlook the fact that the man taught many of us to respect our Thesaurus, which is not a small feat.

What I'm talking about though is clear in the evolution of the game. It grew originally out of Chainmail, providing the players with an opportunity to have the leaders and heroes of the Chainmail games to become legendary heroes in mythical-based adventures (0E). It then grew to put more emphasis on the game world environment (1E, the Greyhawk Gazetteer, etc.). It then grew to put more emphasis on long-running campaigns and developing characters beyond their combat potential (2E). This is all part of the evolution of the game I described earlier.

The problem, as I view it, is that 3E moves backwards in its emphasis. That is, the PH is clearly in-tone with 0E (heroic adventures), while the DMG floats between the tone of 0E and 1E (interactive world). Aside from the occassional reference (which are primarily aimed at GMs than players), there's little to nothing to encourage the tone of 2E (long-running campaigns and story-driven character development). I'm not argueing that 3E is bad, nor am I saying that 3E doesn't handle all three "levels" of playing; I'm simply argueing that the rule books, by barely giving a nod towards (what I guess we'll just call...) the "2E tone", the rulebooks will actually cause people to adhere more often to the "0E tone" and "1E tone" than try out or move into the "2E tone".

Combine this with the "Anti-Thespian Patrol" at the WotC boards and the resulting picture is one that's opposed to role-playing rather than supporting it.

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.

No, I agree that 2E had severe flaws, with the "designed as the writer would role-play it himself" issue being exceedingly predominant. At the same time, there was plenty of mention and discussion beyond the broken bits that couldn't be seen as a strength or weakness in the system by virtue of not actually being part of the system but did indeed encourage the emphasis on long-term campaigning using the system.

Regardless, I guess I just don't see where the rules are to be considered at fault for this.

Not the rules; the presentation of the rules with little to no emphasis on using the rules to resolve role-play which results in role-play being ignored in favor of a die roll surrogate.

 

[barsoomcore]

must be an East Hemisphere/ West Hemisphere thing.

I think it's just a Hong/not-Hong thing.

The Storyteller rules and the general themes they promote would remain whether they were producing World of Darkness or Mary Poppins

That's the best idea in this entire thread.

Compare the flavor-text on your average Kit in a 2E product to the flavor-text on your average Prestige Class for a 3E product. Not the rules, here; just the fluff. Consider how the Kits describe their probable role within a campaign and compare it to how Prestige Classes barely even try.

Okay. Let's take a look at... Sword and Fist, shall we? What could be crunchier, munchkinier than a bunch for combat-specific feats and prestige classes, right?

Only there's like an ENTIRE CHAPTER on the "probable role within a campaign" of the included prestige classes.

Bendris, the rules as published aren't on your side. Or else I'm not understanding what it is you think they're missing. 3E rules has EASILY as much exhortation/encouragement/support of role-playing as AD&D did. Give me something to hang this argument off -- page counts, subject matter, anything. But as far as I can see you're standing on empty statements without any supporting facts. If you're going to keep insisting that there's some mysterious "synergy of factors" causing this supposed assault on role-playing, well, you're going to have to accept that other people aren't convinced.

Give me some evidence.

In conclusion, I'll just note that the "2E rawked" threads were just as inevitable as the Milli Vanilli nostalgia. It's not just death and taxes, people.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I honestly feel very bad

Ahgh! No! Don't cry for me, Canada!

Seriously, I meant to deter this issue in my last post to you; the boards running slow prevented me from doing so expediantly. No worries, assuming you see my point (even if you don't agree with it).

 

[IceBear]

I guess because myself and my group are all roleplayers I don't see the same issues in the 3E rulebooks that you do. I mean, from my perspective I don't see major differences in the books, with respect to roleplaying, than I did with the past editions.

I do agree that some of the "fluff" text is missing from some items (kits vs prestige classes) but I don't recall the fluff text in previous editions making me want to roleplay more.

As was said before, experiences differ. I haven't noticed my group slip back into rollplay since 3E came out, others have. I remember starting to get dissatisfied with roleplaying in general before 3E came out, so maybe those groups that noticed this slide were just going through a "disinterest" phase.

