Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 libbalou Sep 19, 2009 21:12:14	I've been playing pretty consistently for over a year now, and I'm having fun, but I keep expecting more. I'm beginning to wonder if I have the wrong idea about D&D in general. There seems to be very little roleplaying outside of combat. Is this normal? I would say that the games I've played in have been 25% or less roleplaying and 75% or more fighting. It seems very formulaic. Your party arrives at a tavern in town known for hiring adventurers. Someone approaches you with a problem and promises you riches in return for your help. You buy supplies, head down the road and fight a group of evildoers. The DM says it takes you 3 days to get to the cave. You walk in the cave, disable a trap, unlock a door and fight more evil doers. (repeat). Return to tavern and claim your reward. Granted, I've been playing a lot of LFR, and I know those are structured for various reasons, and don't want to get into a debate about LFR here... but even my homebrew games are like this. Is this just the group I'm playing with, or is that just the way D&D usually is? It IS a roleplaying game, but do you only roleplay what you do in combat? I've tried to take the initiative to explain why I'm doing something or to engage other characters, but for the most part it just doesn't happen. I live in a small town, and had a hard enough time finding this group of players. Should I just accept it, or are there ways I can try to encourage more roleplaying in the group?
#2 Janx_14 Sep 19, 2009 21:33:10	If you want heavier RP, make the quest in the city. Political issues, a corrupt politicean. If the quest is to kill some orc raiders,  well,  the quest's objective is combat. Its all in the objective. A sportsman will not give a speech in the middle of a game (except maybe golf). I've had an 8 hour session of no combat because the players were busy investigating the odd events going down in a town. Another idea would to be very vivid in descriptions, and make small details important later. Eventually your players will catch on that paying attention to stuff will aid them later, and will be more investigative. I once had a player who was obsessed over why i had added on that the wizard was wearing a blue robe, when it just a detail i threw in to get a better image. But yes, if your quest is to kill things and take their stuff, expect more killing and taking than talking.
#3 kouk Sep 19, 2009 22:43:37	Roleplaying is largely, perhaps exclusively, group dependent. D&D is a roleplaying game, but it is also a combat game. It always has been. The expectation of most people who sit down to play D&D is that there will be combat involved, and regularly (can't forget treasure either). A certain degree of roleplaying is also desirable, but more subject to the group and the DM. LFR adventures are designed basically as little nuggets of D&D, erring toward fights. Just the concept of everyone playing "the same" adventure almost requires that most of it be mechanically scripted (even somewhat "on rails"); because true roleplaying comes out spontaneously and the RPGA doesn't want to write plays. Sitting down for an LFR game comes with an expectation of "getting through a dungeon" rather than "advancing the storyline" as such, because there just isn't time for that (literally), and there really isn't a story to advance. Honestly, 25% roleplaying is a great amount for most D&D groups. Of course, no two sessions are really the same, but as an average. Like with anything, some players may want more talking, some less.
#4 DanTracker Sep 19, 2009 23:01:18	I've been playing pretty consistently for over a year now, and I'm having fun, but I keep expecting more. I'm beginning to wonder if I have the wrong idea about D&D in general. There seems to be very little roleplaying outside of combat. Is this normal? I would say that the games I've played in have been 25% or less roleplaying and 75% or more fighting. It seems very formulaic. Your party arrives at a tavern in town known for hiring adventurers. Someone approaches you with a problem and promises you riches in return for your help. You buy supplies, head down the road and fight a group of evildoers. The DM says it takes you 3 days to get to the cave. You walk in the cave, disable a trap, unlock a door and fight more evil doers. (repeat). Return to tavern and claim your reward. Granted, I've been playing a lot of LFR, and I know those are structured for various reasons, and don't want to get into a debate about LFR here... but even my homebrew games are like this. Is this just the group I'm playing with, or is that just the way D&D usually is? It IS a roleplaying game, but do you only roleplay what you do in combat? I've tried to take the initiative to explain why I'm doing something or to engage other characters, but for the most part it just doesn't happen. I live in a small town, and had a hard enough time finding this group of players. Should I just accept it, or are there ways I can try to encourage more roleplaying in the group?   this really will depend on both DM and the adventure at hand. i agree with the two previous posters. i try to make sure players can perform at least one action between fights that is purely RP and has little to do with the task at hand, i.e. not skill challenges. sometimes those actions need mroe time to resolve completely, and i do a bit of work over email between sessions. shopping at stores and going through conversations are some good email options because those could soak up game time at the table. however, shopping for a patron, looking for gigs, listening for information are often activities that i resolve at the table so that even if each character is not present to hear it, each player is aware that something is going on.
