What ever happened to "role playing?"

[S'mon]

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...

You never spoke to an NPC, in all those years?

 

[MerricB]

You never spoke to an NPC, in all those years?

Quite believable, actually.

AD&D's role-playing system boiled down to a single die roll, as does 3E. Except, it was even more strict:

"Any intelligent creature which can be conversed with will react in some way to the character that is speaking. Reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and applicable loyalty adjustments as if the creature were a henchman of the character speaking, and the modified score of the percentage dice is compared to the table below:

"01-05 - Violently hostile, immediate attack
06-25 - Hostle, immediate action
26-45 - Uncertain, but 55% prone toward negative
46-55 - Neutral, uninterested, uncertain
56-75 - Uncertain, but 55% prone toward positive
76-95 - Friendly, immediate action
96-00 - Enthusiastically friendly, immediate acceptance"

AD&D encouraged role-playing more than 3E?

DMs and players encouraged role-playing despite the rulebooks.

The adventures encouraged role-playing.

Cheers!

 

[WizarDru]

AD&D's role-playing system boiled down to a single die roll, as does 3E. Except, it was even more strict:

Not having played 2E, I ask: how was this handled under that edition?

 

[hong]

AD&D's role-playing system boiled down to a single die roll, as does 3E. Except, it was even more strict:

"Any intelligent creature which can be conversed with will react in some way to the character that is speaking. Reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and applicable loyalty adjustments as if the creature were a henchman of the character speaking, and the modified score of the percentage dice is compared to the table below:

"01-05 - Violently hostile, immediate attack
06-25 - Hostle, immediate action
26-45 - Uncertain, but 55% prone toward negative
46-55 - Neutral, uninterested, uncertain
56-75 - Uncertain, but 55% prone toward positive
76-95 - Friendly, immediate action
96-00 - Enthusiastically friendly, immediate acceptance"

But see, it had more syllables. And as everyone knows, the quality of roleplaying is directly proportional to the number of syllables involved.


Hong "playing Milieu the Prestidigitator" Ooi

 

[IceBear]

You never spoke to an NPC, in all those years?

Oh? Is talking to NPCs all it takes to roleplay now? Gee, with the way everyone is saying 3E is rollplay only in this thread, then I wouldn't have guessed that just talking to NPCs would be considered roleplaying by you guys

Of course we talked to NPCs, but we tended to do it in 3rd person without taking our *characters'* motives into account. Hence we weren't "in character" like we started to do as we played more and got more experience in roleplaying. That was something we learned to do with time, not because the rules told us to or even how to. That's why I don't think 3E is any worse than the previous editions.

 

[MerricB]

Not having played 2E, I ask: how was this handled under that edition?

Heh. Did 2E handle anything?

There is an encounter reaction table in 2E. The DM would crossreference the result of a die roll (modified by charisma modifier) with the attitude of the PCs towards the monsters (Friendly, Indifferent, Threatening, Hostile); this would then get a reaction type of Friendly, Indifferent, Flight, Threatening, Cautious or Hostile.

Though, truthfully, 2E first says "the creatures should react in the manner the DM is most appropriate to the situation", the reaction table is only for times when the DM is clueless.

Cheers!

 

[billd91]

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).

.

This is an assertion I can't disagree with more. Am I a 10th level fighter? No. Regardless of how much dramatization I engage in when I play D&D, I am role-playing. I'm not playing a software tester in the game. Just by deciding what a character unlike you and in a setting unlike the one around you is doing, you are role-playing.
You may not be role-playing as much as the community theater reject over there (one hopes he's not a method actor or you'll be trying to get blood stains out of your carpet every week) with all the angst, but you're still role playing.
One hopes that players can be encouraged to chart a course somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

...we tended to do it...without taking our *characters'* motives into account...

Now, see, this is whay I'm talking about. Yes, you got better with it through the experience of gaming, but I posit that this process occured faster because it was in the rulebooks. In comparison, the typical player is more inclined now to do exactly what the PH says because he's also inclined to believe that not doing so "unbalances" the game, and the weight granted to role-playing in the PH doesn't amount to squat.

Looking at Merric's last post, we have...

Though, truthfully, 2E first says "the creatures should react in the manner the DM [thinks/feels?] is most appropriate to the situation"...

For some folks, this would be the same as fudging or railroading when, in fact, it is simply ensuring that the NPCs are acting and reacting in a logical, sensible manner as the situation dictates rather than having the situation become completely unplausible because of a lucky roll or maxed-out Social Skills. I.E., the role and role-playing before the roll and rollplaying.

Which, to my knowledge, led to the NPC Reaction Table barely being used. I did witness one game with a GM that used it exclusively, and it was painfully obvious to anyone watching that this was the case. But every other game I joined or observed generally ignored it as a 1E hold-over that had long since become obsolute to the growing occurance of actual role-playing and GM's abjudication of what was said by the player to the individual NPC (or group of NPCs) within the circumstances of in-game events.

To which I do believe that the Social Skills are helpful in 3E in that, instead of it just being Charisma, the opportunity for the PC to get better at communicating is a good thing. However, it doesn't change the fact that a player having a PC say something outrageously stupid should invoke the most likely response for doing so regardless of the die roll.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Just by deciding what a character unlike you and in a setting unlike the one around you is doing, you are role-playing.

So Doom is an RPG?

 

[MerricB]

However, it doesn't change the fact that a player having a PC say something outrageously stupid should invoke the most likely response for doing so regardless of the die roll.

Indeed. Just as when a wizard casts fireball when other party members are within the area of effect, the characters should suffer the consequences. Player choices MUST inform the roll of the dice.

That said, I think the situation in 3E is a lot better than you paint it. A prime example of this is the Bluff skill. How does it work? Well, the DCs are set depending on how believable the bluff the PCs try is. Huh? You mean the PCs have to describe what their bluffing attempt is? That's right. They do... and thus, role-playing.

Another factor involved in all of this, and one I think that often trumps the rules, is in the adventures available for purchase. The rules might give you the basic framework of play, but it is the adventures that demonstrate what D&D is!

So, early D&D was the Giants series. It then developed into greater story-telling devices and suchlike.

Looking at the 3E modules (both adventure path and Dungeon), I see a lot of role-playing opportunities, and characters described in such a way that role-playing is encouraged.

Cheers!