What ever happened to "role playing?"

[IceBear]

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.

Well, the thing is, all that matters is that you feel that way. You aren't going to get a concensus on that, and trying to get one is why this thread is still going

I personally agree with you, at this point in my RPG life. There are others out there that may not, but for them pretending to be an elf is enough to call it roleplaying. We don't have the right to tell that person he isn't roleplaying, even if we agree he's not. That's why I said that dirty E-word Back when I was more rollplaying than roleplaying I would have argued that I was roleplaying. I know *now* that I wasn't, at least by my current definition. That definition could change again, and it probably will.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Lost my post, dang nabbit...

(Yes, I know, I should do my posts in Notepad and, believe it or not, my last 3 posts were all done that way which is why I didn't loose them either. I just thought the boards were back up to speed and let my guard down...)

Barsoom, I'll reply to you once I feel like typing it out again.

Ah, screw it: With the S&F example, you are right, but this again illustrates another problem with 3E. The writing is atrocious. Most of the suggestions, plots, twists, hooks, organization, etc., that are produced just fail to grab my attention, being over-used stereotypes or . As a result, I admit that I forget this stuff is there. But doesn't this speak for itself? I consider the fact that I could read a passage of generic fluff in 1E/2E and immediately my mind was off in other worlds, with me returning to it again and again to get more sparks. I read the parallel material and 3E and I have little to no desire to even remember that it's there. (Although, in all honesty, when I found decent Chariot Rules in Back in the Saddle, my use of S&F dropped to nil and I left it with my brother. Y'know, I left so much stuff with him I'm half tempted to get a p2p program so I can review this material before I gripe about it so I can remember specifically what it was I didn't like...)

And it's not just that I've changed. After all, I get that kind of inspiration reading material from Ambient, Bastion, Mystic Eye, Throwing Dice, S&S Studios, Mongoose, Holistic, Eden, and a slew of other sources. Heck, I was looking over Hollowfaust the other day and it sent my on a writing spree (that had nothing to do with Necromancy!) for several hours. And if that's the case, then there has to be something about WotC's material that fails to do this. Yes, it may likely be on a personal level, but it seems that, if WotC's books are so unimpressive in that regards (with the reminders of where this material is located illustrating how it failed to grab me to begin with), it makes it hard to imagine that material really making that big of an impression. At the same time, I never see any of this material being discussed, never see a thread taking a Fighter Organization and expanding it out into something bigger and more detailed; all I ever see are posts about the mechanics, debating the mechanics, evaluating the mechanics, min/maxing the mechanics...

How can this not be seen as a representation of how relevant this material is to the people playing the game?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

ROFLMAO!!!

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.

This is the most progress this thread's made in days!

 

[billd91]

And it's not just that I've changed. After all, I get that kind of inspiration reading material from Ambient, Bastion, Mystic Eye, Throwing Dice, S&S Studios, Mongoose, Holistic, Eden, and a slew of other sources. Heck, I was looking over Hollowfaust the other day and it sent my on a writing spree (that had nothing to do with Necromancy!) for several hours. And if that's the case, then there has to be something about WotC's material that fails to do this. Yes, it may likely be on a personal level, but it seems that, if WotC's books are so unimpressive in that regards (with the reminders of where this material is located illustrating how it failed to grab me to begin with), it makes it hard to imagine that material really making that big of an impression. At the same time, I never see any of this material being discussed, never see a thread taking a Fighter Organization and expanding it out into something bigger and more detailed; all I ever see are posts about the mechanics, debating the mechanics, evaluating the mechanics, min/maxing the mechanics...

How can this not be seen as a representation of how relevant this material is to the people playing the game?

