Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gilean 01-07-06, 05:25 AM	The terms in thread title shouldn't be used in actual discussions. They are, in addition to being insulting, not clear. First, roleplaying as a term. Anyone playing D&D is playing a roleplaying game, and is also roleplaying. They have shared imagined space (the game setting) which they are exploring. No matter if the exploration take the form of rolling to hit and damage, and pretty much nothing else. That is still roleplay. Not one I would enjoy, but if they are having fun, everything's just fine. So, maybe, just maybe, roleplay, as in the thread title, should be cleared a bit. I propose dividing it into two terms: characterisation (if you have a better term, just say) and immersion. Immersion is thinking and feeling as the character would, if it existed. Suspension of disbelief and all that factors in. Immersion is often seen as "good roleplaying" (read: roleplaying I like or have been conditioned to thik of as supreme). Characterisation is picturing a fictional character in a way that is respectful of said character. So, three-dimensional characters who act like humans do. Not merely "dumb orc with a large axe". Characterisation is also thought of as good roleplaying. These two are not mutually exclusive, and often enforce each other. GMs have hard time immering themselves, though. So characterisation for, mostly. "Rollplaying", then. They are the players who just sit there, don't talk, don't care, and roll the dice only in combat. Or something like that. The most sad case possible is that the guy doesn't want to play. He has no intetion of ever really playing. He is there for the socialisation, because he was persuaded to try, or something. Just let him go. You can be friends without roleplaying together. Second case is a player who is there for the combat tactics, and those only. If the rest of the group likes combat, no problems, add more of it. If not, discuss the matter. Remember the Geek Social Fallacy: just because he is a roleplayer, you don't have to have similar tastes in roleplaying. You can politely ask him to leave, and perhaps suggest another, better (for him) group. And if the player says that he "likes fights" but still looks bored all the time? Maybe he shouldn't roleplay, either. Or use some game that only focuses on combat and with little to no chance of being taken elsewhere, like Rune. My overall point? Role- vs. rollplaying is a very bad wording to use. It insults. It is not constructive. Both include many phenomena. To most, this is obvious. Still those arcane terms are being thrown around. Let go of them. They are past.
Kalanth 01-07-06, 05:45 AM	I have a friend that insists that I, as a ROLEplayer, am in the minority of D&D players. He tells me day in and day out that D&D is only ment to be played as a table top battle game with miniatures. I admit that when it was concieved that was the idea, but he refuses to believe that most people that play the game actually Roleplay characters, get involved in stories, and do interesting things. Maybe I should point him to this thread, though he would still denounce it. I have show him the boards and the 90% storyline and RP questions and he still says we are the minimum in the hobby.
Gilean 01-07-06, 06:49 AM	I have a friend that insists that I, as a ROLEplayer, am in the minority of D&D players. He tells me day in and day out that D&D is only ment to be played as a table top battle game with miniatures. I admit that when it was concieved that was the idea, but he refuses to believe that most people that play the game actually Roleplay characters, get involved in stories, and do interesting things.That doesn't require a system. You can do it with freeform. And D&D doesn't go about punishing it, either, so he is just not very right. Me being the guy that thinks of D&D as too combat-oriented and very rarely plays it anymore.Maybe I should point him to this thread, though he would still denounce it. I have show him the boards and the 90% storyline and RP questions and he still says we are the minimum in the hobby.His call. I don't believe anyone has made statistics of the matter, however. He may be right, after all. But probably not.
Lina_Inverse 01-07-06, 07:17 AM	I have a friend that insists that I, as a ROLEplayer, am in the minority of D&D players. He tells me day in and day out that D&D is only ment to be played as a table top battle game with miniatures. I admit that when it was concieved that was the idea, but he refuses to believe that most people that play the game actually Roleplay characters, get involved in stories, and do interesting things. Maybe I should point him to this thread, though he would still denounce it. I have show him the boards and the 90% storyline and RP questions and he still says we are the minimum in the hobby. Considering the popularity of WoW. Id say in the RPGing community people who actually roleplay are indeed the minority. However the D&Ding subsection i dont know, id hope most do infact RP. Personally i use D&D for what its best at, a wargame where i roleplay heros.
