PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying or Rollplaying



BnF95
2007-01-21, 03:53 AM
In your gaming group, what is more prevalent? Role-playing or Roll-playing? I noticed (after spending a lot of time reading) that many people go for "optimum builds", not that I'm saying its bad, or that a one-trick pony is no good, but how many games revolve around plots and counter-plots (with the occasional dungeon crawl and/or wilderness jaunt thrown in) of politics.

Basically, which do you prefer:
Role-Playing Games
Roll-Playing Games

JaronK
2007-01-21, 05:17 AM
You seem to be under the impression that one has anything to do with the other. Are you incapable of throwing out quips while rolling the dice to attack your foe, or interacting with other characters while disarming a trap?

JaronK

Dhavaer
2007-01-21, 05:25 AM
100% both. As a wargame I would imagine it would be quite dull, and without mechanics it's really just 'make believe for grown-ups'.

Ali
2007-01-21, 08:35 AM
I probably prefer role-playing, but of course you can do that while you fight - describe your actions and all sorts, like JaronK said, "throwing out quips while rolling the dice to attack your foe".

So I voted for 50% roleplaying, 50% rollplaying.

Thomas
2007-01-21, 08:43 AM
You seem to be under the impression that one has anything to do with the other. Are you incapable of throwing out quips while rolling the dice to attack your foe, or interacting with other characters while disarming a trap?

JaronK


100% both. As a wargame I would imagine it would be quite dull, and without mechanics it's really just 'make believe for grown-ups'.

What they said.

We powergame and optimise - why not, after all? - and slaughter hordes of monsters, but that in no way prevents me from using plots, mysteries, personal goals, and characterisation in the games.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-21, 09:22 AM
(75% roleplaying, 25% rollplaying) Combat, though unpleasant, is an integral part of RPGs.Um, wait. Are you saying that because I like character-acting and "roleplay-heavy" games, that I necessarily dislike combat? Because that isn't true at all.

Having a lot of combat rather than "political intrigue" doesn't automatically make a game hack'n'slash -- in some groups, combat is hugely descriptive, creating awesome cinematics for each action taken, while keeping mechanics perfectly intact. Roleplaying doesn't preclude mechanics.

So, if you're asking "Do you prefer combat-heavy hack'n'slash games or do you prefer character-driven roleplay-heavy games," my answer would probably be the latter. But the poll seems to be asking, "Do you prefer combat, or roleplaying?" and to me, those two aren't mutually exclusive, so I can't really vote.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-21, 09:29 AM
I'm with the illustrious Shazzbaa (:smalltongue:) here. The poll really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Brauron
2007-01-21, 10:02 AM
Agreeing with the above, some of it depends on the characters and game too. In our game of Star Frontiers, I play a trigger-happy Yizarian who names his guns and whose basic philosophy is "Shoot first, no time for questions, shoot again."

In D&D, my Barbarian will be violent, but always with good, decently-roleplayed reason. "Rogue? We don't need a rogue, I've got all the lock picking skills we need *smashes lock with greataxe* see?"

In Call of Cthulhu I played a clergyman with a PhD who refused to even hold a gun. He attempted to think through everything and left the combat to the characters suited for it.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-01-21, 10:09 AM
50/50. I like the fighting, but just as much I love to see the storyline advance and characters develop.

Indon
2007-01-21, 10:48 AM
Personally, I do not view the distinction between number-crunching and roleplay to be the distinction between combat and non-combat. You can min-max a character to make DC 35 Diplomacy checks or whathaveyou and give them a 'speak all languages' ability and have them render almost any opponent nonhostile before an encounter begins just as easily as you can min-max a character to do ten zillion points of damage a round in combat. On the other hand, you can roleplay in combat.

I voted 25% roll/75% role. I feel that the storyline should be the primary focus on a regulated tabletop game, but that the storyline should be in accord with the mechanics behind it. If it's not, then maybe the mechanics require tweaking, or maybe the story.

If I want to play a game with a higher emphasis on roleplaying, I run a diceless campaign. If I want to play a game with a lower emphasis on roleplaying, I load up an MMORPG on my computer.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-21, 10:53 AM
I said 50%, because they always seem to go hand in hand. The player, while roleplaying, decides upon a course of action. I had him dice to see if he's successful, and then he rollplays to figure out what happens next in the roleplaying portion, and if more rollplaying is required. Combat pops up where appropriate, and my players really love to have mock battles with each other for fun (and I award them with bonus experience based on how well they perform). It isn't roleplay versus rollplay. It's D&D.

Reinforcements
2007-01-21, 10:58 AM
Considering that role-playing and dice-rolling are not mutually exclusive, this poll doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-01-21, 12:31 PM
I voted #5, because I'd say we're somewhere between 99% roleplaying/1% rollplaying and 90% roleplaying/10% rollplaying. That doesn't necessarily mean no combat, or even little combat. It just means I usually handle combat theatrically and/or or glaze over the details, while rarely rolling for attack/damage. Sometimes I do roll for spell saves or special rules like grappling, but most times I judge it based on who has higher/lower saves and, most importantly, what's best for the scene/plot.

Artanis
2007-01-21, 12:56 PM
I have to follow the "the two aren't mutually exclusive" crowd. Hell, the longest-running campaign I've ever been in is an Exalted campaign, where good roleplaying gives you outright combat boosts!

Roderick_BR
2007-01-21, 01:29 PM
50%-50%
Both are needed. Although D&D is more combat oriented, my gaming group tends to roleplay* all the time. More than when we play Vampire: The Maskerade :smalltongue:

*Watching the two dwarven characters from the same player discussing between themselves is a show in itself.

Zincorium
2007-01-22, 01:48 AM
"Roll-playing" is a slightly insulting pun, any time you get into the mindset of a particular character and do your best to view the world from their perspective and act on that, then you are roleplaying. What the dice happen to be getting rolled for doesn't change that.

