D&D 5E When did Role become Roll?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

I don't even know what "2e was full of so many arbitrary tyrants" means, to be honest. NPCs? The artists? The writers?

Anyway, Skip Williams did an interview years after 2e came out and said, "Of course we thought about ascending AC, but when we designed 2e, we wanted people to play with all of their existing 1e material and have it compatible."

So really, the primary driver behind 2e was the moral panic bit (get rid of demons, devils, assassin class, and half orcs), and to clean up some of the rules. That's pretty much it. As you say, 2e is pretty much the same. There were no "endemic problems" of 1e that were fixed in 2e. And since it ran for over 2 decades, I'd posit there were no "endemic problems" to begin with. Just items of personal taste that evolved and changed.

2e veered from 1e's mechanistic DMing style with an attempt to establish narrative as a DMing goal. This can be seen reasonably strongly in the Dragonlance modules, but also amidst some of the advice and mechanical changes in the DMG. The ruleset didn't change (too much). But, the proposed way of using those rules did. Which I suspect is the origin of @schnee 's comment. The recommended changes pushed DMs to force a narrative a lot more frequently than Basic or 1e did.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2e veered from 1e's mechanistic DMing style with an attempt to establish narrative as a DMing goal. This can be seen reasonably strongly in the Dragonlance modules, but also amidst some of the advice and mechanical changes in the DMG. The ruleset didn't change (too much). But, the proposed way of using those rules did. Which I suspect is the origin of @schnee 's comment. The recommended changes pushed DMs to force a narrative a lot more frequently than Basic or 1e did.

I don't agree. On a few points. Firstly, the Dragonlance modules came out in the mid 80s--5 years before 2e even came out for DL1. Secondly, I certainly didn't notice any difference in how the game told me to DM going from 1e to 2e. And thirdly, even if that were true, that's not an "endemic problem" by any stretch of the imagination. That's what I mentioned earlier, a preference thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

I don't agree. On a few points. Firstly, the Dragonlance modules came out in the mid 80s--5 years before 2e even came out for DL1. Secondly, I certainly didn't notice any difference in how the game told me to DM going from 1e to 2e. And thirdly, even if that were true, that's not an "endemic problem" by any stretch of the imagination. That's what I mentioned earlier, a preference thing.

Fun fact-

The Dragonlance modules were published in 1984.

The last one, DL16, was published in 1988.

Second Edition was 1989.

What you're thinking of, maybe, was the Hickman factor, which, you know, Ravenloft too. But ... no.

Also? @schnee 's comment was more about the 2e/3e change.


(EDIT- looks like I get kinja'd)

D'oh! an ageing brain plays tricks on event order a few decades later I guess. I'm AFB so I can't pull up some of the advice I recall (but ignored) to verify it was actually in the DMG and not a module or other form of supplement that came out prior.

 

[nswanson27]

I agree. My choice of style could have been better. In spite of how I described it, I would like to find a middle ground where role and roll can work well together. And GM's and players on this site who have already given their input are helping to do just that.

Sure thing - happy to help. My 2c on this topic is that this is VERY contextualized to the players. Are these players fun-loving, slapstick, if-I-die-at-least-it's-going-to-be-fun types? Are these players the serious, tactical, analytical types? Are these players the immersive-drama-theatrics type? I'm sure there are others. Is there a mix of the above? All player types can get into the the role playing (even the analytical ones, of which I am one of) - it's just presenting the correct hooks and lead-ins that draws them into role-playing aspect of D&D.
I've been apart of tables where the role-playing is honestly a chore. I've been apart of tables where the "story" is engaging and immersive to where tactical analysis of the battle field and role-playing my character sit comfortably side-by-side.
So to sum it up - study your players. See what sparks them, and see what doesn't. Once you get them going, then it's just gently steering the car how you wish and making sure the motor get the fuel it needs, and the players will happily be providing the power to go forward and in the end thank you for it. ...does that help?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The initial post does not really describe the D&D I've played in the past 30 years but everyone has a different way to enjoy the game. Personally I'd rather play it closer to skirmish wargaming than amateur theater. To each their own as they say.

 

[Satyrn]

It is true that implication is a tool or qualification of polemic. But I was not trying to be nasty towards anyone. If it came across that way, my apologies to any who took it so.

I cannot accept your apology while your essay contains this: "If not, perhaps that is why you don't know how to Role-Play."

I don't see how your apology can be sincere when you flat out tell me that I don't know how to do this thing that's been my hobby for 20 years.

 

[RobertBrus]

Feedback on what? How you play? Why do you need my input on that? Or anyone elses? I don't come to these boards asking if they think I'm playing the game right, and I know plenty people on here who probablydon't. The "balance" between roll and role is subjective for every player and every table.

Look: I can post my opinions on the balance of roll and role, but they're just my opinions and what I enjoy. They're not really up for discussion, and it wouldn't create a discussion between you and me. It'd just be you saying you like the color purple and I like the color orange. Both of these colors include a mix of red, but also a mix of something else. The fact that you love it doesn't make it better or worse. I LOVE 4E. I would happily play it over every other edition. That doesn't make me wrong or anyone else wrong. It's just preferences.