Bob Loblaw 01-07-06, 10:26 AM	I have a friend that insists that I, as a ROLEplayer, am in the minority of D&D players. He tells me day in and day out that D&D is only ment to be played as a table top battle game with miniatures. I admit that when it was concieved that was the idea, but he refuses to believe that most people that play the game actually Roleplay characters, get involved in stories, and do interesting things. Maybe I should point him to this thread, though he would still denounce it. I have show him the boards and the 90% storyline and RP questions and he still says we are the minimum in the hobby. Your friend is wrong. DnD was meant to allow the players to add personality and character to individual members of the Chainmail miniatures game. This means that when it was conceived, the idea was to start moving away from table top wargaming. Every edition has had rules for roleplaying the characters and bringing them to life. There have been some excellent articles on how to develop a personality for your characters, both PC and NPC. While 3rd edition has made combat easier with adding the grid system, it is not new to the game at all. There were articles about it in 1st edition. 2nd edition not only had some articles, but Player's Option: Combat & Tactics had an entire chapter dedicated to grid combat. Each one of the systems still had plenty of advice on how to roleplay your character though. Not a single one suggested that you should stop character development in favor of miniature combat. While I do believe that many people view DnD as a wargame, it certainly wasn't meant to be that way. I also don't believe that the majority see DnD that way. I have gamed all over the country with hundreds of different people (some from around the world), and I have not seen a majority of them viewing DnD as table top wargaming.
Fox Lee 01-08-06, 01:54 AM	Oh yeah? Well, I think that - Hey, wait, this was a really sensible post. Dammit! No fair using the "Rollplaying vs roleplaying" catch phrase to sneak in a post that's actually accurate and unprejudiced and worth reading! (PS: Just in case it isn't clear, I meant that in a light-hearted, appreciative fashion.)
Caemin Pah 01-11-06, 09:42 AM	I personally agree with Gilean on this, however.... The ROLL vs ROLE thing to me, when I use it, is not meant to be insulting, it is meant as a generalized term used, for lack of a better terminology. And though D&D is indeed a ROLEplaying game no matter HOW you play it, there are those people who prefer rolling dice and the general hack and slash compared to those who prefer becoming immersed in a detailed story line where they believe their characters are interacting and making a difference in a fantasy world. The Hacker and Slashers are generalized only because they prefer feeling that their characters (or possibly themselves) make a difference only as far as they have beaten up the toughest monster, gained the best magical item, etc, and not really caring if they have made a difference enough in a DMs campaign to be remarked upon in later games. Both have good AND bad points to them. However, this whole debate is based solely on opinion, as noted before, those who prefer one or the other style of gaming, even some prefer a nice mix of the two. I have come to realize this, and there are some who do not even think about THINKING about ROLEplaying, so on they go rolling their dice, beating up monsters and grabbing the treasure, and others will go on sitting through 4 or 5 hours of game sessions without even so much as getting their dice out of the bag/box/container they are stored in, and STILL feeling as though they have accomplished great things. Gilean, I applaud you for the excellent post, I have come to feel the same way, however, the posts I have either started or commented on in the last few months, have lead inevitably into a flame war for the most part. I have said my peace on the matter, and will leave it to others to decide. In closing, the debate will go on forever, and though myself, or others may comment, share our opinions, etc. There will be others who stand opposed, so for me there is no more debate, but understanding. I have both types of players in my group, so with my understanding comes better adventures, with sections for hack and slash, and other sessions where the ROLEplayers get to do what they love. In the end, is the debate really necessary to let it continue on forever? Maybe. Should we let it go on forever? No. Like all things in this world, tolerance will go a long way to peaceful gaming, no more fights will erupt into who doesnt give a rodents backside if the story gets advanced or not. Tolerance, that should be the catch phrase for the whole gaming community. Over the Roll vs Role and for those zealots who want to see the whole industry come crashing to an abrupt halt due to it supposed "demon worship" Rant over..... now back to our regularly scheduled thread.
