Why D&D is like pr0n

[demetri0us]

And I believe that on the internet, folks tend to attribute the personal preferences of others to some personal flaw or weakness of intellect or character, despite having nothing other than anecdotal evidence to support the position.

Where I come from, that's called negative stereotyping, and it's kinda rude.

Well, I certainly don't mean to offend. I'm sorry if I did.

I think you may have read a bit too much into what I was saying. I really don't think being bad at strategy is a weakness. It is what it is. Some people are good at drawing, some people are good at funny voices, story telling and some people are good at moving minis around. It's all good. And likewise, telling somebody that their personal RPG talent isn't worthwhile isn't good at all.

However, my anecdotal evidence is just that. My anecdotal evidence. And until I can find proof to the contrary. I'm likely to continue to agree with the OP that D&D is like pr0n.

 

[Rel]

Well, I certainly don't mean to offend. I'm sorry if I did.

Just a tip for future reference but if you start a sentence like this:

But, and this is likely to offend and I'm sorry about that...

...you probably do mean to offend. Nonetheless, I get where you're coming from. And it probably does apply to some people. But I definitely don't think it applies to most.

Personally I'm all over the map. I'm actually pretty good at tactics when it comes to RPG's. I wish that extended to all boardgames but it doesn't. But my players can tell you that I'm a Rat Bastard when it comes to cleverly running the monsters and I bring some of that cleverness to the running of my PC's as well.

However I find that I also really enjoy some games that are incredibly rules light. Lately I've been very into Old School Hack, which is very rules light and includes zero tactical movement. I've run and played Risus and it doesn't get much more rules light than that.

By and large I've found that most players want to play games that are fun, particularly ones made fun by a competent and enthusiastic GM. The system and its inherent complexity are considerations that come in a distant second at best.

 

[Desdichado]

Nobody is good at tactics (as an example) because they want to be. If they aren't good at tactics, it's usually because, well, they aren't. Nobody decides to be good at chess. You either have a penchant for it or you don't. That sounds kinda harsh, but it's reality. It would be great if we could just say "oh, I'd like to be a good trombone player" and BAM, your Christian Lindberg. Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately.

Of course not, you say, "oh, I'd like to be a good trombone player" then you buy a trombone, take some lessons and practice a lot.

In other words, yeah... people do become good at things because they want to. All the time. I can name several things that I'm very good at that I used to be terrible at, but because I thought it was important for me to do for whatever reason, I practiced it, and, well, it wasn't exactly BAM, but at some point I got not only competent but even quite good at it.

However, when I see their method in action, in this case specifically were talking about role playing, there is little substance at all to the actual role playing.

Well, that could be true. I don't know what you mean by being "good" at roleplaying, though. What does that mean? Method acting? Speaking with a convincing accent? Thoughtful character introspection?

My group is great at roleplaying (IMO) and certainly watching all the characters interact with each other and the setting is my favorite part of getting together to play.

However, I have been involved in games that as soon as I quote a rule (or more to the point, take advantage of a rule) I get called out as not playing in the spirit of the game...

...I think this type of play is smack dab in the middle of the spirit of the game, certainly as much as roleplaying is.

This is precisely why the OP's post struck a chord in me.

Well, if that's your experience then I certainly won't try to argue it. It is, after all, your experience. I do question to wisdom in extrapolating from that to the gamer population at large.

And I'm always skeptical of any theory that hinges on people's motivations being different than what they say that they are. That doesn't mean that people can't be mistaken about their motivations, because people are all the time. But that doesn't mean that someone outside has a better grasp on them, especially when they're just anonymous people on the internet. Simplicity says "go with what people actually say that they like" every time, and only in unusual situations would I give any serious attention to a theory that contradicted that.

 

[Umbran]

Well, that could be true. I don't know what you mean by being "good" at roleplaying, though.

We also probably need to know what he means by "substance" in the roleplaying, and why it is important. Is there "substance" to the tactical wargame that he's comparing it to, or does he have expectations for the role-play that haven't been met?

 

[nedjer]

Ditto. Totally.

I've played and run 100's of games from my FLGS, to my parents basement to Gencon and I never see roleplaying of the caliber people talk about online.

I once went to a game where the GM's out of town buddy showed up to play. After discovering what my character was, he proclaimed "I don't find cheesy characters like that very interesting because I'm a roleplayer."

His version of roleplaying? An uselessly weak halfling fighter that undermined every party decision. His "roleplaying" was to be contrary in every possible way.

News flash. Roleplaying has nothing to do with what is on the paper. Pun-pun can be roleplayed just as effectively as a peasant with one arm and a drinking problem.

I actually believe most folks who think they prefer a rules light game are actually just terrible at rules theory, rules retention, character optimization, strategy and tactics. The way many of these folks seem to cope with this is to tell everybody how they play isn't in the spirit of the game. They tell us that roleplaying is the correct way to play the game.

Well, at least that's been my milages.

Looks like rules light games are becoming a bit of a threat to mankind. How should we go about eradicating this debilitating disease? I speak as a victim, constantly cheating on myself by playing Traveller instead of Dark Heresy. It's been getting worse lately - casting a wandering eye over Classic Traveller every chance I get, stealing from DH to feed my Traveller habit . . .

 

[Hussar]

If I could take a stab at this.