Here's one place I think you're going wrong in the impressions you've formed about 3E. You're looking, in part, at hte kind of discussions going on here and are making assumptions that that's all we care about... mechanics, mechanics, mechanics. You're looking at a non-random sample of personal interactions about the game and not adjusting for the biases inherent in this sample. For one thing, this is a text forum and text communication has certain limitations. It's easy to dash off quick questions or comments about game mechanics because they are easier to communicate. More creative endeavors like coming up with a fighter organization generally require a lot more typing and time in cogently organizing the post. That will tend to bias internet boards in favor of the quicker and easier topics.
Also, mechanics are generally common across campaigns (barring for house rules) because we're primarily discussing d20 games (mostly D&D). As a result, there are more players for whom the topic will be relevant and a larger pool of likely participants. Role-playing oriented, campaign-specific (or at least informed) topics will by their very nature have narrower appeal because they aren't appropriate to all campaigns.
Finally, WotC publications may not have inspired your writing as much as others. I don't necessarily see this as a case of WotC's stuff being poorly written. WotC is mostly putting out rule manuals to relatively concisely and consistently describe the rules. As such, it's putting out something akin to technical manuals and they should be simply written and easy to digest. And for a RPG trying to attract as broad a group of players as possible for use as a core system, it has to be fairly generic. That means that it will be rules/crunch heavy and flavor light. They won't exactly want to alienate too many diverse uses of the game by being too rigid or heavily defined. 3rd party sources, while also looking to sell well, aren't as beholden to being the most flexible game on the block. They can stick tighter to specific themes, settings, and flavor because that is exactly what will distinguish them from other products. For D&D and crunchy WotC publications, what sets them apart from others is the flexibility and robustness of their rules.

 

[barsoomcore]

With the S&F example, you are right, but this again illustrates another problem with 3E. The writing is atrocious.

Well, okay. But that's completely different from the notion that there is some overarching effort to remove role-playing from the rules.

That the role-playing material is badly written is no substitute for evidence that there is no role-playing material.

After all, I get that kind of inspiration reading material from Ambient, Bastion, Mystic Eye, Throwing Dice, S&S Studios, Mongoose, Holistic, Eden, and a slew of other sources.

Okay, so let's be clear. We've moved from saying THE SYSTEM encourages no role-playing to saying that WotC encourages no role-playing. Which are two completely different things.

If WotC's books are so unimpressive in that regards (with the reminders of where this material is located illustrating how it failed to grab me to begin with), it makes it hard to imagine that material really making that big of an impression.

Okay, so they've done it badly. That's very different from saying they've deliberately avoided doing it. Or indeed, as I thought you were arguing, that they've deliberately attempted to remove it from the game.

You're trying to argue that D&D 3e is NOT a role-playing game based on the fact that there's NO discussion of role-playing in the rules. I say that's nonsense, and show you an example of exactly the sort of material you pretend is necessary to describing a role-playing game.

It may be poorly written, but it IS there. So you can't say there's NO discussion of role-playing, so I guess D&D IS a role-playing game after all. Just a poorly written one.

Thank heavens. I thought I was going to have to change my "hobbies and interests" section of my website.

At the same time, I never see any of this material being discussed, never see a thread taking a Fighter Organization and expanding it out into something bigger and more detailed; all I ever see are posts about the mechanics, debating the mechanics, evaluating the mechanics, min/maxing the mechanics...

Maybe you're talking about another discussion board than EN World...

History in your game

FR Character Background Help

How detailed are your in-game religions

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Here's one place I think you're going wrong in the impressions you've formed about 3E. You're looking, in part, at hte kind of discussions going on here and are making assumptions that that's all we care about... mechanics, mechanics, mechanics. You're looking at a non-random sample of personal interactions about the game and not adjusting for the biases inherent in this sample. For one thing, this is a text forum and text communication has certain limitations. It's easy to dash off quick questions or comments about game mechanics because they are easier to communicate. More creative endeavors like coming up with a fighter organization generally require a lot more typing and time in cogently organizing the post. That will tend to bias internet boards in favor of the quicker and easier topics.
Also, mechanics are generally common across campaigns (barring for house rules) because we're primarily discussing d20 games (mostly D&D). As a result, there are more players for whom the topic will be relevant and a larger pool of likely participants.

