Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1543000" data-attributes="member: 6398">Well, my son has fun tossing a golf ball around in the back yard.  However, I think we can agree that he's not playing golf. Bzzt!  Wrong answer. (Intended as humor, really.) This isn't about players disliking immersive role-playing; It's about players not willing to role-play to a basic minimum that goes even a step beyond declaring an action as one would do in a video game.  Anyone remember the old Parlay command from Temple of Apshai?  That's what these skills, and the way they are presented, remind me of.  It's also why I don't play the (misnamed) CRPGs: They don't contain anything resembling role-play unless you strip down the "role" of a character to its most basic concept (Stealth, Tank, Healer, Caster, etc.) and the actions of the character to the most basic acts (Walk, Talk, Bribe, Haggle, Threaten, etc.). I've always preferred Pencil-and-Paper games because they have always been more than that.  Yet, to attract more players, that's how the game is now presented, and thus that is the standard that is growing from its new found popularity. Honestly, look at the beginning of the other RPGs WotC has put out.  CoC, SW, and WoT all have a section in the introduction with the header "What is a Role-Playing Game" (or similar)*.  D&D, the "premier role-playing game", is strangely enough missing this short little passage.  And up to now, I've seen very little to indicate that this absense is not intentional.  The only thing I don't understand is the reason for it. * Quandry: I've not seen the Dragonlance book.  Is it in there, or is Krynn presented as a setting rather than a stand-alone game? I, too, have players of differing styles to a degree; At the very least, they role-play to different extents.  However, I couldn't share the table with someone that doesn't role-play at all.  To me, such a player is a waste of a seat.  I mean, sure, these Skills allow people to play D&D without role-playing.  But why must people that focus on role-play take the redicule; Why don't the people that by-pass role-play take the heat for not playing the game right?  And why must this lower requirement be presented (falsely) as the standard?  D&D plugs itself constantly as the "premier role-playing game"; should the idea that it is a role-playing game be a primary consideration to the players? Except, like I said, I'll take a poor role-player over a non-role-player.  For me, the non-role-player is detracting from the fun of the group by lack of participation.  In addition, it breeds resentment for other players who are left wondering why they should put forth the effort while another player is being equally rewarded for less effort. Actually, we do run our combat "cinematic"; meaning that, in addition to W&V, we often "time out" for a round or two to snip at each other with insults and witty retorts.  Probably not the most tactical of play styles, but better emulates the fiction and movies that have inspired us over the years (Examples: The "final battle" in The Three Musketeers, Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker in the galleries in Return of the Jedi). That said, I agree that these skills are a subset of role-playing, but the question remains: How many are using these Skills in place of role-playing?  By your own post, some people at your table are doing just that. Sanity rules. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" />  Yes, and congrats.  However, the question is whether the rules inspire role-play or roll-play.  By the fact that the bar has been lowered (rules that permit role-play to be bypassed, GMs that don't treat PCs that are role-played differently than PCs that aren't), I'd say no, the rules do not encourage role-play.  And that's the problem; If role-play isn't encouraged by the rules, and roll-play is presented as the way it's done (and with some designers posting examples at the WotC Boards of these rules in play that verify the later while scoffing at the former), then the question of where the game is heading in the future comes into doubt. I can handle people not role-playing in their games.  I can handle the rules providing a crutch for it.  What I don't like is the idea that "the world's premier role-playing game" not inspiring role-play beyond the most basic of stereotypes.  Perhaps if the view was that role-play is the standard and that those who don't role-play are removing elements from the game, there wouldn't be a problem.  However, if a GM (like me) pipes in that some degree of role-play is necessary (as it is at my talbe), and people start calling "foul" for whatever reason (in this case, fairness to non-role-players), I can't help but view the attitude of the community as being backwards. An interesting thing of note is that most of the participants in this thread have (to my knowledge) been playing for a while; most of us prior to 3E's release based on replies here and other threads we've all participated in.  I'd be curious to know how many posters here lean (or stand directly within) the Deep Immersive style that discovered D&D after 1999.  All this speculation about what the rules inspire or encourage is kinda moot unless we actually have people posting statements akin to "I've been playing since 2002 and our preference is..." Would kind of settle the debate, don't you think?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification