D&D 5E When did Role become Roll?

[schnee]

D&D is NOT adversarial; It is not the GM against the players, nor is it player against player. It is a cooperative, shared storytelling event. Trying to “win” is not only a mistake, it doesn't make any sense. It is simply not that type of game. We all succeed when we tell an interesting story that we can enjoy together. That is what Role-Playing is all about.

Congratulations, you've been improbably fortunate. Because almost everyone has a story about an absolute jerk of a DM that was inconsistent, adversarial, combative, controlling, and maybe even abusive. Sometimes they were arbitrary. Sometimes they played favorites. But they were everywhere. And even DMs with the best intent developed some really ridiculous rule interpretations between tables.

'Role Playing became Roll Playing' is a straw man. If you say that with a straight face, I'll say 'it became Roll Playing when Collaborative Storytelling became Tiresome Pixel Bitching and Numberwang'.

(Tiresome Pixel Bitching comes from the sometimes poorly-communicated and very specific 'old school' ways that DMs used to adjudicate detecting and solving puzzles and traps - that some were brilliant at and some sucked at. Numberwang to me means the capricious and arbitrary things some of those DMs decided things that made the entire world feel like an arbitrary joke.)

Every version of D&D was developed to solve endemic problems of previous ones. 2E was full of so many arbitrary tyrants that they developed a skill system that prevented that sort of petty tyranny for 3E.

This isn't some violation of your principles that developed in a vacuum, it's a natural development based on what the hobby needed and trends that were occurring in many, many other RPGs that were developed alongside - and in response to - D&D.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ve always allowed a bit of cross talk at the table. Nothing wrong with the rogue player making a suggestion to the wizard player. For me, there is no way to accurately replicate the full thought process of the wizard character in the mind of the wizard player. There is no way for me to fully convey the situation and environment that the character finds himself in. So I think that we have to make some allowances in order to make up for that.

So, to provide a specifoc example....The PCs are typically a group of adventurers who have been through some stuff. Chances are the wizard would have a good idea of what the rogue would suggest. This would be based on some mutual history they possess and which we cannot replicate. Hours and hours of conversation and time spent together....possibly years worth freindship...that are only hinted at in our actual play. So to make up for that, I don’t mind if the players strategize a bit with each other even if it could be seen as metagaming by some.

I mean, as deep into the role as you may get, you’re still playing a simulation. There are still game mechanics involved.

 

[pming]

Hiy!

D&D is NOT adversarial; It is not the GM against the players, nor is it player against player.

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! ).

Role-Playing simply means pretending to be someone else.

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".

What is a character? A character is a personality with wants, needs, and life views/beliefs that in many cases differ from yours. Notice I didn't mention class, race, skills, modifiers, etc. These are game mechanics, the tools and techniques your character uses to achieve what they desire. But what is it your character desires?

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'.

Can you describe your character such that we have an understanding of who and what they are? And can you do this without once mentioning any mechanical aspects of the game? If not, perhaps that is why you don't know how to Role-Play. Take some time to establish who your character is, not as a bunch of numbers, but as a background to establish motives (what does my character want?).

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).

Please do not interrupt the game by imposing yourself into the story! By trying to control the game as yourself, you take us all out of the story, which is not fair nor respectful for everyone else. If you want to try something, or move the story along, do it as your character.

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

Why would a rogue advise a wizard on which spell to cast? You may know everything there is about spells, but your rogue does not. In fact, why are you trying to tell any other PC what to do or not do, you are not there. Your character is, so interact with the other PC's as your character (see above).

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'.

Why are you advising the rogue who is in another room? Please explain to me how your character could possibly know what the rogue is doing considering your character is not in the room. You may know, as you are sitting around the table listening to the story unfold. Great! Sit there and listen. Allow the other player to have their spotlight moment playing as the rogue. You will get your turn.

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.

Your responsibility to help tell the story is to describe what your character is doing & what your character is about. And to speak to other PC's and NPC's as your character. Pretending to be someone else is the whole point of this game. That is the only way you will ever experience how enjoyable and exciting this game can be. And that requires you to banish this win/lose mentality, and the desire to control the game as a god-like player.

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.

In short, it is about interaction; imagination and shared storytelling; pretending to be a fantasy character exploring a fantastical world; reclaiming a child-like sense of wonder; the joy of expressing yourself as a creative being.

Again, "different styles".

Surely that is worth a bit of effort on the part of the player to try the above advice. I look forward to your views.

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

 

[Lanefan]

I hear my name being called...

Further, just because the game need not have adversarial action between the various players, doesn't mean it must not. One of my fondest memories of playing was a campaign where my character and another PC were bitter rivals.

While DMing, I cannot become an adversary for the players, but the NPCs certainly can. Players do not face the same constraint of unequal power as DM--player conflict and can engage more freely in conflict. Some games the PCs form a cohesive group; other games light rivalries develop and the occasional game has the PCs pitted at each others throats. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is another player who enjoys a wide range of potential PC--PC adversarial play.

The main trick is to make sure the adversarial behaviour stays between the PCs and doesn't develop into player rifts.