Gilean 01-11-06, 12:35 PM	Well, it is out of favour on RPG.net, so maybe there is a chance.... The problem is that the terms are far too broad to be of any use. Insult is just added to the injury.
celtredleg 01-11-06, 12:53 PM	Its much like munchkin. Rollplayer is used to describe someone who like combat more than the person commenting. I agree that it is simply to broad of a term to be of much use besides an insult. The use of it often arises when one person wants to impose thier style of play on other people, and feels the need to insult the style they dont like. Tolerance indeed seems to be the way to go, as in so many things. Unfortunetly, that seems as lacking in the gaming community as in general human existance. I have gamed all over the world. Well, 3 different continents anyway. I have found that there are immersion oriented and combat oriented people everywhere. My experience is that there are more combat gamers than immersion gamers. But thats just my experience. Part of anything like a count of how many of each there is would require a way to qualify a person as one or the other. I am not sure there is a way. I love to RP and have detailed personalities. But, those personalities tend to be inclianed to combat. So I fight a lot as a player. So which am I??? There have been sessions where I never rolled initiative once. And sessions that where just one big fight.
Dargon7 01-24-06, 12:21 AM	Believe it or not, I came across an old article that I had once photocopied from a Dragon magazine dated for December of 1992 (oh my god I'm old) about this particular subject. The article was called ' That's "Role," Not "Roll"! It was a very fantastic article about this subject. I've believed with my being that Dungeons and Dragons was meant as a Role-Playing game, like many here talk about. It allows us to go about our time imagining that we are some other hero in a quest to save the damsel in distress all the while slaying the dragon. I'm very happy to see this particular subject debated again over 10+ years later. It really means there is a sense of pride in being roleplayers that love telling a story with each other in our groups. It doesn't matter overall whom has the toughest weapon or the most money, but the stories that we leave with each other to tell. Thanks for all whom post to this thread.
Cymraegmorgan 01-24-06, 09:25 AM	Second case is a player who is there for the combat tactics, and those only. If the rest of the group likes combat, no problems, add more of it. If not, discuss the matter. Remember the Geek Social Fallacy: just because he is a roleplayer, you don't have to have similar tastes in roleplaying. You can politely ask him to leave, and perhaps suggest another, better (for him) group. What nonsense. I have a "rollplayer" in my group who is quite content to be in a group of "roleplayers", and vice versa. A good DM caters to many tastes in the course of a game. If a rollplayer is enjoying himself in my game, why should I be rude and throw him out because he fails to meet some minimum roleplaying standard? Sounds like someone needs to climb down off their high horse. Role- vs. rollplaying is a very bad wording to use. It insults. It is not constructive. Both include many phenomena. To most, this is obvious. Still those arcane terms are being thrown around. Let go of them. They are past. While some may use these as insults, not everyone does. They are descriptive. I know as many proud Rollplayers as I do proud Roleplayers. If you do not like the terms, don't use the, but try not to be so bombastic as to try to force your fashion of usage on others.
OctoberRaven 01-24-06, 09:38 AM	I have a friend that insists that I, as a ROLEplayer, am in the minority of D&D players. He tells me day in and day out that D&D is only ment to be played as a table top battle game with miniatures. I admit that when it was concieved that was the idea, but he refuses to believe that most people that play the game actually Roleplay characters, get involved in stories, and do interesting things. Maybe I should point him to this thread, though he would still denounce it. I have show him the boards and the 90% storyline and RP questions and he still says we are the minimum in the hobby. I should log one of the storyline-oriented sessions of my game just so you have evidence. We've had one session lasting over 6 hours with no combat, and using the d20 only in Sense Motive/Bluff/Diplomacy checks. EDIT- And this is over the interwebs no less.