In any case, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to vote because there is no general percentage which applies to the game I'm currently playing, we tend to skew very drastically in both directions, from a fully planned and flawlessly executed combat manuever to an entire session where we don't draw weapons. That and none of the above quotes fit the group.

Tormsskull
2007-01-22, 07:22 AM
Yeah, this poll is set up poorly. You should have broken it down roleplaying - hack n slash. I utilize skill checks a lot to further roleplaying, but they require a die roll which works with mechanics & thus would be apart of "rollplaying".

Or what might have been an interesting poll is something like, in a typical session, what percentage of time would you guess is devoted to roleplaying versus hack n slash. That would at least give people a better idea.

Golthur
2007-01-22, 12:03 PM
Or what might have been an interesting poll is something like, in a typical session, what percentage of time would you guess is devoted to roleplaying versus hack n slash. That would at least give people a better idea.
That's somewhat what my brain translated the poll as truly meaning - do you like more roleplaying or more hack-n'-slash?

But, really, for me, it depends on my mood. I likes me a good no-combat total roleplaying session, and I also likes me a good stomp-the-monsters session.

Thomas
2007-01-22, 02:15 PM
Or what might have been an interesting poll is something like, in a typical session, what percentage of time would you guess is devoted to roleplaying versus hack n slash. That would at least give people a better idea.

Who on earth would actually calculate that? You'd need an independent observer who's not taking part in the game, with a time-sheet jotting down minutes spent doing different things.

Otherwise, the ratios will just be made-up, like 78% of statistics.

Ridiculous.


Anyway, more on the topic, how is combat intrinsically not roleplaying?

Tormsskull
2007-01-22, 02:46 PM
Who on earth would actually calculate that? You'd need an independent observer who's not taking part in the game, with a time-sheet jotting down minutes spent doing different things.

Otherwise, the ratios will just be made-up, like 78% of statistics.

Ridiculous.



I've noticed that you seem to be against the very notion that some people prefer hack n slash to roleplay or vice versa, or in fact, that you can separate the two whatsoever. You can, in fact. The DMG describes these types of play, I know they use Kick-in-the-door to describe hack n slash but I don't recall their term for heavy roleplaying.

You wouldn't need to have an independent person there. Most people can easily tell you which they prefer. It doesn't mean if you prefer hack n slash that you do 0 roleplaying or if you prefer roleplaying you do 0 hack n slash, and I think some people have a hard time understanding that.



more on the topic, how is combat intrinsically not roleplaying?


That depends on your definition of roleplaying. If you define it as 'pretending to be someone other than yourself when you play a game' then it easily is.

RandomNPC
2007-01-22, 04:43 PM
my games are mostly roll, not role. they run into town, find a quest giving person, make a few checks, and walk out, after picking up a shopping list of things. combat usually starts with an ambush or the group deciding a non-hostile encounter is not energetic enough (my lil bro in law enjoys his area of effect spells)

Druid
2007-01-22, 05:27 PM
50/50 I'd get sick of a game with neither pretty quick.

Gamebird
2007-01-22, 06:07 PM
Another point is that that you see builds and optimization bantered about because that's easy to discuss if everyone has the books in question. Like if everyone has the core books, then we can talk about class balance issues. However, if I want to talk about the balance of roles in the campaign I'm playing in, it's hard to discuss that on an internet forum with people who aren't also in the campaign.

We can relate stories about role playing, or cool concepts (and there's lots of threads devoted to that on the front page right now). But in the end, there's not much "discussion" in those threads. It's like relating what you did on vacation. One person speaks, then another, then someone else. We each get our round of show-n-tell, but there's no dialog going on. No one is learning (much) and there's not a back-and-forth flow of ideas.

When discussing a common framework of rules, we're all equal. You can't have that for discussing role playing aspects of D&D. They're nearly always campaign-specific. Not even two players can really talk much. Everything about their characters depends on the DM's input - did you really have an uncle who was a war hero? is your aunt really a hag in disguise who eats children? does your father own three cows or four? And since each game has only one DM, who is the final arbiter of the game world, you can't have a conversation between DMs. (Maybe between co-DMs of the same game world, but it's a limited conversation.)

So. That's why internet forum discussoons tend to revolve around rules and builds rather than role playing and character traits.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-22, 06:34 PM
Who on earth would actually calculate that? You'd need an independent observer who's not taking part in the game, with a time-sheet jotting down minutes spent doing different things.

Nobody's really calculating anything, perse. I mean, having the percentages 100/0, 75/25 50/50, etc. is really more like saying "mostly, some, or barely," than an attempt at finding a true statistic.

Many groups could probably tell you that their favourite games spend a majority of time doing roleplaying or hack-n-slash, or that the two aspects are fairly even... so it would be possible to poll for such a thing.


Not even two players can really talk much. Everything about their characters depends on the DM's input - did you really have an uncle who was a war hero? is your aunt really a hag in disguise who eats children? does your father own three cows or four? And since each game has only one DM, who is the final arbiter of the game world, you can't have a conversation between DMs.

Oh, pshaw! I must disagree. :smalltongue: Two players, or a player and a DM, can indeed talk for great long amounts of time about their characters if you get the right sort of people. However, that's a different sort of discussion... the sort that's better suited to casual conversation than a forum discussion.

I'll add this to waht you were saying, though, Gamebird -- a lot of times, I know what concept I want. I'll see something, it'll give me an idea, and BAM I know what I want to do. I just don't know how to do it. It'd be silly for me to come to the boards looking for a character concept or to ask how I should roleplay this character, because that's the part I already know -- there can be no debate about it. No, I come to the boards asking how to make this person in my head mechanically viable.

So that's what the boards typically discuss.

fireinthedust
2007-01-22, 06:38 PM
I chose 50/50. I love rp, but to be frank I loooooove a good combat session. I'm planning a massive battle with 15th level gestalt PCs vs. an Uber-lich, 100 minotaurs, several "generals", Fire Giants, and a Dragon. woot!
However, I like books and stories, but I'm shy during a typical game as a DM. Sometimes I just don't know what to say, unless I'm a PC.