Agreed, although my point is about the attitude I dealt with while I was hanging at the WotC boards. As I pointed out earlier, I came to ENWorld because it was better.

Role-playing oriented, campaign-specific (or at least informed) topics will by their very nature have narrower appeal because they aren't appropriate to all campaigns.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it. I'd certainly like to read about other people's campaigns. But I also think (again, per the WotC Boards) that there's this "if you can't tell us about every House-Rule you use, don't ask us about one of them" deal that makes people less hesitant to talk about such things the further they drift of the default setting. Personally, I never read a thread with the assumption that everything not mentioned in the post is "per the Core"; I honestly expect campaign worlds and game rules to be different and see more damage than good coming from the "common ground" of Core Rules discussions bleeding over into our ability to share campaign ideas.

(Again, though, before you reply to this, I re-iterate: I'm here because here is better. Understandably, the environment at WotC is more relevant to my view of how WotC handles/presents 3E then ENWorld is.)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, okay. But that's completely different from the notion that there is some overarching effort to remove role-playing from the rules.

That the role-playing material is badly written is no substitute for evidence that there is no role-playing material.

Actually, my forgetting that it's there because it's badly written is no substitute, which is why I'm glad a few folks popped in with specific examples. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the material is shunted into its own section rather than being included alongside the rules it pertains to (i.e., include a "Role" section with the Prestige Class instead of discussing the roles in a seperate and easily forgotten chapter, something that continues to seperate a good number of OGL publishers from WotC...).

I think another thing is that reading something in 2E that was specifically tied to Greyhawk, any of Toril's regions, Planescape, Athas, or any other setting never stopped it from being usable or inspirational. Perhaps, in their attempt to remain generic, the material starts to gain a "thinly thought out" feeling that has the opposite effect than was intended (i.e., instead of inspiring me to "make it my own", I'm actually uninspired and thus don't really consider it).

Okay, so let's be clear. We've moved from saying THE SYSTEM encourages no role-playing to saying that WotC encourages no role-playing. Which are two completely different things.

Actually, I've been saying the later (re-read last couple of posts between me and WizarDru).

You're trying to argue that D&D 3e is NOT a role-playing game based on the fact that there's NO discussion of role-playing in the rules. I say that's nonsense, and show you an example of exactly the sort of material you pretend is necessary to describing a role-playing game.

No no no no no no no...

What I'm saying is that if you are playing D&D without any role-playing, you are not playing a role-playing game (although you are without a doubt still playing D&D).

Maybe you're talking about another discussion board than EN World...

Do I gotta repeat this again..? Please please don't make me repeat this again...

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

Role Playing

First, I'd like to state that role playing is alive and well in my neck of the woods. I have been blessed with one of the most creative, animated, brilliant Dungeon Masters in the history of the game for the past 13 years, and his games are always enrapturing. That said, allow me to present my opinion on the state of the game and the ineptitude of the vast majority of current DMs. I read alot of stuff on here about DMs running "pumped up this" and "advanced that" against low-level parties, with ridiculous odds in favor of the monsters. These people need to reevaluate the intent of the game. It's not supposed to be the DM versus the players. Any DM who doesn't have the ability to pull a TPK at any time he or she so chooses has obvious problems. It's always up to the DM how difficult things will be, but what it really comes down to is how much fun the game is all around. I'm sorry, but a 3rd-level party should not be facing 4 5th-level Ranger orcs unless it has some serious resources. The game is weighted in favor of the PCs because that's the point. PCs are supposed to survive. The longevity of the PCs has a direct relationship with the overall fun and excitement of the game. Players will be much more enthusiastic about playing characters to whom they have become strongly attached. How can a person step into the role of a character when he or she can be relatively certain that his or character will be dead by the end of the session?