I also remember being 12 and starting to play OD&D and we never "roleplayed". It wasn't until we turned 15 or 16 did we start to delve into those areas, and it's my opinion that's what will happen to the new crop of rollplayers.

Edit: Before my words are taken the wrong way again, I'm not picking on young people. I'm just relating my experience. It was enough, when I was just starting out, to understand the rules, let alone understand them and roleplay at our current level at the same time. I'm sure if I was just starting D&D now, I'd be in the same boat

 

[takyris]

Okay, a practical example just came up in my campaign.

The party is a bunch of BIA agents who do X-Files-like cases (it's a d20 Modern game). They've been sent to a tiny town out on the Rez (reservation), and a whole mess of bikers just rode into town with guns out, preparing to threaten people and take money and laugh and be evil.

The party is there, as are a whole bunch of Hapless Villagers. Opening fire in this situation is gonna get a lot of villagers killed. The party is aware of this, and really unhappy about the situation.

The Charismatic face-man has just informed me that he won't be at the game tonight, but that he has a Bluff he wants to try. He mailed it to me:

If the motorcycles are still making a good deal of noise, Stan
will try to throw in: "Did I mention that we were prepared for your shenanigans? The 194th Armored Batallion is lurking just over the ridge there. They have tanks and helicopter gunships and ordnance bigger than your head."

So now, as GM, I'm left trying to figure out what kind of bonus or penalty to give here.

Known Issues:

1) There is no military presence visible within the town. The party is wearing suits, not fatigues.

2) There's only one road into the town, and the lack of tank-treads should be, uh, somewhat obvious.

3) Helicopters make noise.

4) The idea that the tanks would lurk over a ridge, instead of sitting there in the middle of main street, is kind of silly, since, well, tactically, that's where the tanks would be. "Pinning the bad guys inside the town with a bunch of helpless villagers" ranks up there with "trapping the fox inside the henhouse" as a recipe for Pyrrhic Victory Stew.

5) The idea that the government would send tanks and helicopters out into the middle of nowhere to go after twenty bikers.

So, I am very comfortable putting this at a penalty. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if it's a –5, -10, or –20. My gut tells me that –20 is probably closest, because, in d20 Modern terms, this ranks up there with "Also, although I have no evident means of doing so, and we've just met, I've got your mother wired to a giant bomb in a basement somewhere in town, and unless you leave now, she'll blow up" in terms of plausibility. However, this player is really trying hard to roleplay a charismatic person (he usually plays low-Cha fighters or wizardly types in our D&D games), and I feel like slapping a –20 on him is pretty much just whacking him with the "No!" stick. With his scores, he COULD pull it off even with this penalty, but it'd take something close to a 20.

On the other hand, going by the flavor text, giving him just a –10 is pretty light. His roleplaying really hurt him here. If he'd said something a bit more believable, like "Well, these folks called us in, and we've got a few angry men with rifles in a few windows overlooking all of us, and if you don't turn around and ride out of town, it's going to be ugly for everyone," he'd be at a much lower penalty. A –10 penalty essentially means that an average dude will convince another average dude of this about a quarter of the time (two guys with Cha10, Wis10, and no ranks in bluff or sense motive, if my math is anywhere near right). Does "I have an army battalion waiting over yonder hill," sound like something the average guy is going to fall for one time out of four?

I might end up compromising at –15 (and of course, not telling the player this -- it's important that the players not always know the DC). I did tell him (via e-mail), "As long as you're aware that this is going to be a very difficult bluff check, that's fine." He's spending an Action Point on it, too.

Just thought I'd throw in a current-game example to see what people think. It's only sorta roleplaying, since the player isn't actually going to be there tonight – but it's what he'd roleplay if he were in fact there, and it's what I'm supposed to have his character say before rolling the bluff.

 

[Zappo]

If the GM plays it that roleplaying a convincing Bluff and saying "I Bluff the guard" have the same chance of success, he is actively discouraging roleplay - because as has been said, roleplay takes effort.