Ravyn
2007-01-22, 11:29 PM
As much RPing as possible, as much combat as my players require... though I tend to avoid it because it's getting harder and harder to balance for them. (We're talking people of worldshaking power, here, capable of Death of Caesar'ing almost any BBEG I can come up with in a couple rounds, and I'm no mechanist.) Besides, given that I'm working over AIM, with tons of colorcoded NPCs and no visuals to speak of, a heavy RP aspect is pretty much inevitable. (And this week, my poor players are going to be thrown headlong into CELESTIAL POLITICS! *maniacal laughter*)

jjpickar
2007-01-22, 11:59 PM
25% role playing/75% roll playing

For role playing my motto is: "Let the lord of chaos rule!"

Ditto for roll playing.

Oh, Chaotic Evil is the best alignment ever, in my opinion.

Bosh
2007-01-23, 01:34 AM
I'm not sure if I like the implied definition of roleplaying and rollplaying found in the OP. For me I think something better would be:

Rollplaying: Playing D&D like it was a CRPG.

Roleplaying: Doing all the fun stuff that's impossible to do in a CRPG.

Rollplaying can have very little combat and roleplaying can have lots of combat. Some of the most fun RPing I've had was in a trench warfare adventure in which the entire adventure was one long combat encounter. But what I had my half-orcish character do was defect to the orcish army (with help from one of the other PCs), bluff his way into a leadership position and get his unit of orcish footsoldiers to run away at a critical moment to save some orcish lives and make sure that the orc's evil overlords were defeated with a minimum of loss of orcish life. That's something I could never do in a CRPG if faced with an evil army of orcs, so that made it great RPing for me.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 04:37 AM
Gah! We hates it! We hates it forever!

The term "roll-playing" was invented by smug wankers in the late nineteen eighties in order to allow themselves to pretend that their games (which involved running around killing people and angsting about it) were fundamentally superior to everybody else's games (which involved running around killing people and not angsting about it).

It was siezed upon by White Wolf, masters of smug, self-congratulatory toss, who put the term in pretty much every edition of their game in order to remind their players that if you didn't like their system, it wasn't because it sucked, it was because you were a bad person.

Even White Wolf now disown the phrase, flatly denying ever having used it despite its being in the core rulebook of the most recent incarnation of their game.

In any game which does not suck, the mechanics (including the "optimisation" end of the mechanics, thank you very much) will actively support role-playing as the game defines it. When a character in Dogs in the Vineyard escalates a conflict to physical violence, they are partially doing it to get extra dice, but they are also making an in-character decision.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 04:40 AM
I want to try DitV.

Ambrogino
2007-01-23, 04:58 AM
I want to try DitV.

Do, it's great. I'm using it to run a 40K Inquisition game at the moment.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 05:16 AM
I'd have to get the book and find a game to do that, which isn't easy.

Charity
2007-01-23, 05:33 AM
The term "roll-playing" was invented by smug wankers in the late nineteen eighties in order to allow themselves to pretend that their games (which involved running around killing people and angsting about it) were fundamentally superior to everybody else's games (which involved running around killing people and not angsting about it).

It was siezed upon by White Wolf, masters of smug, self-congratulatory toss, who put the term in pretty much every edition of their game in order to remind their players that if you didn't like their system, it wasn't because it sucked, it was because you were a bad person.

I just had to quote you Dan, you are a scholar and a poet.
Very much in agreement with this, oh so very much.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 07:48 AM
Gah! We hates it! We hates it forever!

...

Best rant all month. Well done, sir. Well done.


That depends on your definition of roleplaying. If you define it as 'pretending to be someone other than yourself when you play a game' then it easily is.

I can't really think of any definition of "roleplaying" by which combat is automatically excluded. "Acting" ? No, combat is still fine. "Immersing yourself in the role of a character" etc. ? Combat is still allowable under the definition.


I've noticed that you seem to be against the very notion that some people prefer hack n slash to roleplay or vice versa, or in fact, that you can separate the two whatsoever. You can, in fact. The DMG describes these types of play, I know they use Kick-in-the-door to describe hack n slash but I don't recall their term for heavy roleplaying.

Certainly you can separate them, but there is no inherent separation. The idea that combat is roll-playing and excludes role-playing (i.e. that a game that includes, say, 25% combat, is at most 75% roleplaying) is plain stupid. You can play D&D as a wargame or as a roleplaying game (or, I suppose, as a combination of the two), but you can have combat in either type of game.


Another point is that that you see builds and optimization bantered about because that's easy to discuss if everyone has the books in question. Like if everyone has the core books, then we can talk about class balance issues. However, if I want to talk about the balance of roles in the campaign I'm playing in, it's hard to discuss that on an internet forum with people who aren't also in the campaign.

I tend to stick to the rules in my D&D games, but I can't imagine even trying to discuss my 3E RuneQuest NPCs on a RuneQuest gaming board - nobody would understand them, since they don't follow the actual rules of the game. ('course RuneQuest is much less strict than D&D - there's no levels, so there's no defined boundaries within which the NPCs and PCs must fall.)

What would be the point of discussing characters built using literally a stack (I believe the count was 100-150 pages) of optional rules culled from the internet and modified to suit me (in my head; I never wrote my house-rules down) ? And that's not even considering the 20-30 cults I picked up or created for my use and the attendant magic (spells most others would never have heard about)...

Discussing the rules is easy; discussing how to stretch them to the limit is a legitimate subject; and discussing how they crumble and fall apart and plain don't work when stretched to those limits is not only legitimate, but important. I'd go so far as to say that it's the players' duty, because it can affect later editions. The latest, Mongoose incarnation of RuneQuest incorporates (as far as I can see) dozens of variant rules and ideas created by players, either printed in fanzines or hosted on websites. Many other common player concerns (the lack of opposed skill tests, the way the opposed characteristic tests don't work at all if the characteristics are above 40 or so, etc.) have been addressed in the new edition.