kraegor 01-24-06, 12:00 PM	Ok.. first thoughts on the subject. I have been playing D&D for close to 15 years. When I first started playing, the only thing that matter was my class, and my race. The rest was alllll gravy. I would ROLEPLAY to my hearts content. My players would roleplay. I would run 15+ NPCs, everyone would have thier own tone of voice, likes, dislikes, etc. There was no figurines, there was no battle maps. Battles were done in my head, on paper as numbers and left to the imagination of the players. That was 2nd edition. Now 3rd edition comes along, introduces figurines en mass, battlemaps, movement capabilities, actions, and good lord, the weapons, equipment, etc. I saw an immediate change in my players, they wanted MORE battles, they didn't care about trying to talk down the kobold warlord anymore, they just figured they could slice thier way through half his army in huge great-cleave strokes. I have noticed a trend also, as players get more and more into rules lawyering, there are more rules to know and follow now. Our battles that used to be 15-30 minutes now take 1-2 hours to construct and run through for a simple orc encounter! There is always debates about what can and can't be done. Players trying to figure out where they move and where they can't. I miss the simplicity of the old D&D styles. And now with an influx of younger players in the game that have just been playing Warcraft, Final Fantasy, etc... all they know *IS* combat. Let me take you to last nights session: DM: You are walking alone down the darkened streets of Garun. You hear a small scrape of a boot behind you, and feel a small tug at your belt. By the time you turn around, you see a small form darting off in the distance. Player: I chase him, I have the run feat, and I have dash, I can easily catch up with him. DM: He turns corners quicker than you can, but your speed soon overtakes him. Player: I grab him, push him to the ground, I have a high strength, I should totally be able to trip him easy. DM: (few rolls) Ok, you do indeed trip him and he sprawls on the ground. Player: Ok, I wait for him to try to get up, then take an attack of opportunity and stab him in the back with my longsword. DM: Sigh... alright (rolls damage) you kill him, easily. Player: Kickass, that should get me enough to level. Ok, now of course, this was ACTUALLY going to be a named, major NPC named Rose (14 y/o female) that was actually stealing because her brother had been kidnapped and she had to pay a randsom of 100g to get him back. Now if the players either helped her get him back, or gave her money, she was going to lead them to a secret cave she knew about where the local assasins guild kept a lot of thier "things". But of course, the player didn't ever find out WHY they stole, or WHO they where. So it ruined a whole large plotline. I had to end up making it some scruffy bum that stole his money pouch since I didn't really wan't it weighing on thier concience they just killed a 14 year old girl that was alone, starving, and stealing for her brothers ransom. Sigh... and this is just one of many times this has happened. Players treat NPCs and Monsters as mobs. No matter how much thought I put into it, no matter how much they monologue, that orc chieftan still should die, that little kobold should be squicked under a boot, and the bandits in the woods slaughtered (never knowing of course they where actually placed there by a sneaky baron to get more money, which, if they had captured one they would have found out) I am continuosly forced to stretch the imagination of how 1 bandit would have survived. (yeah, somehow your great cleave didnt take out all 5 bandits, you actually didnt see one that was asleep at the time) and hope that they just don't slit his throat before he can yell out "I surrender". It seems they are just all looking for the next level up, the next feat, the next skill, the next attribute point. And even more disturbing are the discussions of how to min/max thier characters. The old "yeah a 50+ AC with a monk" or a "30d6 fireball wizard" or the "supreme cleave battle zerker" etc etc. Have you ever been to a RPGA sanctioned group? You cant roleplay. All you do *IS* roll-play. If you try to roleplay the other people in the group say "we got no time for that, we only have X amount of time to find the evil baron otherwise we dont get experience!" Its a shame, a total shame. The ONLY thing that has gotten good about D&D is its becoming more mainstream and people aren't immediately "geeks and loosers" for playing it. Of course, I think because of the mainstreaming it lost a lot of its luster.