That's debatable. In my experience, people who like roleplaying do so. Lots and lots of pleasant things take effort, from cooking a good dinner to going on holiday, and people commonly do them without reward (or even paying for it!). Bribing people with bonuses prods them to do roleplaying even if they don't enjoy it, and that's not an attitude I like. As I said, I'm not here to teach anyone anything.

In 1e & 2e it simply WASN'T POSSIBLE to say "I Bluff the guard" and have any hope of success.

That's quite incorrect. The actual truth is: in 1e & 2e you COULD say "I Bluff the guard": since the rules didn't cover it, the DM had to decide how to resolve it, and it was the choice of the DM whether to use roleplaying or a Charisma check. By the book, they were equally valid choices.

In 3e you CAN'T say "I Bluff the guard", not by the book at least. Sorry for the bold, but a discussion based on false facts is kinda worthless. You MUST say exactly what bluff you're trying. Check how the skill works.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Please see my last post. I don't consider an Elitest as having anything to do with rules.

Ah, I think you are misunderstanding. In-Depth Rules Lawyer is indeed what I do call myself...

In-Depth: A play-style leaning towards the immersive.
Rules Lawyer: Stickler for the rules.
IDRL GM: Having selected, altered, and created rules for the purpose of creating a specific game-world environment for players to immerse themselves in.

I consider it a title in which your passion for the game and YOUR game in particular, may sometimes cloud your opinions and judgement. I'm VERY guilty of that.

<snip>

I just disagree that it's the fault of the rulebooks, but given your experiences at WotC forums, I can understand why you feel that way.

Yeah, the "elitist" thing definately had you stepping in a pile that someone else's dog left behind. No reason to worry about that any further.

I agree that without "roleplaying" D&D becomes more of a board game or a tactical wargame. But that's my opinion. There are others that disagree with that, and to that I will always say as long as you're having fun I won't tell you that you are wrong. I hope that eventually they will start to roleplay like I did, but they may not. So, I try to put aside my "elitist" views and leave them to experience the game as I once did.

Thing is, I, too, have no problem with people playing D&D sans role-playing. What escapes me though is the following equation...

No role-playing = Role-Playing Game.

I've read numerous posts illustrating all the good points of allowing people that can't or don't like to role-play to be able to play D&D, and I've agreed with it (again, I said so on Page 1). However, I've yet to read anything that I find convincing enough to prove the above equation as true without reducing the concept of role-playing in D&D to the equivalent of choosing a career path in a game of Life in order to work. It really just seems like little more than people trying to convince themselves that its true than actual truth.

 

[WizarDru]

1. GMs griping about their players not willing to role-play.

2. Players griping about their GMs insisting that they role-play.

Kinda speaks for itself, don't it?

Except that there are sections in the book that discuss this. I can't say if there's more or less than 2e, but there is certainly a great deal more than 1e and previous. The first thing I thought when I got the 3e DMG was "Hey! They finally put advice and instructions on how to DM in the DMG, for a change!" AD&D was all about the rules, while 3E actually gave you practical advice on how to run a game, with a discussion of playstyles, campaign creation, and how to deal with problem players. I can't really comment on how 2e addressed the issue either way.

Ah, actually, I'm a fan of Gygax.

Heh. I thought that was what I said. Probably didn't express it as well as I might have.

towards (what I guess we'll just call...) the "2E tone", the rulebooks will actually cause people to adhere more often to the "0E tone" and "1E tone" than try out or move into the "2E tone".

Well, I'm not sure that I agree, obviously, but I see what you're saying. If I did believe that, which I don't, I would argue that maybe they intended that for exactly that reason, since 2e saw D&D fail, while Basic and AD&D were endemic of it's growth period, and 3e had a major goal of getting old gamers back, a task it largely accomplished.

Not the rules; the presentation of the rules with little to no emphasis on using the rules to resolve role-play which results in role-play being ignored in favor of a die roll surrogate.

Ahhhhh. Understanding attained. You're not saying the rules are the problem, but the context of their presentation. Got it. I'm not sure I agree, but I can easily see a case being made for both sides of the argument.

I think we can agree that you feel that the amount is completely inadequate, and that I feel it's less so. I'll admit, though, that I haven't played with many complete newbiews to role-playing, so I'm hard pressed to present evidence either way.