If enough players talk about something - like how casters own D&D, etc. - for long enough, the developers will see and remember the issue, and probably seek to address it in future editions (which could come out decades later; we waited some 12+ years for the new RuneQuest).

Charity
2007-01-23, 07:52 AM
I loved runequest...
*Wanders off to froogle it*

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 09:20 AM
Best rant all month. Well done, sir. Well done.

Thank you.


I can't really think of any definition of "roleplaying" by which combat is automatically excluded. "Acting" ? No, combat is still fine. "Immersing yourself in the role of a character" etc. ? Combat is still allowable under the definition.

While I think you're absolutely right, to be fair to tormsskull the way D&D combat works, with a strong emphasis on metagame tactical decisons like how much of your BAB to convert into Power Attack, or whether to Charge or take a Move Action then Attack *does* distract from a "pure in-character" (or "Actor Stance" if you're being fancy) attitude to roleplaying.

Tormsskull
2007-01-23, 09:57 AM
I enjoy combat as much as the next guy, it can be a lot of fun and it can require good tactics to have your characters survive. That is all part of the fun in D&D. However, to me Roleplaying means acting as your character first, not as a player behind that character.

When _every_ roleplaying decision you make is made to enhance your mechanical capibilities, I'd say that's cheesy roleplaying. Its basically what I refer to as a roleplaying cover. You make up these outlandish roleplay reasons your character does something to justify it in character, rather than looking at the world through your character's eyes.

That's where separating hack n slash and roleplaying help. If someone says we're going to have a heavy-roleplaying game, a player in that game is going to be held to some expectations. Sometimes you're going to have to make the less than optimal choice because your character wouldn't know the optimal choice, even though you as a player do know.

The best example I can think off the top of my head is the old troll debate. Assuming a heavy roleplaying game, and your character had never encountered a troll before, how would you know to use fire or acid to keep it down permanently (assuming you don't have or failed a skill check to determine)? The answer is you don't know. The roleplaying cover is "I know back home when we tried to crush those little insects we couldn't, but burn em up and they died. Let's try to burn him and see if that works." Or something else just as lame.

Now, some people don't want to play in those kind of games. They want the game to be Players versus encounters/enemies. They want to be able to use all of their out-of-character information to the best of their ability to defeat a challenge. They don't want to waste time hearing the DM's "dwarvish" accent or pretend to be different people than they are. They simply want to play the game, gain levels, get better gear, etc. And there is nothing wrong with that. Hell, look at World of Warcraft. That game is incredibly fun and makes millions of dollars, based on these principles.

I suspect most campaigns run somewhere in between heavy roleplaying and hack n slash, and that is totally fine. My argument is that there definitely is a difference between roleplaying & hack n slash. No, they aren't exclusive. No, it doesn't mean if you do one you can't do the other, but they are separate entities.

MrNexx
2007-01-23, 10:17 AM
As the levels get higher, the combats get fewer, for me. I hate high-level combat, because a single combat takes too frickin' long and has too many modifiers.

Indon
2007-01-23, 10:19 AM
The term "roll-playing" was invented by smug wankers in the late nineteen eighties in order to allow themselves to pretend that their games (which involved running around killing people and angsting about it) were fundamentally superior to everybody else's games (which involved running around killing people and not angsting about it).


Well, Munchkin-ing just doesn't have the same fluidity to it, wouldn't you agree?

The term describes a very real phenomenon; the neglect of characterization in a roleplaying game (generally tabletop) in favor of mechanics optimization.

Gamebird
2007-01-23, 11:49 AM
My way of thinking roll-playing vs. role-playing is the amount of time you spend in initiative count, waiting for the next opportunity to take an action, vs. the time spent speaking in character, discussing group goals and/or interacting in the game world without rolling dice (or rolling only minimal dice).

krossbow
2007-01-23, 12:03 PM
"Roll-playing" is the final bastion of defense that people fall back upon when they are faced with unrefutable evidence that something is unfair or unbalanced.



I myself use both integrally-- to seperate the two is like trying to remove shadow and light from one another: They lose their specialness.

In games I play, the PC's run around, looking around the dungeon and trying to figure out whatever the hell is going on before the taint of the place or the villian inside of it consume them. This involves alot of RPing with one another, other people that they might find, and interacting with puzzles. HOWEVER, when they find a device in a puzzle, they must still roll to disable it, and when they try to make people like them, they must still do diplomacy.


In addition, I take great pleasure in battles, when I rush my character out against overwhelming odds, tumbling and flying around, dropping spells and such on them, with HP and PC's dropping all around me, and a 50/50 chance of getting out of it alive, testing my characters mettle and all of us glad for the combat feats and subtle tweaks or strategies we have laid out.
________
HOUSE MD FORUMS (http://www.tv-gossip.com/house-md/)

Altair_the_Vexed
2007-01-23, 12:03 PM
I abstain from the vote.

The rolls are a vehicle for the roles, but the rolls are necessary for the fairness of the story. I love the fighting, the skill checks and the saves, but there are plenty of times when I've been more engaged and excited by discussion and politics and soap opera stuff. There has to be a good story to hook the combat on, and a good story needs a fair amount of random chance to keep us from getting bored while we take part. What I'm trying to say is that too much of either is too much! Optimising beyond reasonably in-game justifiable levels is crass - but similarly, it can be ridiculous to try to act past the statted capability of the character. You've got an 18 INT score there buddy, why shouldn't your Wizard think of that? It isn't good RP to play outside the rules too far.

This is the Gaming (d20 and General RPG) board. When we have no rolls, we're just telling stories together. When we have no roles, we're just playing miniature battles. RPGs are in between.

