3rd Edition and Role Playing [Archive] - Wizards Community

3rd Edition and Role Playing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Stuntman
09-26-04, 09:25 PM In reading some posts in other threads, I noticed that there are those who feel that the 3E D&D game somehow inhibits role playing as compared to previous editions of D&D. I would like to know why because I have not observed anything to suggest that games have less role playing in 3E compared to other editions.

I've played D&D since AD&D 1st edition and from my observation, those players who are into the role playing aspect of the game seem to role play just as well no matter which edition of the rules they are using. Likewise, those who are into hack and slash or are powergamers behave likewise no matter which edition they are playing. From what I have seen, it is the players themselves that seem to dictate the style of game that is being played, not the edition of the rules.
Seeker95
09-26-04, 09:29 PM (Rolls d20 for charisma check... 15)
Agreed. Role-playing is not limited by the rules. :D
The Vagrant
09-26-04, 09:41 PM I just bought an old old unpopular sci-fi PnP system that excludes any way to roll for bluffing and diplomacy. You are forced to role play by the rules unless of course you house rule it in.

On the other hand I once tried to get on orc on my side by bluffing him. I didn't have any good lie to come up with so I just rolled bluff, but the DM insisted that I at least say something. Even when the rules don't cleary say I had to, we house ruled that you do have to role play bluffs and diplomacy checks.

Niether system was D&D so my point may be moot. I'm just trying to say that it is possable to restrict or enhance role playing abilites by way of system rules.
Edymnion
09-26-04, 09:45 PM It doesn't hinder roleplaying any more than rolling to see if you hit the monster hinders your combat ability.

In both cases, you roll to see if your character succeeds (because you are not your character, you will be better/worse than them at just about everything they do), and then roleplay the result.

You roll a natural 20 and confirm the critical, a good roleplayer isn't going to just say "I do 15 points of damage to Orc #1", they're going to describe a nice massive hit. If they roll a natural 1, they're going to describe the blunder.

Same thing with the people skills. Roll to see how it comes out, then roleplay the result. If you just play it straight, of course you're going to try and do your best every time, but where's the fun in that? Some of your major character defining moments come from when they screw up, not when they succeed. The smart-ass rogue that rolls a 1 on his Diplomacy check and ends up picking his nose and wiping it on the queen's dress. No way in heck he'd ever roleplay that out, but with the blatant failure, he's free to ham it up.

But really, it just boils down to the players and the DM. If the players don't want to roleplay, they won't roleplay, doesn't matter what the rules say about the matter. And a DM that lets them get away with not roleplaying has no one but himself to blame when the players don't roleplay.

As in, if you/your players are hiding behind the dice rolls, its nobody's fault but your own, stop blaming the system for your own shortcomings.
havard
09-27-04, 04:34 PM IMO this has less to do with the difference between the various editions of (A)D&D, and more to do with rules heavy vs. rules light rpgs.

Note: the intention of this post is not to say that either rules light or rules heavy rpgs is better than the other.

The problem with rules heavy rpgs is that they *can* be played through the rules without roleplaying at all. Since there are rules for more or less everything, simple die rolls can solve any problem and you can just leave roleplaying out of it.

With rules light rpgs you can't. Since there aren't rules for everything, or rather, the rules are so simple it becomes pointless to just make the same skill check over and over again.

OTOH, it doesn't mean you can't get good roleplaying from a rules heavy rpg. You just have to be aware of the fact that some people will need an extra push to do the actual roleplaying part.

When it comes to the various edition of D&D, I consider them all rules heavy. The old D&D game (Rules Cyclopedia and all earlier versions), perhaps not so rules heavy, but AD&D and 3E are pretty much on the same level there. AD&D doesn't have social skills, but I have known plenty of people who have used Charisma checks in place of bluff or diplomacy, and still not roleplayed it out.

I am still surprised when people criticize the skill system. I mean, what kind of vacuum have you all been living in? Skill based rpg systems have existed almost as long as D&D.

Havard
bjjrick
09-27-04, 10:34 PM In reading some posts in other threads, I noticed that there are those who feel that the 3E D&D game somehow inhibits role playing as compared to previous editions of D&D. I would like to know why because I have not observed anything to suggest that games have less role playing in 3E compared to other editions.

I've played D&D since AD&D 1st edition and from my observation, those players who are into the role playing aspect of the game seem to role play just as well no matter which edition of the rules they are using. Likewise, those who are into hack and slash or are powergamers behave likewise no matter which edition they are playing. From what I have seen, it is the players themselves that seem to dictate the style of game that is being played, not the edition of the rules.

You hit the nail on the head, roleplaying doesn't adher to any rulesets.

I think what people mean when they say 3.x isn't as roleplayable, is that it's kinda rules heavy then they previous editionts. I myself have seen groups at conventions and some I've played in and or wathced in 3.x where people had to stop and look up a rule, I didn't see that in the previous editions as much.

