What ever happened to "role playing?"

[IceBear]

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.

But that's MY point. I don't know what rulebooks you read, but there was nothing in mine on roleplaying At least not more than there is in 3E. Maybe there was stuff on roleplaying in 2E books (I never played 1st, I basically played OD&D, 2nd Edition, and 3E), but I don't remember reading it so it obviously didn't have an impact on my groups delve into roleplaying. Ours came from reading D&D novels (Dragonlance in particular) and wanting our group to be like that one.

I'm pretty much with Merric with all his posts too.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

I don't know about that... Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil certainly seemed to have a lot of "[Room Inhabitant] attacks when the PCs enter the room" entries in it, many of them being NPCs rather than "monsters".

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

And I posit that this is a fundamentally flawed premise that ignores the strongest representatives of gaming style. Namely, the DM and the Players.

Adventure design. Character generation. A DM who ties you to the campaign setting. A character connected to an NPC family. A group more interested in a story than in a game. The rulebooks don't dictate any of that. I believe that immersive role-playing comes not from a set of rules, but from the fertile imaginations of those who play the game, and the way in which they approach verisimilitue.

In addition, I think that the problem you percieve with 3.xe just doesn't so much exist. You may be able to make a die roll to convince an NPC to be friendly with you instead of having to *actually* convince the NPC to be friendly to you with your acting prowess, but the DM still determines what their initial attitude is, determines the bonuses or penalties you get to the roll (often based in part on your ability to use damatics). The player still has to state what they're Bluffing. These are integral rules to some of the most important skills to a socially-based character.

 

[MerricB]

I don't know about that... Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil certainly seemed to have a lot of "[Room Inhabitant] attacks when the PCs enter the room" entries in it, many of them being NPCs rather than "monsters".

They're all monsters, Bendris. Even the NPCs.

That said, there's a bunch of role-playing opportunities in Hommlet, Nulb and throughout RttToEE, and that's just one module that is more of a slay-fest than normal.

Pick up The Sunless Citadel or an issue of Dungeon and compare.

Cheers!

 

[Look_a_Unicorn]

Hi, all.
...
Roll Playing.
My question is, what happened to DMing? What happened to stories? Why is everyone (the last 8 DM's I've played with) so concerned with rules rather than playing? Is it just me? Is it bad luck? Or, is this a growing trend, the wave of the future for D&D?

I've read a lot of good advice/replies here already, but I have another angle- learning curve.
As an engineer/computer geek/maths buff I can learn entire rule systems & add up twenty variables like *clicks fingers* that. Lucky me. That means when I sit down at the table, all the rules & numbers are just sitting in my brain, ready & waiting. ie mechanics don't matter- I'm free to roleplay.

However a lot of the players I'm with can't do this (yet)- so they, as you say, roll-play. They want to have fun, but they can't (again, yet) have fun by thinking about what their beer-swilling dwarf will do AND add up those numbers. But they have to add up the numbers to play... so their fun comes from the crit hits & body counts.

Now apply that to DM's- lots of characters, with lots of stats to remember & lots of things to add up. Someone wants to do something- straight away they ask for a Roll/Check rather than saying "describe it"- because the mechanics is what they spend their time thinking about.

And if your not fortunate enough to have a DM who can craft a great story, then you have no mentor to learn off. The tactical-squad DM you describe may have a great story-arc, but he can't think in story terms & mechanics terms at the same time- he hasn't seen it done & I think it's one of those things you can only learn via first-hand experience.

eg my brother- has a great imagination, DOES NOT want to pound our PC's into dust- but the story flow/immersion used to constantly get disrupted as he looked up this/that rule or tried to think of a check we could make- or in his particular case nerfed our activities/powers because he was afraid that he was letting us get away with too much- worried about the mechanics, not the fun.

So be the DM you'd like to play under- run a campaign, consciously make story-based decisions (Without violating the rules!) & be a shining example for other future DM's to learn from

PS- yes, it will be the trend of the future, people continue to do what they're first taught. New DM's taught to be rules-lawyers will breed other DM's who are rules-lawyers- UNTIL THE REVOLUTION!!

 

[barsoomcore]

UNTIL THE REVOLUTION!

Can I get an amen?

 

[S'mon]

So Doom is an RPG?

I notice a strong tendency here to conflate "position identification" with "role playing". Many board games encourage "position identification" with a single playing piece - your boot in Monopoly, your CiC in L'Attaque, your hero in Heroquest or Talisman, even your King in Chess (although the Queen is much cooler) . Likewise many computer games are first-person shooters or third-person games where you control a single piece, Sonic the Hedgehog or Laura Croft. I don't think these are Role-Playing Games, though, and few people would assert that they are.

 

[S'mon]

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

We're actually arguing for a minimum necessary baseline for what could be considered a "role-playing game." I guess if your 3rd-person talking to NPCs in 1e was entirely limited to "I bluff/threaten/bribe the guard" that could fall below the line.
Presumably your PCs' motivation was money & glory (XP), so not that far frok the players' motivation?
Re third-person vs first-person, I think you can roleplay without using first-person, and in retrospect in my young days I did that a lot especially GMing NPCs I wasn't comfortable playing 'properly' (love interests, say), but I (being elitest) personally tend to regard first person rp as the best or paradigmatic form of roleplay and 3rd-person as a lesser, but still valid, approach.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yes, takyris convinced me recently that the 3e rules are actually pretty much fine, as written, if you pay attention and use them as they're meant to be used. The writers' intent isn't always that clear from what's in the PHB though - qv both Bluff & Diplomacy skill; takyris quoted stuff from d20 Modern that makes it clear these are intended to be used actively & in conjunction with roleplaying.
However 3e does _allow_ a form of play, which many people (esp apparently on WotC boards, and including a minority of WoTC staff) claim to be _roleplaying_ (and even a better form of roleplaying), which appears to consist purely of dicerolling and to me (and Bendris & others) doesn't really seem to be 'roleplaying' at all, except in the loosest CRPG sense.

 

[hong]

Likewise many computer games are first-person shooters or third-person games where you control a single piece, Sonic the Hedgehog or Laura Croft. I don't think these are Role-Playing Games, though, and few people would assert that they are.

Psst. Character skill. Player skill. Only those who conflate the two could be confused here.