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-23, 12:05 PM
I like about an even mix but my group has tended towards smash first get to know each other later in recent years.

krossbow
2007-01-23, 12:07 PM
I abstain from the vote.

The rolls are a vehicle for the roles, but the rolls are necessary for the fairness of the story. I love the fighting, the skill checks and the saves, but there are plenty of times when I've been more engaged and excited by discussion and politics and soap opera stuff. There has to be a good story to hook the combat on, and a good story needs a fair amount of random chance to keep us from getting bored while we take part.

This is the Gaming (d20 and General RPG) board. When we have no rolls, we're just telling stories together. When we have no roles, we're just playing miniature battles. RPGs are in between.

A brilliant synopsis, and a perfect answer to the question.
________
Sex Movies (http://www.****tube.com/)

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 12:12 PM
This is the Gaming (d20 and General RPG) board. When we have no rolls, we're just telling stories together. When we have no roles, we're just playing miniature battles. RPGs are in between.

That's not really true. You don't need dice to play RPGs--see, for example, the Amber diceless RPG. Or Nobilis, which is the best RPG ever. And even ignoring resource-management systems, you can have something that is manifestly a roleplaying game but without a rules system.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 01:53 PM
Well, Munchkin-ing just doesn't have the same fluidity to it, wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't.


The term describes a very real phenomenon; the neglect of characterization in a roleplaying game (generally tabletop) in favor of mechanics optimization.

It doesn't "describe a very real phenomenon" it describes the sad delusions of stupid people who *really think* that their inability to work out the Attack of Opportunity rules makes them a superior roleplayer.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 01:55 PM
That's not really true. You don't need dice to play RPGs--see, for example, the Amber diceless RPG. Or Nobilis, which is the best RPG ever. And even ignoring resource-management systems, you can have something that is manifestly a roleplaying game but without a rules system.

Without an explicit rules system maybe, but you need some kind of mutual basis to work from. If you me and the pope are playing an RPG, and I think I'm the DM, the pope thinks he's the DM, and you think we don't *have* a DM, we're not going to have a game in any useful sense of the word.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 02:00 PM
If it's not an explicit rules system, doesn't that make it more of a Mutual Agreement system, maybe a Guidelines System? The "rules" are only there insofar as they generally are for social interaction. You obviously need to communicate for it to work. You can still have a roleplaying game without a mechanical ruleset, which is what we're talking about.

MrNexx
2007-01-23, 02:13 PM
It doesn't "describe a very real phenomenon" it describes the sad delusions of stupid people who *really think* that their inability to work out the Attack of Opportunity rules makes them a superior roleplayer.


I can figure out the attack of opportunity system.... however, I have encountered... and in fact, been... a roll-player. When most people refer to "roll-players" they refer to people like one DM I encountered who said "You guys need to stop all this talking stuff... you're getting in the way of the game."

blackrogue
2007-01-23, 02:24 PM
For me it's 50/50. I act my character and I do what I think he'd do even when we're in combat. The problem w/ roleplaying though is that our DM makes everyone in town an ass to us. No one acts normal. While at times it's humorous it can be an extreme pain in the ass...

Matthew
2007-01-23, 04:49 PM
I can figure out the attack of opportunity system.... however, I have encountered... and in fact, been... a roll-player. When most people refer to "roll-players" they refer to people like one DM I encountered who said "You guys need to stop all this talking stuff... you're getting in the way of the game."

*Laughs*

Oh to truly witness such an event...

Gamebird
2007-01-23, 04:55 PM
Yeah, I've seen roll players. I've got a couple in my games.

"Less talking, more hacking" - sure, it could be an in-character statement, but everyone knew he just meant less in-character discussion and more rolling dice and doing hit point damage.

"Do my ranks in Craft: Calligraphy count for **** (crap)?" - this wasn't a question about the impact of skill ranks on his ability to make pretty letters, but a question of whether having said ranks granted him a mechanical advantage in the game - NPCs friendlier, give him some bonus to Diplomacy rolls, his books sell for more during the downtime, etc. He didn't take Calligraphy to reflect what his character was good at - he took it in an attempt to "win" D&D.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-23, 04:57 PM
There is no "roleplaying/rollplaying" disparity; there is only Zuul.

MrNexx
2007-01-23, 04:59 PM
*Laughs*

Oh to truly witness such an event...

Yeah, it was at that point (I think we were in module I3 or I4; some whacked-out Pharaoh module) that my usual DM and I looked at each other and decided to go on a tactics spree... started taking down everything with a couple of hits and a ton of metagame knowledge that we'd been avoiding, previously.

MrNexx
2007-01-23, 05:25 PM
"Do my ranks in Craft: Calligraphy count for **** (crap)?" - this wasn't a question about the impact of skill ranks on his ability to make pretty letters, but a question of whether having said ranks granted him a mechanical advantage in the game - NPCs friendlier, give him some bonus to Diplomacy rolls, his books sell for more during the downtime, etc. He didn't take Calligraphy to reflect what his character was good at - he took it in an attempt to "win" D&D.

I do have to cop to synergy whoring...

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 05:30 PM
I can figure out the attack of opportunity system.... however, I have encountered... and in fact, been... a roll-player. When most people refer to "roll-players" they refer to people like one DM I encountered who said "You guys need to stop all this talking stuff... you're getting in the way of the game."

It depends on what they meant by "the game". The GMs I've seen who've said things like that have usually been the sort who want you to focus on *their* plot rather than *your* characters.

Either way it's still a weak pun designed specifically to *insult* people whose playstyle differs from yours.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 05:32 PM
"Do my ranks in Craft: Calligraphy count for **** (crap)?" - this wasn't a question about the impact of skill ranks on his ability to make pretty letters, but a question of whether having said ranks granted him a mechanical advantage in the game - NPCs friendlier, give him some bonus to Diplomacy rolls, his books sell for more during the downtime, etc. He didn't take Calligraphy to reflect what his character was good at - he took it in an attempt to "win" D&D.