Yes, absolutely! It's always fun when there's another player where in one game your and their characters are great friends while in another game or party those same players' different characters want to chop each other's furry little faces off...

That said, I see no reason why there cannot also be a somewhat more adversarial relationship between the DM (as the game world) and the players (as the PCs).

Unless you're collectively playing D&D strictly as sport, as a DM your job is to run a world and a game that is - within the rules and within some guidelines of reasonability - out to kill the PCs dead*. It's the job of the players to have their PCs survive said world, and to thwart the DM's aims of killing them dead while at the same time doing whatever heroic or mercenary or greedy deeds they may do. It's war. Play it that way.

* - assuming a normal sort of game where the PCs go adventuring and put themselves in all sorts of dangerous situations now and then.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

D&D is NOT adversarial; It is not the GM against the players, nor is it player against player. It is a cooperative, shared storytelling event.

Sometimes the story that gets told ain't about rescuing the princess...it's about the infighting and treachery that happened on the way there as each of the gallant heroes did his best to make sure he'd be the one who walked alone into the king's hall with the rescued damsel in his arms...

Trying to “win” is not only a mistake, it doesn't make any sense. It is simply not that type of game. We all succeed when we tell an interesting story that we can enjoy together. That is what Role-Playing is all about.

Sometimes. We all succeed when an interesting story comes out of it, but as noted above there's many ways of achieving that result...and nothing says they have to be goodly, or heroic.

Role-Playing simply means pretending to be someone else. Acting & reacting based upon the personality of your character, and only on what your character knows & understands. It is not easy, but with practice, it can happen. Of course, this means knowing your character.

What is a character? A character is a personality with wants, needs, and life views/beliefs that in many cases differ from yours. Notice I didn't mention class, race, skills, modifiers, etc. These are game mechanics, the tools and techniques your character uses to achieve what they desire. But what is it your character desires?

Can you describe your character such that we have an understanding of who and what they are? And can you do this without once mentioning any mechanical aspects of the game? If not, perhaps that is why you don't know how to Role-Play. Take some time to establish who your character is, not as a bunch of numbers, but as a background to establish motives (what does my character want?).

With the exception of the bit I bolded, I actually agree with all of this. Personality first, numbers second...though the personality and characterization need to reflect the numbers to some extent e.g. a character with Int 6 isn't likely to be coming up with brilliant ideas very often.

The bit I bolded is just inflammatory and serves no purpose.

Then, you will be able to answer the critical question: “What would my character do?”

Yes, which is the best approach...even when it leads to unintended results. I can't count the number of times I've roleplayed myself right out of parties because it simply made more sense for my character to leave than stay.

Please do not interrupt the game by imposing yourself into the story! By trying to control the game as yourself, you take us all out of the story, which is not fair nor respectful for everyone else. If you want to try something, or move the story along, do it as your character.

Why would a rogue advise a wizard on which spell to cast? You may know everything there is about spells, but your rogue does not. In fact, why are you trying to tell any other PC what to do or not do, you are not there. Your character is, so interact with the other PC's as your character (see above).

Why are you advising the rogue who is in another room? Please explain to me how your character could possibly know what the rogue is doing considering your character is not in the room. You may know, as you are sitting around the table listening to the story unfold. Great! Sit there and listen. Allow the other player to have their spotlight moment playing as the rogue. You will get your turn.

Agreed again.

This can be shortened down to simply say "player knowledge must equal character knowledge" - if the character doesn't know it, the player shouldn't either (which here makes me ask if the rogue is in another room, why aren't the DM and the rogue's player also in another room sorting out what happens to the rogue?)

Your responsibility to help tell the story is to describe what your character is doing & what your character is about. And to speak to other PC's and NPC's as your character. Pretending to be someone else is the whole point of this game. That is the only way you will ever experience how enjoyable and exciting this game can be.

Yes. You're good up to here.

And that requires you to banish this win/lose mentality,

But here you lose it again. I might well play a character who does want to win, who does want to end up with more wealth and levels and status than anyone else in the party, and who does want to be the best. Or I might not...

and the desire to control the game as a god-like player.

This is a different issue from win-lose. Trying to control the game and tell other PCs what to do (particularly out of character or when the character can't know what's going on) is always bad form.

Lan-"my problem here is that if I were to ever post in character you'd be blinded by all the little yellow smilies blocking out the cuss words"-efan

 

[MoominT]

Didnt Gary Gygax start DMing behind a screen and doing all the dice rolls for everything? including the players character generation?
That would be right up the OP street I think.

I would find that fun for one session or 2 but then like if the game was like the OP would like, I would
find something better to do.... Like Roll play!

 

[Imaculata]

This essay is applicable to any RPG. But as I happen to play D&D 5E, I am presenting it here.

You say your essay is applicable to any RPG, yet is focused specific on D&D 5E? Am I to understand that questions regarding "What Role-Playing means" or "What a character is" are the same for any RPG? Because I would disagree.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

I .... don't agree at all with the particular part I excerpted from your comment.
.

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The way I read the OP, the only one who "played it right" was Tom Hanks from Mazes and Monsters.


No thanks...