An article by Nick White
Hi, I’m Nick White. I’ve been playing Dungeons & Dragons for little over a year now, and I am noticing some severe changes in the game. I was over at my friends house, and we just finished a few hour session, and we were talking about baseball while watching a movie. We hadn’t gotten very deep when my friend made the comment:
“Baseballs losing popularity because people are no longer into the game, they’re
into the statistics of it. People don’t care about teams or player personalities,
they just care about how well the team or player does.”
Now I’m not saying that the skill of a player isn’t important when determining popularity, most certainly a player without any skill will not be as famous as one with great skill. What I’m saying is that the emotional attachment between players and their fans is as shallow as their ability to play. In D&D 3rd edition, I noticed this as well.
The game mechanics of D&D 3rd (or 3.5) has taken a predominate role that has all but hedged out the ‘role’ in roleplaying. I started playing in 2nd edition and had some of the most fun with a game that I’ve had in a long time. Then I got a hold of 3rd edition core rule books, liked what I saw, and DMed my own adventure. Again, the game was as fun as it could have ever been. But as time progressed, my friends and I began to understand the rules more carefully, a good thing (so I thought). Well, in the middle of a climatic battle, a debate was sprung over the rules of combat, we all turned to our rulebooks, and the game has never been the same. Now, when one player attempts a maneuver in combat, and applies the rules how he understands them, another player interjects, correcting him where he’s sure he’s made a mistake. Then another player corrects their misapprehension, and the rule books never leave the table. This is where experience as a DM should come in handy, when a rule is in question; I (the DM) should be able to clear it up quick. I’ve spent a great many hours pouring over the rulebooks, in an attempt at a better understanding of the mechanics, and have come to the realization that the rules are the focus, not the characters in the game.
Now I digress; a relief came when the Forgotten Realms © Campaign Setting was released, I saw an accurate portrayal of the characters that I had been reading about (i.e. Drizzt Do’Urden, Artemis Entreri, Elminister, etc.). I loved the descriptions of the cities and places strewn throughout the realms, and discovered that the Forgotten Realms © was a great place for us to roleplay our characters. Then I encountered a very subtle change in the mood that insidiously turned into another debate. Again, in the Forgotten Realms ©, I noticed that no longer were the characters the focus, but the setting they were in. The game mechanics, still in question, but now they were questioning my portrayal of characters in regions, descriptions of events and places, and what reactions should have occurred from their actions. I wanted out, the game had become so brutally obnoxious, seemingly pointless, and my time playing or DMing seemed completely devoid of anything resembling entertainment. So I moved on.
While dallying around Borders, Books & Music I ran into a copy of d20 Modern, liked what I saw, and DMed a mini-adventure which turned into a success. My friends and I still don’t understand the rules fully, but after carefully reading through the book and noticing subtle changes in how it was written, artistry, and planning, I noticed something that RPGs focus on: the characters! Every thing had character, found in drawings, in organization, bur mostly in the writing. The authors were not focused on maintaining a strict account of changes that were being monitored between the 2nd-3rd edition changeovers. They wrote the game with the intention that it would be fun to play. The radical changes between 2nd and 3rd are obvious enough to say that the game wasn’t (dare I say) intended to be a role playing game, but rather, an attempt to change rules to entice market growth, without moving too far away from the games original intentions. Now I have to say that the 3rd edition books improved the game greatly, but they are lacking in some of the former aspects which now seem very important. There should be an entire section on personality\character development, there isn’t. If role playing is the focus of D&D, why isn’t there anything talking about ROLE PLAYING? Which is, in a sense, supposed to put you in someone else’s shoes, and teach you a little about empathy, but it is lacking in the former.
Now, the statement on baseball is true, but can the same statement be made on D&D or other role playing games? I think, after careful consideration, yes. My proposition is this: Wizards should re-align their roleplaying departments to produce role playing games.
About the Author:
My name is Nick White, I’m 17, and I am a junior at Boise High School. I’ve been playing D&D for little over a year, and d20 modern for about a month. I am currently working on my own campaign setting for D&D, and for d20 modern. You can e-mail me at [email]neoneogeo@yahoo.com[/email] if you would like to respond.
I myself am 16 and I DM most of the time. None of my players really ROLEplay their character, but rather look at how strong their characters can get. I am very unhappy with this, but then I realized that often times, I do the same thing. I was very disappointed in myself at this point and I decided to start PCing more to get more in different characters.
Well, I still haven't ended the campaign I am DMing, and I don't really have any interest in it anymore. It will end whenever the PCs goof up and the mistake will take their life.
On the side of this campaign, I have asked one of my other friends to DM. He wanted to for a while, so he accepted this offer. He is new to DMing(and PCing for the most part), which I think adds to gameplay a lot. I try to play in character as much as possible and I think do a pretty good job at it now. It has really helped me with DND.
I have come to one final conclusion. If the DM and the PCs don't memorize the rulebooks, it makes the game a lot more fun. The players can think of most of the things their characters do, and for the few details they can refer to the books. For me, referring to the books as little as possible is the most enjoyable. I really like it when the DM decides to go into 'story telling mode' and kind of disregard most of the rules.
As for the lack of role-playing advice in the core rulebooks... I'm actually glad that they don't have much setting information, and sometimes wish they'd eliminate even the religions listed. Why? Because I like to make my own game world when I'm DMing. If your DM doesn't, settings like Forgotten Realms can be easily purchased, and there are plenty available free online.
For me, at least, the fun of D&D lies in the creativity it allows. I don't want to play as Drizz't and fight orcs, I want to create my own character and... well, fight orcs, probably. I've noticed that once you write down a character and try to talk and react with in-game logic, a decent character tends to emerge of its own accord, with a life of its own.
I'll agree that it's fun to have a set of cool characters that are known to all the players, as well as characters; fighting Bill the Archmage is one thing, fighting Merlin or even Elminster is quite another, altogether more epic experience. But as I mentioned, there are plenty of D&D settings out there for the taking.
The game mechanics of D&D 3rd (or 3.5) has taken a predominate role that has all but hedged out the ‘role’ in role-playing. I started playing in 2nd edition and had some of the most fun with a game that I’ve had in a long time. Then I got a hold of 3rd edition core rule books, liked what I saw, and DMed my own adventure. Again, the game was as fun as it could have ever been. But as time progressed, my friends and I began to understand the rules more carefully, a good thing (so I thought). Well, in the middle of a climatic battle, a debate was sprung over the rules of combat, we all turned to our rulebooks, and the game has never been the same. Now, when one player attempts a maneuver in combat, and applies the rules how he understands them, another player interjects, correcting him where he’s sure he’s made a mistake. Then another player corrects their misapprehension, and the rule books never leave the table.
A classic tale and one which many of us have experienced. It seems as though there are three points being made here. (Please correct me if I'm grossly misinterpreting things -- it's always a risk when responding to anecdotal arguments.)
- Earlier editions had fewer rules, so you didn't have to memorize them and there were fewer "rules disputes" because the DM just made a bunch of stuff up.
- The rules-heavy style of 3rd Edition causes players to develop a sense of propriety over the rules, making them resistant to the idea of the DM just making stuff up.
- Game rules can distract people from role-playing.
The real problem here is not that the game has become "shallow" or that the purpose of 3rd Edition was simply "to entice market growth." The real problem is that conflicting forces/goals in game design prevent any role-playing game from being perfect. Such forces include character balance vs. flexibility; immersion vs. the practical need to determine the outcome of game events; easy-to-use rules vs. comprehensive rules; effort making difficult judgments vs. effort following a complex process; the desire to play a game vs. the desire to play a role; broad audience appeal vs. appealing to a core of devoted fans; and the conflicting desires of various players (such as player goals vs. DM goals). Let's think about the above three points in light of these forces.
1. Earlier editions had fewer rules, so you didn't have to memorize them and there were fewer "rules disputes" because the DM just made a bunch of stuff up.
The first set of conflicting forces addressed by this issue is effort making difficult judgments vs. effort following a complex process. In 2nd Edition, the burden of memorizing and understanding rules was reduced, but the DM had an additional burden to make stuff up. Personally, I'd rather memorize things or use a rule book than make stuff up, but that is a matter of preference. Did you know it's possible to role-play without using any dice or rules at all -- just tell the GM what your character does and he thinks up the result? It's called free-form role-playing and some people swear by it. It's the opposite of a rules-heavy system like D&D 3E. It doesn't appeal to me because if I were the DM my brain would overheat and melt trying to adjudicate absolutely everything on the fly. Another way to view these forces are as easy-to-use rules vs. comprehensive rules -- fewer rules are easier to follow, but being less comprehensive, require more DM adjudication.
A related set of conflicting forces is character balance vs. flexibility. In a flexible system, a clever player can devise combinations of character abilities that are overpowered or underpowered. A system that requires a lot of DM judgment can quickly become imbalanced if the DM has poor judgment, while a very rigid, rules-heavy system is balanced the game designers (who are certainly not perfect, but are better than many poor-judgement DMs). Of course, this introduces the idea that the rules are somehow meant to restrict or limit the DM, which leads to...
2. The rules-heavy style of 3rd Edition causes players to develop a sense of propriety over the rules, making them resistant to the idea of the DM just making stuff up.
This is primarily a matter of player goals vs. DM goals -- at some level, part of every player wants their character to advance and become super-cool and wants the rules of the game to work in their favor. The DM, on the other hand, wants everyone to have fun, and often has some interest in telling a story. These forces are inherent to the people involved, rather than the game rules, and I don't think there's any way the game rules can significantly impact this problem.
I say this because what are "rules disputes" now were "judgment disputes" back in 2nd Edition. In other words, when a player's character gets shafted during gameplay, it often turns into a disagreement over how the rules should be interpreted -- "That's not how that rule works." In 2nd Edition, there often was no relevant rule, so the disagreement was over the DM's judgment -- "That's just not fair." Both of these scenarios are not really a result of the game itself, but a matter of trust vs. ego between the players and DM. A good play group (in any game) needs a lot of trust in the DM's judgment and the DM's ability to interpret rules; the type of dispute that arises merely indicates where the game falls on the judgment-heavy vs. rules-heavy scale.
3. Game rules can distract people from role-playing.
The forces in conflict are immersion vs. the practical need to determine the outcome of game events. By "immersion" I mean "the feeling that you're really there, that you really are your character." We always feel a certain amount of immersion when we role-play, and usually, the more the better (up to a point). However, whenever we need to role a die or look up a rule, we "lose the moment" -- it's like lurching over a speedbump; we "wake up" to the fact that we're really a bunch of D&D geeks sitting around a table rolling polyhedral die. However, some amount of rules seem to be necessary (unless you're bold enough to use free-form role-playing) just to figure out what the heck is going on.
So if rules break immersion, why so many? Why not just go with the simplest, bare-minimum rules possible? Why have 100 supplemental books with 1000 Prestige Classes and 10,000 feats and spells? Why is grappling so dang complex? It's because of the desire to play a game vs. the desire to play a role. The truth is, some people really enjoy putting the rules together in clever ways to make a neat character, or enjoy the tactical combat elements. D&D has always had both game-like elements and role-playing elements, and different people like to focus on them in different amounts.
This is largely a matter of personal preference, which has bearing on broad audience appeal vs. appealing to a core of devoted fans. Ideally, the game would support all play styles well -- roll-playing or role-playing -- but if trade-offs need to be made, it's the nature of D&D to appeal to the rules-heavy audience. For people who want fewer rules, there are other games out there, or you can simply enact the trust and discipline needed to play D&D with less of a focus on rules. (It's my opinion that it's much easier to start with a robust rule set like 3E and dumb-down the rules, than to start with an incomplete rule set like 2E and add a bunch of house rules.)