Or perhaps he took it because it reflected *an aspect of his character* which he felt was *important* and therefore should be *game mechanically modelled*.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 05:32 PM
Heh. My rogues/scouts always maximize on every available synergy. And I usually take a ranger dip JUST to finish it off. Now that I know about Able Learner though, I'll be grabbing every synergy in the game rather quickly next time I'm a PC.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 05:50 PM
While I think you're absolutely right, to be fair to tormsskull the way D&D combat works, with a strong emphasis on metagame tactical decisons like how much of your BAB to convert into Power Attack, or whether to Charge or take a Move Action then Attack *does* distract from a "pure in-character" (or "Actor Stance" if you're being fancy) attitude to roleplaying.

I'll grant that D&D isn't the game that most favors a combat-light approach. It carries more wargame baggage than pretty much any game I know. (The old RuneQuest came close, but Stafford's certainly redeemed himself with HeroQuest, which does an amazing job at facilitating roleplay through the rules themselves...)


As the levels get higher, the combats get fewer, for me. I hate high-level combat, because a single combat takes too frickin' long and has too many modifiers.

Pretty much my experience, too, and the experience of people who've played games (like RuneQuest) for years longer than I have. At really high levels, PCs are making political and societal decisions instead of tactical (or even strategic) ones. A combat may occur once every session - or even less frequently - because the powers and abilities involved are so immense. Most of the creatures the PCs can conceivably encounter are swept away so easily there's no point to roll dice. (Mr. Phipp (http://www.soltakss.com/hlg1.html) puts it better than I do.)



The term describes a very real phenomenon; the neglect of characterization in a roleplaying game (generally tabletop) in favor of mechanics optimization.

That's not automatic either. Many, many "rollplayers" (euch) can't optimise either. For the same reasons they can't really create and play a believable character, or "stay in-character" -- they can't be bothered, don't know how (being inexperienceD), are just there for the company, or any of many other reasons.



My way of thinking roll-playing vs. role-playing is the amount of time you spend in initiative count, waiting for the next opportunity to take an action, vs. the time spent speaking in character, discussing group goals and/or interacting in the game world without rolling dice (or rolling only minimal dice).

That's the definition I can't accept. The ideal cyberpunk combat, for instance, is every bit role-playing. You overturn a table for cover - you shove a shopping cart at the thug and clamber over a shelf - you grab a hostage - you wrestle desperately with your opponent, trying to jab a thumb in his eye...

It's roleplaying. Sitting there, going "I attack... 12, I hit. 8 damage..." -- that's not playing a role (although it's certainly still playing a RPG), I'll grant, but who on earth doesn't get bored of that after one combat?


That's not really true. You don't need dice to play RPGs--see, for example, the Amber diceless RPG. Or Nobilis, which is the best RPG ever. And even ignoring resource-management systems, you can have something that is manifestly a roleplaying game but without a rules system.

I can't speak on Nobilis, but Amber has one of the dullest, most dysfunctional resolution systems ever (and the writers are infinitely more arrogant than even the goths at White Wolf...). "My ability is 2." "Mine is 3. I will beat you every time, for ever! Ahahaha!"

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 06:00 PM
I can't speak on Nobilis, but Amber has one of the dullest, most dysfunctional resolution systems ever (and the writers are infinitely more arrogant than even the goths at White Wolf...). "My ability is 2." "Mine is 3. I will beat you every time, for ever! Ahahaha!"


Dysfunctional is exactly the word for Amber. It's "diceless" because Wujick has some petty obsession with the idea that "dice" and "rules" get in the way of "pure roleplaying", by which he means "GM fiat".

Nobilis, on the other hand, has a perfectly good diceless system, which *genuinely* doesn't need dice.

Gamebird
2007-01-23, 06:26 PM
Or perhaps he took it because it reflected *an aspect of his character* which he felt was *important* and therefore should be *game mechanically modelled*.

I'd like to talk about that. What do you think he meant? How would I/should I model this mechanically? It's not a hypothetical question - I now have two players in my game with Craft: Calligraphy, by bizarre coincidence. One is just starting and the other is my longest running player (and the one who made the comment).

Having Craft: Calligraphy lets him craft beautiful letters. In his case he makes books with it. The new player is going to letter maps. But a pretty book or map doesn't win combats (well, aside from the information they might impart). It doesn't make the character tougher. In the book-maker's side, I've had his books sell well in a mostly illiterate society, enough to double his investment in printing them if he kept a low print run. He took the extra money, made more books, and this time handed them out for free to various nobles, parleying this into a bit of influence or at least renown. I gave him an extra +1 to his Leadership score (he's taken the feat twice now).

What "game mechanically modelled" impact should a craft like Calligraphy have? With this particular player, it's hard for me to tell when he's whining for more (which he does constantly anyway) and when he's asking for something legitimate. The downfall of asking for things all the time, rather than only when you really deserve them.


That's the definition I can't accept. The ideal cyberpunk combat, for instance, is every bit role-playing. You overturn a table for cover - you shove a shopping cart at the thug and clamber over a shelf - you grab a hostage - you wrestle desperately with your opponent, trying to jab a thumb in his eye...

It's roleplaying. Sitting there, going "I attack... 12, I hit. 8 damage..." -- that's not playing a role (although it's certainly still playing a RPG), I'll grant, but who on earth doesn't get bored of that after one combat?

Perhaps I have too often been taken advantage of for trying to describe things...

DM: Your sword slams against his shield and knocks him back. He barely fends you off.
Player: Okay, so he moves back 5'. Awesome. Now Bob can get in there and finish him off.
DM: Wait... no, I just meant he was-
Player: You said he was knocked back!
DM: Fine. Strike what I said. You didn't do enough damage to kill him, so he's still right there.