#5 mistersolve Sep 20, 2009 0:58:20	Like many rpg systems, most of the rules contained in D&D are focused on combat.  It's not necessarily a knock on the system, but it would be my assumption that the vast majority of D&D games are combat heavy. If you wish to see a bit more role play in your campaign, the best method of facilitating this is probably just to bring it up with the group outside of play.  If the dm knows that the players are more interested in non-combat interactions, he can work harder to develop those scenarios.  Also, make sure that when the opportunity to role play does arise, you continue to show interest as a polite but active participant.  Chances are that others may take a cue from your enthusiasm. In the end, the most important thing to remember is that everyone is having as much fun as possible.  For many groups, this means scaling back on the role playing at times.  Be mindful of how others adjust to a continuous diet of increased role play.  If your buddies are glassy eyed or passed out on the couch every session, those are probably bad signs!  Good luck and happy gaming.
#6 gargs454 Sep 20, 2009 10:05:02	As others have said, it really is group-dependent.  I'll also echo that LFR in particular tends to be much more combat oriented and even railroadish, but that's a result of the nature of the RPGA and the convention setting.  That being said, I've had numerous sessions where we haven't even rolled a die.  The problem is that there are many different types of RPG players.  There's the hack n slash type who just wants to kill stuff, there's the actor/storyteller who is more concerned with creating a personality than with anything else, there's the player who covets rare and unique items, etc. etc.  There are many different ways of playing any RPG, and none of them are wrong. My suggestion to you would be to talk to your group and see if they would like more roleplay opportunities.  It could be that the DM in your home game is under the impression that they prefer to fight (after all, fighting tends to be the quickest and easiest way to earn XP).  If they indicate that they'd like more roleplay, then take the initiative.  Heck, even if they haven't indicated they want more roleplay take the initiative.  A couple of examples: "Hey Steve, what do you think we should do?  It seems to me like we are not being offered much for our services." "Soveliss, you're the expert in the arcane world, but it seems to me as though destroying this artifact thingy is likely to put us in our graves.  Seems kinda risky for a mere 100 gp to me." Both statements are essentially the same.  The difference is that one is completely in character and the other is completely out of character.  More to the point, the second one more or less calls for the response to be in character while also giving Soveliss' player a chance to highlight his particular skills and/or quirks.  The first question will almost certainly generate an out of character response. Its a seemingly small difference, but it can yield big results.  Keep in mind though that its entirely possible that your group simply likes to hit things until they die.
#7 libbalou Sep 20, 2009 15:08:56	A couple of examples: "Hey Steve, what do you think we should do?  It seems to me like we are not being offered much for our services." "Soveliss, you're the expert in the arcane world, but it seems to me as though destroying this artifact thingy is likely to put us in our graves.  Seems kinda risky for a mere 100 gp to me." Both statements are essentially the same.  The difference is that one is completely in character and the other is completely out of character. This is a good suggestion! Thanks for that. I know that most of the other players don't want much roleplaying, but this might be a good compromise. If we at least can get into the habit of speaking our character vs. player names, it would do a great deal for me, at least. We play tomorrow. I'll make the suggestion. Thanks to others for responses, too.