Full stop, I'm done.

You want to know why we can't have a discussion? It's right there in a bold.

And there.

And there

And there.

And there.

Buy a mirror. Reflect. Until then? Bye.

Sir, you have proven my point that the issues I presented can be discussed, as you have done so. And I thank you for breaking it down and discussing your take on it. What I do't get is why so much hostility. I didn't point my finger at you, nor at anyone. If it upset you as much as your post would imply, I apologize, as my intention was not to single anyone out nor turn this into a pissing match.

Might I suggest there is more lurking underneath your response than what I said. And that is what has turned this, for you, into a hostile and overly emotional thread. But again, if what I said, or how I said it has triggered such a hostile and emotional response from you, I am sorry. I meant no offense by my post.

 

[RobertBrus]

Hiy!



Depends on the game/table/players/DM, actually. But in a very broad sense...sure, "D&D isn't an adversarial game". I can go with that.

(PS: Clearly you've never played Hackmaster 4th Edtion! ).




This I'd disagree with a bit. It's not "pretending to be someone else", so much as it is "imagining what a certain character would do in a situation". Splitting hairs, maybe, but someone can role-play a character to the hilt without ever 'speaking in character', or 'pretending you are your PC'. I guess it's a REALLY fine hair, but I see a slight distinction between "pretending" and "imagining". With "pretending" you *are the PC*...but with "imagining" you are not necessarily thinking of yourself as the PC, so much as "imagining what THAT PC would do".




All that stuff is not mutually exclusive. By the very nature of the game, you, the Player, must take game mechanics into account. I mean, a Fighter who grew up in severe hardship where it was everyone for themselves will see some situational solution that would/could be completely different from a Wizard who grew up in the same childhood. In order to "role-play" the character, the Player has to take 'mechanics' in order to 'react appropriately'.




See above. Describing something doesn't mean you have to include the make-up of that thing. For example, if you woke up in some room with lots of weird equipment in it, you could describe the stuff you saw without having to refer to it as whatever it is. (i.e., "It's about a foot long, cylindrical, with a rough surface over most of it's length. The end bulges out in a sort of 'rounded cone' shape, with the point being inside the cylinder, and the flat area being a piece of clear plastic. In side that plastic cone, it looks like a 2cm glass bead is fastened into the center". ...or, "I see a metal flashlight"). In D&D, I can say "Fhadrah is a halfling fighter who wears medium armors and uses a shield and sword. She is good looking, but comes across to most as a bit uncaring, even cynical, because of her somewhat low Charisma". By saying "halfling", "fighter", "medium armor", and "charisma"...it's just grouping a bunch of descriptions together (re: "a foot long cylinder..." or "a flashlight"; saying "flashlight" automatically gives everyone an idea of what the object is).



Not entirely sure what you are getting at here, so I'm going to leave it alone. Sorry!




Because maybe the Rogue character does know. Remember my statement about the description vs just saying 'a flashlight'? Same sort of thing applies here. Nobody can write down EVERY SINGLE THING that his/her character does or doesn't know. It would be impossible to do in any sane manner. So, by saying "...a Rogue", it gives everyone at the table a baseline. Things that are significant from that baseline would need to be mentioned. In this case, if the DM said "Er, Sneaky Pete? How would you know that spell, let along how it works?"...and the Player can then re-evaluate. The Player can then acquiesce, or come up with a viable reason. "Uh...well, he did grow up on the street. Maybe he was friends with a wizard guy who fed him for doing some household chores. During dinner, the wizard would go on and on about spells, magic and general wizardry".

Role-playing doesn't just mean "pretending/imagining a character", it also involves being able to adapt to what the other players and the DM do/say 'in the game'.




This is a "table style/preference" thing. Some DM's enforce a strict "realism" mode for talking and suggesting stuff to do in-character and in-game. Some DM's ignore it completely, where a player can help another even if the two players PC's aren't even remotely near (as in, one is on Oerth, the other is in the Astral Plane, for example). Most DM's and games, I'd suspect, would fall somewhere in the middle. I'm closer to the "ignore it completely" crowd. If a player can get involved and help with the 'fun' of the game, I'm all for that...within reason.




I'm gonna firmly place this into the "different styles for different tables" category. This may very well float your boat, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm calling shenanigans on this being "the One True Way" to play an RPG.




Again, "different styles".



I agree with that. Everyone, Player and DM, should try different 'styles' of play as well as different RPG systems. The more you experience and know, the more you will figure out what style you like most. But, as I said, what you wrote here isn't the One True Way. I tried this type of play a couple times over the years. Every time the game felt...hmmm...'lessoned' from what it could be. And every time, I dropped that style of play. There's something to be said when a DM says "You take 15 points of damage!", and everyone at the table gasps and oooh's, aaah's, and woah's as the realize that PC, the only one left standing, is now fighting for his (and everyone elses unconscious PC) life with only 2hp's left. Knowing and using the mechanics of a game to describe stuff can, and indeed, does, significantly add to the excitement and fun factor or RPG'ing.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Thank you Paul, very well put, and a goodly amount of info. and explanations which has helped me to find a more playable middle ground.