OctoberRaven 01-24-06, 12:06 PM	I had to end up making it some scruffy bum that stole his money pouch since I didn't really wan't it weighing on thier concience they just killed a 14 year old girl that was alone, starving, and stealing for her brothers ransom. . Me, I would have kept her the way she was, to have it weighing on their consience. See if that makes them think before acting. Simply my style though.
celtredleg 01-24-06, 12:43 PM	Fallacy Kreagor. I played my first game in 1976. We used figures. We had a battleboard. There where two arguments about rules. The games has mostly a series of combats. As I played more games, that trend continued. Over time I learned to to RP, but it took time. This nostalgic look back to the "golden days before 3rd ed" is just as wrong as any old person claiming things where so much better or worse in their younger days. There have always been poor roleplayers. People who only liked combat. Rules lawyers. Maybe you never ran into them, but they certainly existed. In large numbers. Niether WoTC not 3.X did anything to create these people, they exist all by them selves.
jpat93 01-24-06, 12:45 PM	Immersion is thinking and feeling as the character would, if it existed. Suspension of disbelief and all that factors in. Immersion is often seen as "good roleplaying" (read: roleplaying I like or have been conditioned to thik of as supreme). Characterisation is picturing a fictional character in a way that is respectful of said character. So, three-dimensional characters who act like humans do. Not merely "dumb orc with a large axe". Characterisation is also thought of as good roleplaying. These two are not mutually exclusive, and often enforce each other. GMs have hard time immering themselves, though. So characterisation for, mostly. I'm intrigued by this notion of distinguishing "immersion" from "characterization." The difference, as defined by the OP, seems to be that "immersion" is a "first-person" activity involving one more or less losing him- or herself in character, while "characterization" is more in the nature of a "third-person" activity. Both are related, but I can characterize ("My barbarian would ...") without being immersed ("I will ..."). I like that and find it a rather useful distinction--and I seem to agree with the OP that both are valid forms of roleplaying.
Arrowhen 01-24-06, 04:01 PM	I had to end up making it some scruffy bum that stole his money pouch since I didn't really wan't it weighing on thier concience they just killed a 14 year old girl that was alone, starving, and stealing for her brothers ransom. I think that was a mistake. By making their victim someone they feel justified in killing, you're only reinforcing their kill-anything-that-moves tendencies. Honestly, what's wrong with the murder of a 14 year old girl weighing on their consciences? The very fact that you think it would weigh on their consciences indicated that the group is not without hope. Guilt can be a powerful motivator. You could have planted a ransome note on the girl's body to lead them into the same kidnapping storyline, with the PCs facing the added complication of what to tell the brother about his sister's death. Sigh... and this is just one of many times this has happened. Players treat NPCs and Monsters as mobs. No matter how much thought I put into it, no matter how much they monologue, that orc chieftan still should die, that little kobold should be squicked under a boot, and the bandits in the woods slaughtered (never knowing of course they where actually placed there by a sneaky baron to get more money, which, if they had captured one they would have found out) I am continuosly forced to stretch the imagination of how 1 bandit would have survived. (yeah, somehow your great cleave didnt take out all 5 bandits, you actually didnt see one that was asleep at the time) and hope that they just don't slit his throat before he can yell out "I surrender". With all due respect, it sounds like you might share some of the blame as well. The players might be treating your NPCs as mobs, but it kind of sounds like you're treating them as plot devices. Your use of the word "monologue" is an indicator of this. Instead, try treating your NPCs as what they are: individuals with goals, resources, and relationships to other NPCs. The way to encourage roleplaying isn't to have NPCs make speeches, it's to let the players see that their actions have consequences. Instead of "stretching the imagination of how 1 bandit would have survived", concentrate your efforts on what happens as a result of all they bandits dying. Who were the bandits working for and how does he react to this group of meddlers interfering with his plans? Who are the bandits' enemies? Are they thankful that the PCs eliminated the bandits, or are they suspicious of the new players on the scene? Who are the bandits' friends? The bandits might be the "bad guys", but even bad guys need food, weapons, equipment, etc. They need to spend their money somewhere, and they might have been bringing much-needed commerce into some of the nearby villages. The PCs might ride into town expecting a hero's welcome, only to be met with cold stares from the seedy armorer. Of course, I think because of the mainstreaming it lost a lot of its luster. I don't think so. I think what's more likely is that with the advent of the internet we hear about a lot more of the lackluster games out there, but they've always been around.