First of all, the whole "EL" concept to me seems ridiculous. How can it not be exactly twice as difficult to face twice as many monsters? The answer is that it is objectively twice as difficult to face 2 monsters as it is to face one. This can be demonstrated through the staggeringly complex equation: 1+1=2. The math doesn't lie.

Another thing that strikes me as being intrinsically flawed about the 3.0/3.5 rules is the fact that, regardless of the number of members in a party, the party's average party level remains the same. For example, a party of 2 3rd-level characters is considered to be exactly as powerful as a party of 10 3rd-level characters as far as the EL of an encounter the party should face. How can this be? The answer is that it can't. The only correct way to determine a party's level is to add the total number of levels, and divide the sum by 4. Not 4-6. A party of 6 characters has exactly 1.5 times the resources as a party of 4 characters, and is therefore capable of facing 1.5 times as challenging an encounter. I submit that a party should be awarded experience based on the number of members as well as the levels of each character as follows: The total number of members/4, divide each character's level by the result (i.e., In a party of 2 3rd-level characters, each character's level should count as 1.5), refer to the experience chart based on this number. Dungeons & Dragons is a game of math, and somewhere along the line, the developers of its newest version seemed to have skipped first grade.

Also, the EL of an encounter is only presented as a tool for discerning the power level of an encounter in relation to a party of a given level. Experience is supposed to be awarded for each opponent individually, not based on the EL. Sometimes this is in the party's favor, and sometimes not, but if the DM refuses to award the correct experience for an encounter, you have every right to recalculate it yourself and show him or her the correct number based on the rules. If he or she still refuses to award you the correct amount of experience, get up and walk out. You don't need to play in a game where the DM abuses his godlike power.

It is not recommended for a party to face an EL of more than 3 levels higher than the average party level, and even then only as the climax of a large adventure. Conversely, the game quickly grows boring if the challenges faced by the PCs are too much weaker than the party can handle. As a DM, it is your responsibility to ensure that most of the party survives most of the time, and that the challenges presented are of an appropriate power level. Anything less is an abuse of your position, and you shouldn't be surprised if your players abandon you as a result. TPKs or PPKs on a regular basis, especially as the results of random encounters or ambushes on the way to the main adventure, are simply not fun.

If a DM regularly presents challenges which are obviously beyond the abilities of your party, don't hesitate to express your displeasure, and encourage others to do so as well. If such behavior persists, get up and walk out. Invite everyone over to your house for a game you run yourself, but don't play with that DM anymore. Some people just aren't cut out for it.

Anyway, as far as the roleplay aspects of the game, it's generally mostly contingent upon the enthusiasm of the players in general, which is generally contingent upon the willingness of the DM to allow them to have fun. As a player, it is your responsibility to play your character with the necessary energy, fleshing him or her out with a full-blown, individual identity. DMs will generally hesitate to kill parties in which the characters are just flat-out fun to play. For example, I have this Half-Orc who is a 1st-level Barbarian, 6th-level Sorcerer, and he is just an outright riot. He wears nothing but a breechcloth, has a +1 Steel Pot for a helmet, and doesn't know the difference between Platinum and Silver. He is illiterate, though he had the option of gaining literacy as a benefit of the Sorcerer class, and is therefore unable to use scrolls. He speaks in broken common and fluent Orc, has his own voice and mannerisms, and once asked a veiled Medusa if she'd like to mate. He sees her shapely form, and although I as a player know the nature of the creature, I decide that his natural reaction would be to walk up and say, "You want mate Schlugg?" Luckily, I saved when she unveiled, proceeding to chop her head into mashed potatoes with green gravy. That's roleplay, my friends, and it is the true heart of the Dungeons & Dragons game. Its absence removes a vital aspect from the game itself, and without it I would advise sitting around and playing Monopoly (or better yet, Magic) instead.