So, what is actually my point here? My point is that complaining about the good ol' days and about the rules-heavy nature of D&D 3E is not going to help your game. Conflicting forces/goals in game design prevent any role-playing game from being perfect, but players can mitigate problems that arise by ACTIVELY promoting those forces that produce a game-play style they enjoy. The key word here is "actively." The game group described in the post way up at the top of the page was caught between some conflicting forces, and it wound up in a bunch of rules arguments rather than a happy gaming session. To use any RPG rules successfully, you need to understand its flaws and merits and be aware of your own game play preferences, so that when the game turns ugly (in this case, over rules disputes) you can get things back on track right away. You can't expect the game rules or the source books to provide you with a good gaming session -- they are merely tools for your use. Decide what you like about gaming and use the tools to create that sort of game. It may well be that the 3rd Edition rules aren't well-suited to your game play style, but it is most certainly not because they inherently lack role-playing, because role-playing is always provided by the players, regardless of game system.
-- 77IM
PS. To Nick: I encourage you to play a wide variety of different role-playing games. Different games take different approaches to the problems/conflicting forces outlined above, and having a varied perspective on these issues will help your game no matter what system you are using.
I think this problem would be solved, for the most part, if they put even one chapter in both the DMGv? And the PHBv?. Or even maybe make some supplement book titled 'Putting the ROLE back in role-playing' or just 'Role-playing'. This way, when reading the books all the players feel more like they should specialize more on their character. I would suggest in the beginning of the book to tell the players to write a one page summary of the character including the following: Likes, Dislikes, attitude towards some actions (torture, slavery, disrespectfulness, etc. etc.), their family, why they started adventuring, and so on and so forth.
No I'm not suggesting jumping to conclusions and saying MAKE A NEW BOOK RIGHT NOW CONTAINING EVERYTHING I WANT! I'm saying that maybe in the future (possibly when v4 comes out, or sooner) or when people have enough time, which more books on this topic could and should be made. I know that I already have thought out what my players should do and I enforce the writing a page thing, but DND would be much more appreciated (In my opinion) if these books were actually made and anyone could purchase them. Having the best fighter you can have isn't fun for everyone.
What I'm trying to say is that I know putting the role back into role-playing is the players responsibility, but it would be a heck of a lot easier if the books helped you along you way with making a person.
After all...people talk about it being a "Role" playing game not a "roll" playing game, but they completely ignore the fact that it is still a game
What good is having a fantastic background and the ability to role-play well if your character can't actually *do* any of what your story elements say he can?
If your character is an exiled prince famed for his swordsmanship then you had better invest some time and effort into making his mechanics reflect that.
It is a "Role-Playing Game" that means both the "Role-Playing" and the "Game" aspects should be given *equal* focus.
While an unhealthy obsession with the mechanics *is* detrimental to the overall gaming experience, the exact same thing can be said to focusing too much on the story and acting aspects of it.
Think of it like a video game.
Story and role-play are the shiny cool graphics and the storyline of the game. Game mechanics are your game engine and controls. A game with great graphics and story isn’t going to be any fun if your character in the game can't do squat or the controls are too hard to use. Likewise, a perfectly designed game engine is going to get boring fast without something to catch the eye and the mind.
A well-played game of D&D engages *both* halves of the mind; the logical half that handles rules and numbers and the creative half that handles imagination and interactive.
If you're not using your whole mind when you're playing then there is much wasted potential.
1. Throw out a LOGICAL ruling that will keep the game moving. Than go and look up the rule later. This is how I GM'ed 3E for about my first 6 months, while far from perfect it did keep things flowing and (I think) fun for the players.
2. If your players simply cannot live without lengthy searches through obscure rulebooks than impose a limit on the time they can spend doing it. I had a player that was looking through rulebooks all the time during game play rather than paying attention (something I have trouble with myself). So we just skipped the guy....harsh yes but hey he learned and now pays attention quite well.
3. "An ounce of prevention...." I won't bother finishing that quote, as you probably know the rest. Work with your players before hand to tailor the rules to the way you guys play the game. If a rule is a buzz kill or simply doesn't aid in ROLE-playing than get out the magic marker.
Don’t know if this post is helpful (for above mentioned caffeine/sleep reasons). I'd like to add to what 77IM said and encourage you to play with several different Gaming Groups as the opportunity presents itself. This helps expose you not only to different gaming systems but different GM's and Player's ideas. It's helped me ALOT!