This has been debated forever. The idea that "true" roleplaying only occurs from a position of weakness or disadvantage, is hardly a new one. People poo poo a mechanically strong character as being munchkin or powergaming and the player often gets tarred with that brush as well. While, otoh, if I come to the table with a "one armed peasant with a drinking problem", I'm suddenly a role player and not a "roll player".

And, I think most people get that that's not true. You can roleplay an effective character just as well as a weak one. And, like Demetrius, I've certainly seen people point to their mechanically hopeless character and tell me how great their role playing is. Had a DM once in 3e who insisted that everyone make 15 point characters because anything higher was just playing super heroes.

Then, suddenly, the 8 Cha, 9 Int characters were spouting long, articulate speaches, coming up with intricate plans and generally acting like James Bond wrapped up with Sawyer from Lost. Completely ignoring the stats in favour of "role" playing.

Great role play, but, really, really out of character for what was on the paper in front of them. I made the mistake of pointing this out and pretty much the entire table called me a munchkin powergamer.

So, yeah, I can totally see where Deme is coming from with this. There is a pretty vocal segment of the hobby that insists that any sort of mechanical element in the game is equal to "ROLL" playing.

 

[demetri0us]

We also probably need to know what he means by "substance" in the roleplaying, and why it is important. Is there "substance" to the tactical wargame that he's comparing it to, or does he have expectations for the role-play that haven't been met?

Well, by substance I guess i mean... you know making decisions based on the motives of your character, not yourself... choosing something in game that may not be in the characters best interest because you know it would be "in charecter"

Oh, and not meta-gaming... not distributing treasure to keep the power lever optimal (or heck, fair). Not reacting to a baddies powers before they are used... no table discussion about what everybody's character should do and when they should do it...

You know... the usual... It seems like I did that at one point in my life (did I?), but if I did, I don't miss it now. I have bags of fun playing.

To me? "Real" role playing (my term, no necessarily everybody's) is not really important. When I run a game for my group, it's like Buffy meets The Gamers... we meta game and joke around having fun all the way home.

I think this is role playing to quite frankly.

But (and this is where I get the biggest part of the chip on my shoulder) I've had people join those games and tell me that it's not really role playing... And to boot, I'll go to their games and (no big surprise) there is just as much meta gaming and optimization going on (but no anachronistic joking... that's too out of context I guess)...

As an aside, optimization (munchkin, monty, cheese... whatever the kids are calling it now) doesn't always mean that you "actually" have an optimized character... It can simply mean you take a two handed sword because it does more damage than say a short sword... I hear all the time "oh I chose this-or-that because it was the flavor I wanted." I wanna be like, "really, ANOTHER fighter using the heaviest armor he can wear and the weapon with the most damage in the category you chose from, really? That's what you envisioned?" Like, call a spade a spade dude. Even if you suck at it, it's optimization if you make a decision base on the rules of the game, not the character motivation. /rant

But it isn't just locally I see this, as I have mentioned, I've played all over heck, and maybe it's just a coincidence, but folks have been the same everywhere. Some cool, some not as cool, but all the groups have pretty much role played at about the same level. My wife would say I'm the lowest common denominator here... but heck what does she know

That's not to say that I don't think it goes on... real role playing that is... it just seems like the Eye's Wide Shut party's... exclusively evasive

And, since it seems in my experience (limited though it may be) that most games are just like mine, nobody should be made to feel like those games are somehow inferior. I don't think they are.

Just enjoy the pr0n you gots, right?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Clearly the hobby belongs to the master race of those of us who can make well build mechanical characters who are also fantastically role played because it's not on a linear spectrum.

"Rollplayer" is at it's heart a term that translates to "I am more smug then you are."

 

[Doug McCrae]

I can see how there can be a conflict between roleplaying and min-maxing. One only has a finite amount of time to create one's character, to think about one's character. There's only a finite amount of time at the table.

If min-maxing takes up more of your time, more of your thought, then necessarily there will be less time left for thinking about your PC's personality, backstory, relationships, doing research on the time period, practicing your character voice (I've never done this but I imagine some ppl might) and just generally thinking up cool ideas. The exact same is true of GMs. More time devoted to the rules, or to thinking up ways to challenge the PCs means less time for everything else.

One could say that there's a basic minimum amount of time needed for both min-maxing and character stuff in order to meet acceptable standards. So long as you meet that minimum for both there's no problem.

I can say though that some of my PCs have definitely suffered from too much min-maxing and not enough roleplaying in the past. The roleplaying adds to the game for everyone, everyone can enjoy content. Min-maxing is more selfish, it's about power, really. Power over the gamespace.

I have a feeling we've discussed this before. But my attitudes seem to have changed a bit, I'm a little less keen on min-maxing now, maybe due to having mostly been GMing this past year.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

Min-maxing is more selfish, it's about power, really. Power over the gamespace.

...

I'm not sure... is anti-minmaxing (building a character that often needs to be revived and saved by the others, or a healer that cannot heal, so the other characters die) enhancing a roleplaying game?
And is it selfish to build a character that enables the other characters to hit better or makes the enemy weaker, so that the other characters are more likely to survive?

In 4e, with it's combat role model, you could argue that any striker class is for selfish players and any leader class the paragon of cooperative play.

Before I have to gimp a character mechanically to reach the high role-playing ceiling, i would play less games and make the characters I have good in character and mechanics.