DM: He hits you really hard across the helm. You feel staggered, but shake it off. Take 15 damage.
Player: But 15 damage doesn't stagger me. I'm fine. I could take that twice again.
DM: Okay, whatever. Write down 15 damage.
Player: Okay, but I'm not staggered.
DM: I- I didn't mean the game term staggered, I meant... never mind.

DM: The deer dashes off as fast as possible, disappearing into the woods.
Player: That's too bad. Well, we track the blood trail.
DM: There isn't a blood trail, but you can try to track it.
Player: I hit it twice! For 8 points of damage. Of course there's a blood trail.
DM: No, there isn't. D&D hit points don't work that way.
Player: So as far as I know, I totally missed? That doesn't make any sense!


And so on.

There's a guy in the tabletop game I'm in right now who is annoying me a bit. He describes his character's actions in a great deal of detail and requires/expects to be successful with a realistic description. For example, he detailed out what kind of camp site his character would look for and set up. He succeeded - no roll. His character has no Survival, nor has it as a class skill. My character does, and had the max of 4 ranks in it. I'm not such a camper or outdoorsman that I can describe the perfect campsite. But with him along, my abilities and contribution to the party is immaterial as long as his yap is running (which is most of the time).

If success in a game depends on description, then the most descriptive wins. If that's how the game is played, then I'll find another game. I don't know - it's just never been fun to me to get one-upped all the time. Maybe I'm just a sore loser.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 06:29 PM
100% rollplaying doesn't even make sense. Try this-

Roll a d20. Then roll a d6. Now a d8. Now a d20 again.

Keep doing that for about two hours. Invite four friends over to roll with you, provided that you do not talk to each other and all you do is roll dice.

Well? Is pure rollplaying any fun?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 06:30 PM
What "game mechanically modelled" impact should a craft like Calligraphy have? With this particular player, it's hard for me to tell when he's whining for more (which he does constantly anyway) and when he's asking for something legitimate. The downfall of asking for things all the time, rather than only when you really deserve them.


Depends on the setting, generally I'd allow a Synergy bonus to any social skill where you were communicating through formal correspondance. In an oriental setting Calligraphy could be made *extremely* important.

When it comes to bookselling, the effects should already be covered by the "making money with Crafts" rules.

Indon
2007-01-23, 06:42 PM
100% rollplaying doesn't even make sense. Try this-

Roll a d20. Then roll a d6. Now a d8. Now a d20 again.

Keep doing that for about two hours. Invite four friends over to roll with you, provided that you do not talk to each other and all you do is roll dice.

Well? Is pure rollplaying any fun?

You just described the most complex ruleset to a game of craps _ever_.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 06:49 PM
Even craps has more to it then that. I work at a casino event pretty regularly, and I'm not allowed to work craps because I can't ever seem to remember all the rules.

But generally, yeah. Rollplaying alone is the same as going to a casino without any gambling. How boring.

CHASE THE HERO
2007-01-23, 07:22 PM
man all tha games i DM everyone mostly goes away from my attempts at role-playing how can i get them to noe be so scared of role-playing?

Indon
2007-01-23, 07:27 PM
Introduce more dragons in disguise.

"It's a halfling! Kill it!"

*RAWR*

*party eaten*

Woot Spitum
2007-01-23, 10:29 PM
"Do my ranks in Craft: Calligraphy count for **** (crap)?" - this wasn't a question about the impact of skill ranks on his ability to make pretty letters, but a question of whether having said ranks granted him a mechanical advantage in the game - NPCs friendlier, give him some bonus to Diplomacy rolls, his books sell for more during the downtime, etc. He didn't take Calligraphy to reflect what his character was good at - he took it in an attempt to "win" D&D.

On the other hand, it can get pretty frustrating to a player who put max ranks in a skill, only to find there really isn't much use for it. I rememeber once putting max ranks into Knowledge:History because it was a class skill for me (I was a cleric, and I gave up concentration for this). I vividly remember making skill checks to see if this could help me discover something, ANYTHING every once in a while, and my DM would just get this conflicted look, a look that said no, but he really did want to give me something (especially if I had just rolled a 20).:smallfrown:

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 10:32 PM
100% rollplaying doesn't even make sense. Try this-

Roll a d20. Then roll a d6. Now a d8. Now a d20 again.

Keep doing that for about two hours. Invite four friends over to roll with you, provided that you do not talk to each other and all you do is roll dice.

Well? Is pure rollplaying any fun?

I hear they call that "dicing" or "gambling", and a lot of people enjoy it rather frequently.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 10:40 PM
Only when you start adding in something of value or some way of winning. Neither of these are innately in D&D at all, and they certainly don't exist if you take away everything that isn't rolling dice. That's like super poor man's half-dead gambling at best.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 10:54 PM
Everything that isn't rolling dice? Like... breathing? Of course gambling isn't like D&D. Nevertheless--it's a game. It's a pure game, in fact, with no roleplaying involved.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 11:05 PM
Ah, but is it? A game is about meeting an objective using a variety of different rules and winning. A roleplaying game is partially that, certainly. You have objectives. You have rules. But there is no "winning" because the choices never end unless, for whatever reason, no one can think of anything else to happen next, whether that be because the group is breaking apart, the DM has run out of plans, or the PC's all die. Unless you strip the game down to nothing more then a combat situation, it's not just a game- it requires a certain amount of roleplaying in tandem with the rules.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-23, 11:14 PM
It's not whether you win or lose, as long as you get to kill powerful monsters and get cool stuff. Then, instead of adding another +1 to all your enhancements you can blow it all on a fawning entorouge that follows you around whenever you're in town.:smallbiggrin:

Thomas
2007-01-24, 07:27 AM
Ah, but is it? A game is about meeting an objective using a variety of different rules and winning.

Your definition, and certainly not an universal one. You can't expect to define the terms and thereby be right.

How about these?

"A game is a structured or semi-structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes also used as educational tools."

"A game is a simulation of an activity."

"An amusement or pastime."

"A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."