That being said, rules don't inhibit roleplaying, people do, sometimes because of their own bias agains tsomething..
Stuntman
09-27-04, 11:07 PM I think what people mean when they say 3.x isn't as roleplayable, is that it's kinda rules heavy then they previous editionts. I myself have seen groups at conventions and some I've played in and or wathced in 3.x where people had to stop and look up a rule, I didn't see that in the previous editions as much.

I've seen that happen playing 2E. My DM is heavily into role playing and to him the rules aren't that important. He usually looks to me to make rulings or look up rules because I am more familiar with it than he is. He does this quite often. I look it up and we move on.

Quickly flipping through the 1E, 2E and 3.5 PH, I will conceed that there are more rules in 3.5 than in previous editions. I can see how those that play in older editions can be overwealmed when going to 3E+. It wasn't the case for me because I used to use all of the Player's Option books from 2E. 3E seemed simpler to me because it seemed that many of the rules in the PH and the three Player's Option books were consolidated in a single PH.

I used the Player's Option books as well as the other supplements in 2E because it provides for increased variety and options to play. Two fighters can be drastically different in combat whereas with just the PH, most fighters were essentially the same. I know you can role play them differently, but sooner or later, you'll get into a fight and I think it is cool that two different fighters fight differently with different weapons and maneuvers. In 2E and 1E, practically every single player I know who played a fighter used the longsword and shield. I see much more variety in 3E.
Asmodeous
09-28-04, 12:23 AM In reading some posts in other threads, I noticed that there are those who feel that the 3E D&D game somehow inhibits role playing as compared to previous editions of D&D. I would like to know why because I have not observed anything to suggest that games have less role playing in 3E compared to other editions.

I think that why you have noticed the reason why most of the posts here on these boards is about rules and lawyering is because of the need for it. powergamers, min/maxers, house rulers, role players, you name it, anybody with a reason to play dnd, usually at one time or another, needs to discuss or clarify rules. In that alone, well look around you. Hundreds of posts each week.

But when it comes to actual role playing, well what is there to discuss? Im a role player and I rarely discuss actual role playing here, but the rules and intepreting them to apply to role playing. Every time I hve asked a question about how to role play something, I am told to powergame or min/max.
protonik
09-28-04, 01:26 AM The core books do not suggest stopping to look up a rule, they suggest using a + or - 2 and keep the game moving. If the DM has to stop to lok up a rule, well, that isn't the game, its the DM. I have to look up the spells myself.

Jason
bjjrick
09-28-04, 02:11 AM Jason,

I think the rules they are referring to are the feats, AoO, etc...
the +2/-2 rule works in some situations, and it doesn't in others.

You can't really add a +2/-2 if you don't know what Improved Cleave does.