#8 chaosturtle Sep 20, 2009 15:45:26	Really varies from group to group.  In my past sessions its kinda been all over the place...usually we were pretty much split 50/50, now it seems like we can have full sessions that're 90% rp with 10% combat, or the exact opposite 90% combat and 10% rp.  Whats weird is my players manage to turn the stuff I expect to be all combat into rp, and the rp stuff into combat...its like they know, though I don't mind...makes dming alot more exciting, even if it does keep me on my toes.
#9 Noon Sep 20, 2009 16:35:45	Well, D&D doesn't have rules to prompt the sort of thing your talking about. You can hardly expect a game to have things in it, which it doesn't have any rules on. That'd be like expecting slam dunks in chess.
#10 illraven Sep 21, 2009 2:46:18	As said by others - it entirely depends on the group. It also depends on the experience level of the DM. More experienced DMs are more comfortable getting in the fuzzy grey area of RP where there aren't 'rules' to guide you. Your best bet is to chat with the other players and the DM to see if everyone would be willing to try something a bit more character-driven. If the DM is new, you could try 'sandbox' adventuring just so your group can get a feel for the RP possibilities and experiment with it. ~r
#11 trabian Sep 21, 2009 6:30:05	It pretty much depends on the DM, the campaign and the story. In the campaign I'm in, the story runs in a setting of the DM's own making. We run through prepublished adventures and have sessions connecting the various adventures. We basically force march through the adventure. Not a lot of character development in the adventures, more us performing practised genocide on whatever we *have* to fight and our characters' reactions to that. The sessions in between usually have 1 encounter at the most.
#12 mellored Sep 21, 2009 13:25:56	Don't forget, you can always role play IN combat. "I rolled a 29 vs AC" "26 damage" "he's bloodied" "player, i could use a heal" vs "I feight with my sword (29 vs AC)" "and plant a foot right into his stomach (26 damage)" "he spits blood from his mouth, you seemed to have cracked a rib" "PC, send some of you're divine aid my way, least that be my last swing"
#13 secretaryseven Sep 21, 2009 14:43:44	My usual group usually roleplays it all out. Even combat, sometimes. In a different game, in the past, the PCs attacked a dragon roaming around NYC with a flying pink cadillac. They all were completely fine with just freeform roleplaying it all out instead of rolling any dice-- this is true for that group. I usually get by with 1 short combat per session to appease the combat junkies and then we get down to the heavy roleplaying. On the other hand, my newest group I play with has 3-4 combats a night, minimal roleplaying. When a PC died who basically ran the ship the PCs called home, and the people left on the ship asked the remaining party what had happened to him, the response was to pour water on them and go to sleep. Moral: Different strokes for different folks.
#14 nowiwantmydmg Sep 21, 2009 16:36:01	My group is rapidly improving in the RP department, it won't always happen 100% of the time, but getting people in the habit of using character's names helps a lot. I'm at the point where I've got it at about a 50/50 split at this point and I'm content with that for now(some of them are new to D&D and others are used to pure hack 'n' slash) . It would probably be higher RP wise, but some of my RP hooks are probably to subtle for this group at the moment. Eventually I'll jack it up to about 75% RP, very intrique heavy, where the slightest missed clue can mean catastrophe.   Names and Backstories more complicated than adventuring for $$$ are excellent tools that anyone can use to develop roleplaying. Start small and incrementally build up to as much RP as you desire.
#15 Neutronium_Dragon Sep 22, 2009 11:55:10	It's not the rules or the system - the degree of roleplaying/combat has varied widely in games under every edition and under non-D&D systems. The presence or absence of 'roleplaying rules' has little bearing on it either, since 'roleplaying' is something that comes from the players, not from the books. (Those who complain that there aren't enough roleplaying rules to support their roleplaying are matched by those who complain that the rules to support roleplaying are getting in the way of their roleplaying, so be skeptical of complaints based on either viewpoint.)