The first three all apply to RPGs; the fourth probably generally doesn't (unless it's a con game with an audience).

Gamebird
2007-01-24, 11:36 AM
On the other hand, it can get pretty frustrating to a player who put max ranks in a skill, only to find there really isn't much use for it. I rememeber once putting max ranks into Knowledge:History because it was a class skill for me (I was a cleric, and I gave up concentration for this). I vividly remember making skill checks to see if this could help me discover something, ANYTHING every once in a while, and my DM would just get this conflicted look, a look that said no, but he really did want to give me something (especially if I had just rolled a 20).:smallfrown:

Yeah. It's also pretty frustrating for the DM to make up a cool adventure (or 50 of them) and have a PC interject their desire to do something completely different - something that D&D doesn't have good rules for, something that D&D doesn't reward with xp and loot, something the other players don't want to do. Also frustrating to try to bend over backwards making a reward for the skill and *still* have complaints.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-24, 11:46 AM
Yeah. It's also pretty frustrating for the DM to make up a cool adventure (or 50 of them) and have a PC interject their desire to do something completely different - something that D&D doesn't have good rules for, something that D&D doesn't reward with xp and loot, something the other players don't want to do. Also frustrating to try to bend over backwards making a reward for the skill and *still* have complaints.

Did I mention Knowledge(History) is in the PHB 1? It seems to me that if a skill is in the original 3.5 sourcebook it should at least have some use.

Gamebird
2007-01-24, 12:00 PM
Did I mention Knowledge(History) is in the PHB 1? It seems to me that if a skill is in the original 3.5 sourcebook it should at least have some use.

I think Craft: Candlemaking is too. But I'll be damned if I know how to regularly weave that into an adventure without a lot of contrivance.

History plays a big role in my game, but it rarely has any "use". Knowing the history explains things, but it doesn't change them, if you get my meaning. It's not "Now I know X, so I can do Y", but instead a "Now I know X, which explains why Y happened" or "Knowing X, I figure Y and Z are likely."

I get the impression that some of my players want to roll a die for a skill and have it work like an attack roll, damaging their enemy or granting them bonus xp or something. They roll K: History and I say, "Okay, you got a great roll. You know that this place was originally called Batton because of the caves in the cliffs above it, which were home to colonies of bats. They harvested the guano for fertilizer, which was one of their main exports. They also mined quartzite. This was a human settlement, population around 300, lost to humanoid invasion during the Fall of Heroes. It has been overgrown by wilderness for probably 4 or 5 centuries. Apparently the humanoids just razed it and left the ruins, which was normal enough - they don't always settle in conquered territory or in human dwellings."

Then I get this vibe from the players of "That doesn't help us at all!" (I'm exaggerating the whine factor here, but it's a vibe I get now and then). And then I'm confused. It gave them information. It's even useful information, to my eyes. No, it probably won't be useful in terms of fighting the undead haunting the site now, but the undead haven't exactly been filing updates with the local historical society.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-24, 01:21 PM
I'm not asking for combat bonuses, or even useful tactical knowledge. I just want my skill to seem useful, for example:

Player:I examine the ruins (rolls knowledge:history check, gets a natural 20)
DM:(making this up on the fly) This is the ancient city of Pharleggingortboldfastheim. Its past is shrouded in mystery.
Player:Sweet. Dibs on the first magic tome we come across.
Party Wizard:I hate you.

Matthew
2007-01-24, 01:26 PM
Weird. All the players I have ever gamed with have enjoyed using Knowledge (History) or the equivalent to research Adventure Sites or gain plot or non plot related information. I suppose it only really works in th context of a well developed world with which the Dungeon Master is familiar and players who are interested in that world, though.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-24, 01:37 PM
Our DM made our world on the fly, usually only a few hours before the start of our sessions. It was actually a pretty cool world.

Tormsskull
2007-01-24, 02:26 PM
See, what I do when I am DMing is I write down (or copy) every skill that the players take. Then I incorporate a way for them to be used throughout the adventures. It might be something minor, but then again it might be something major. I shuffle how important each skill is throughout the adventures so each person has the opportunity to shine if they figure it out.

For craft: candlemaking it is possible that a PC could make an extravagant candle as a gift to an NPC which could lead to making a friend. Knowledge (history) is full of ways to have an impact.

Anyhow, that's my .02

Golthur
2007-01-24, 03:57 PM
Weird. All the players I have ever gamed with have enjoyed using Knowledge (History) or the equivalent to research Adventure Sites or gain plot or non plot related information. I suppose it only really works in th context of a well developed world with which the Dungeon Master is familiar and players who are interested in that world, though.
Yeah, I usually don't have a problem with this. After the first few "make a Knowledge (History) roll. Oh, you don't have ranks? Sorry", someone inevitably has their character walk down to the local library as part of their next level advancement.

Thomas
2007-01-24, 04:02 PM
Weird. All the players I have ever gamed with have enjoyed using Knowledge (History) or the equivalent to research Adventure Sites or gain plot or non plot related information. I suppose it only really works in th context of a well developed world with which the Dungeon Master is familiar and players who are interested in that world, though.

I can't imagine running a Forgotten Realms game where Knowledge (History) wouldn't be used both frequently and to devastating (or life-saving) effect.

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 04:21 PM
The Giant has some useful rules for getting mechanical benefit out of the Knowledge skills, actually.

CHASE THE HERO
2007-01-24, 07:00 PM
hmmmmm ah but still how could you insert some proffessions like... baking, and mabie like seamstress?

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 09:40 PM
hmmmmm ah but still how could you insert some proffessions like... baking, and mabie like seamstress?

Baking: Wall of Stone + Wall of Stone + Wall of Stone + Wall of Fire.
Seamstress: Bonus to damage against giants.

Zincorium
2007-01-25, 01:55 AM
Seamstress: Bonus to damage against giants.

And gains the ability to make critical hits against flesh golems. 'Cause they're stitched together, doncha know.