I can tell you from experience that Dungeon Masters range in ability from incredibly good to incredibly bad, but the majority fall somewhere in the middle. Good DMs are those who aren't afraid to do a little acting, who can create and maintain reasonable challenges and settings, and who know when they've made a mistake as to the power level of a challenge. The mark of a truly exceptional DM, however, is the ability to improvise when and wherever necessary. A great DM will be able to completely drop his or her entire plan when the PCs decide they don't really want to go to the dungeon anymore, or to create a believable scenario on the spot which leaves the party no other alternative. A great DM will just throw some side adventure into his campaign off the cuff, at the end of which lies some peculiar magic item which he or she has just spontaneously created. A great DM will put a powerful but painfully cursed item behind a trapped secret door which isn't actually on the map. Most of all, a great DM will recognize the fact that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just for himself. When the players are enjoying themselves, the DM will enjoy himself more.

May you all find the DM who hits your G-spot.

-Faerl'Elghinn

 

[barsoomcore]

I think another thing is that reading something in 2E that was specifically tied to Greyhawk, any of Toril's regions, Planescape, Athas, or any other setting never stopped it from being usable or inspirational.

Just to fart in your argument's general direction, it was definitely reading the dreck that was everything I encountered in 2E that put me off D&D until 3E came out. My empty-sort-of head was serving up more inspirational material than TSR in those days.

So I'm saying I agree with you, if all the evidence you provide is replaced with your counter-examples. Which is just taste. In PRINCIPLE, we agree.

Perhaps, in their attempt to remain generic, the material starts to gain a "thinly thought out" feeling that has the opposite effect than was intended (i.e., instead of inspiring me to "make it my own", I'm actually uninspired and thus don't really consider it).

Now that I'm on board with. This is what makes Cthulhu d20 so awesome -- it's so well-written, it makes you HAVE to play it. Some of the Polyhedron mini-games were like that, too.

Good writing is not only its own reward, it's its own advertising, too.

What I'm saying is that if you are playing D&D without any role-playing, you are not playing a role-playing game (although you are without a doubt still playing D&D).

Sort of like how Americans using their hands to chuck a ball around are not playing anything that can realistically be described as "football"? Gotcha.

Do I gotta repeat this again..? Please please don't make me repeat this again...

So you're insulting everyone at ENWorld? You don't like the tone of the conversation here? We're not "role-playing" enough for your elitist sensibilities? Well, fine! I'll show you, you big, two-named, elitist, don't-like-bad-writing... person, you.

Huh? Huh? How's that for raising the tone of the debate? And I got lots more like it back home, you know.

Yeah. Who's the man? Who's the man?

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, my point of the idea of RP being lost in the "sea" of mechanics is that a good number of players (those that would at least attempt to role-play, specifically) have no point of reference in which to do so. Even the points of the game that would be role-play are presented in a strictly-mechanical context by way of Intimidate, Bluff, and Diplomacy and thus point away from RP rather than promoting it.

Which is all well and good for you. But playing it simply by rolling is in no way a worse game. It's different, yes. It's made to accomodate the non-dramatics, yes. But it's not a lower form of gaming, a less pure form of gaming, or a simpler, less interesting, less engaging, less character-driven form of gaming. In fact, it could be *more* interesting, *more* engaging, and *more* character-driven than having to act out these social situations.

Pointing away from dramatics does not make the game less visceral or plot-based, or immersive, or character-based. In fact, having social skills make it so that those who do not like dramatics can still play a very social character. It is die roll + resolution, in the end, but that doesn't mean the die roll doesn't represent three hours of intense debates (in real time) between the PC's and the NPC's. Putting those social skills in the same realm as combat skills doesn't make it a simple board game. It's still a visceral, emotional roller-coaster ride of epic and tragedy and intrigue, if you design the adventure that way. And designing the adventure that way is not inspite of or against or despite a simple set of social mechanics. It uses those simple mechanics as a resolution, yes. But that does not mandate a game of Life with goblins.

And y'know, in between his pictures of Brittish royalty, I find Hong does occasionally have a point.