Granted tis up to the DM to know this, but that's alot of info to remember.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Stuntman 09-26-04, 09:25 PM	In reading some posts in other threads, I noticed that there are those who feel that the 3E D&D game somehow inhibits role playing as compared to previous editions of D&D. I would like to know why because I have not observed anything to suggest that games have less role playing in 3E compared to other editions. I've played D&D since AD&D 1st edition and from my observation, those players who are into the role playing aspect of the game seem to role play just as well no matter which edition of the rules they are using. Likewise, those who are into hack and slash or are powergamers behave likewise no matter which edition they are playing. From what I have seen, it is the players themselves that seem to dictate the style of game that is being played, not the edition of the rules.
Seeker95 09-26-04, 09:29 PM	(Rolls d20 for charisma check... 15) Agreed. Role-playing is not limited by the rules. :D
The Vagrant 09-26-04, 09:41 PM	I just bought an old old unpopular sci-fi PnP system that excludes any way to roll for bluffing and diplomacy. You are forced to role play by the rules unless of course you house rule it in. On the other hand I once tried to get on orc on my side by bluffing him. I didn't have any good lie to come up with so I just rolled bluff, but the DM insisted that I at least say something. Even when the rules don't cleary say I had to, we house ruled that you do have to role play bluffs and diplomacy checks. Niether system was D&D so my point may be moot. I'm just trying to say that it is possable to restrict or enhance role playing abilites by way of system rules.
Edymnion 09-26-04, 09:45 PM	It doesn't hinder roleplaying any more than rolling to see if you hit the monster hinders your combat ability. In both cases, you roll to see if your character succeeds (because you are not your character, you will be better/worse than them at just about everything they do), and then roleplay the result. You roll a natural 20 and confirm the critical, a good roleplayer isn't going to just say "I do 15 points of damage to Orc #1", they're going to describe a nice massive hit. If they roll a natural 1, they're going to describe the blunder. Same thing with the people skills. Roll to see how it comes out, then roleplay the result. If you just play it straight, of course you're going to try and do your best every time, but where's the fun in that? Some of your major character defining moments come from when they screw up, not when they succeed. The smart-ass rogue that rolls a 1 on his Diplomacy check and ends up picking his nose and wiping it on the queen's dress. No way in heck he'd ever roleplay that out, but with the blatant failure, he's free to ham it up. But really, it just boils down to the players and the DM. If the players don't want to roleplay, they won't roleplay, doesn't matter what the rules say about the matter. And a DM that lets them get away with not roleplaying has no one but himself to blame when the players don't roleplay. As in, if you/your players are hiding behind the dice rolls, its nobody's fault but your own, stop blaming the system for your own shortcomings.
havard 09-27-04, 04:34 PM	IMO this has less to do with the difference between the various editions of (A)D&D, and more to do with rules heavy vs. rules light rpgs. Note: the intention of this post is not to say that either rules light or rules heavy rpgs is better than the other. The problem with rules heavy rpgs is that they can be played through the rules without roleplaying at all. Since there are rules for more or less everything, simple die rolls can solve any problem and you can just leave roleplaying out of it. With rules light rpgs you can't. Since there aren't rules for everything, or rather, the rules are so simple it becomes pointless to just make the same skill check over and over again. OTOH, it doesn't mean you can't get good roleplaying from a rules heavy rpg. You just have to be aware of the fact that some people will need an extra push to do the actual roleplaying part. When it comes to the various edition of D&D, I consider them all rules heavy. The old D&D game (Rules Cyclopedia and all earlier versions), perhaps not so rules heavy, but AD&D and 3E are pretty much on the same level there. AD&D doesn't have social skills, but I have known plenty of people who have used Charisma checks in place of bluff or diplomacy, and still not roleplayed it out. I am still surprised when people criticize the skill system. I mean, what kind of vacuum have you all been living in? Skill based rpg systems have existed almost as long as D&D. Havard
bjjrick 09-27-04, 10:34 PM	In reading some posts in other threads, I noticed that there are those who feel that the 3E D&D game somehow inhibits role playing as compared to previous editions of D&D. I would like to know why because I have not observed anything to suggest that games have less role playing in 3E compared to other editions. I've played D&D since AD&D 1st edition and from my observation, those players who are into the role playing aspect of the game seem to role play just as well no matter which edition of the rules they are using. Likewise, those who are into hack and slash or are powergamers behave likewise no matter which edition they are playing. From what I have seen, it is the players themselves that seem to dictate the style of game that is being played, not the edition of the rules. You hit the nail on the head, roleplaying doesn't adher to any rulesets. I think what people mean when they say 3.x isn't as roleplayable, is that it's kinda rules heavy then they previous editionts. I myself have seen groups at conventions and some I've played in and or wathced in 3.x where people had to stop and look up a rule, I didn't see that in the previous editions as much. That being said, rules don't inhibit roleplaying, people do, sometimes because of their own bias agains tsomething..
Stuntman 09-27-04, 11:07 PM	I think what people mean when they say 3.x isn't as roleplayable, is that it's kinda rules heavy then they previous editionts. I myself have seen groups at conventions and some I've played in and or wathced in 3.x where people had to stop and look up a rule, I didn't see that in the previous editions as much. I've seen that happen playing 2E. My DM is heavily into role playing and to him the rules aren't that important. He usually looks to me to make rulings or look up rules because I am more familiar with it than he is. He does this quite often. I look it up and we move on. Quickly flipping through the 1E, 2E and 3.5 PH, I will conceed that there are more rules in 3.5 than in previous editions. I can see how those that play in older editions can be overwealmed when going to 3E+. It wasn't the case for me because I used to use all of the Player's Option books from 2E. 3E seemed simpler to me because it seemed that many of the rules in the PH and the three Player's Option books were consolidated in a single PH. I used the Player's Option books as well as the other supplements in 2E because it provides for increased variety and options to play. Two fighters can be drastically different in combat whereas with just the PH, most fighters were essentially the same. I know you can role play them differently, but sooner or later, you'll get into a fight and I think it is cool that two different fighters fight differently with different weapons and maneuvers. In 2E and 1E, practically every single player I know who played a fighter used the longsword and shield. I see much more variety in 3E.
Asmodeous 09-28-04, 12:23 AM	In reading some posts in other threads, I noticed that there are those who feel that the 3E D&D game somehow inhibits role playing as compared to previous editions of D&D. I would like to know why because I have not observed anything to suggest that games have less role playing in 3E compared to other editions. I think that why you have noticed the reason why most of the posts here on these boards is about rules and lawyering is because of the need for it. powergamers, min/maxers, house rulers, role players, you name it, anybody with a reason to play dnd, usually at one time or another, needs to discuss or clarify rules. In that alone, well look around you. Hundreds of posts each week. But when it comes to actual role playing, well what is there to discuss? Im a role player and I rarely discuss actual role playing here, but the rules and intepreting them to apply to role playing. Every time I hve asked a question about how to role play something, I am told to powergame or min/max.
protonik 09-28-04, 01:26 AM	The core books do not suggest stopping to look up a rule, they suggest using a + or - 2 and keep the game moving. If the DM has to stop to lok up a rule, well, that isn't the game, its the DM. I have to look up the spells myself. Jason
bjjrick 09-28-04, 02:11 AM	Jason, I think the rules they are referring to are the feats, AoO, etc... the +2/-2 rule works in some situations, and it doesn't in others. You can't really add a +2/-2 if you don't know what Improved Cleave does. Granted tis up to the DM to know this, but that's alot of info to remember.