--The rule system is definitely more complex than it was in 2e, which takes additional practice to master. However, if your statement is that these rules necessarily hamper roleplaying, I'd challenge you to come up with a specific example. Otherwise, I'd merely mention that roleplaying within the 3.x rules system, like any RPG rules system, becomes MUCH easier once the rules (or most of the common ones, at least) are committed to memory. Keep at it--it will get better.
If role playing is the focus of D&D, why isn’t there anything talking about ROLE PLAYING?
1. Roleplaying ia *a* focus of D&D. It is not the only focus.
2. Roleplayers as a group don't generally take kindly to rulebooks telling them how to roleplay; that's where the majority of the creativity comes in. The core rulebooks are rule-books, which means they're meant primarily to address game mechanics and balance. This does not mean you cannot roleplay; it merely provides a helpful reference when one person's concept of what is "happening" conflicts with another person's vision. As a roleplayer you are no doubt familiar with the "god-moder" who occasionally shows up in diceless roleplaying who will not admit that his character missed a shot, triggered a trap, or looked the basilisk in the eye. The rules address these situations. They are not meant to tell you what you should be imagining or how you should be acting; that's your responsibility and privilege (and, I hope, pleasure).
I think, after careful consideration, yes. My proposition is this: Wizards should re-align their roleplaying departments to produce role playing games.
Ow, ow! My ears are burning! *grin* What you are overlooking here is the large population of roleplayers who enjoy the "game" aspect of the "roleplaying game" (they are sometimes called "Gamists" when they're not being called something derogatory like "powergamers" or "min-maxers"). These people have just as much right as the "roleplayers" to enjoy the game, and thankfully D&D supports both kinds of player more or less equally. And favoring one doesn't mean you can't like the other.
"Crunch" vs. "fluff" is a huge issue for RPG designers these days, and some games have a varying ratio of both. D&D is admittedly one of the crunchier games on the market, but I wouldn't say that crunch makes it impossible (or even more difficult) for those who want to focus on roleplaying to do so. That's why we have Rule #0, eh? If the rules are in the way, throw them out!
A party of PCs (all level 6) enter a forest and encounter a group of 5 elves, 4 of which have their bows ready to shoot at the PCs. They demand to know what the PCs want. Since the PCs are on a secret mission, they do not want to disclose what their mission is. Since they are all level 6, they don't necessarily have to feel threatened by the arrows, because they should have enough HP to survive the shots. In reality, though, if you look at a bow ready to be fired at you, you are less inclined to fight. So if you go by the rules (let's say the elves are lvl 2), the PCs could well fight the elves, while if the players roleplay and forget about the rules, they probably would not.
Its less work on my part to cut them out then add them and also the pre-made rules are play-tested. The ones I make up would not be.
What the DM says goes. If rummaging through books is getting in the way make your ruling off what you know until you later learn the rule on it. Then if someone disagrees simply tell them thats what happens and they should accept it.
I too have the problem of looking everything up in the book if I don't know it. It bothers me if i find out later that I was wrong. I am very familer with the rules now and for the ones I might have forgotten I at least know EXACTlY where to find them in my extensive library of D&D books.
I have a friend, he got me into D&D, that friend has a sister, who got him into D&D. She’s played D&D (2nd Edition) for the better part of 30 years, she is my ultimate source of wisdom and a great help when developing adventures\characters, but she had the same response as me, saying as I recall:
“Kids your age could use a sectional devoted to character development, not everyone knows the steps in creating a personality.”
My point being, not everyone has a mentor like me, that mentor should be the books. The core rulebooks should provide the information required to play and have fun with D&D, and that calls for character development and role playing chapters. I’m not asking for a formula driven character generator with all the tables and random statistics that are so common in the core rulebooks. What I’m asking for is an analysis of the processes that players subconsciously make when developing personalities, and a few examples and walkthroughs of character creation that does not involve any game mechanic.
To lay it out for you, and to be brutally honest, my generation truly is lacking in pure uninspired original creativity. Be it a game mechanic or not, the core rule books should describe role playing as the core rule, not the background that the mechanics rest in.
Nick White
I'm with you dude, keep the role in role playing.