Do you still plan to roleplay?

346 posts / 0 new
Last post
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics discussing about such rule like/dislike, such race presence/absence, such class feature/unfeature, and so on...

Maybe it's because roleplay is just the least important, everybody is a master/mistress roleplayer or system it's what must be focused now.

Maybe it's none of the above.

I just wonder... it's just me who doesn't care about edition or the details about the rule, it's just (my group) and me who work around the rules (whenever necessary) to keep roleplaying moving on, it's just (my group) and me who plan to continue roleplaying?

And by roleplaying, i mean... to really have a 4-D character, with a well developed backstory and a compelling in-game reason to go adventuring, to avoid metagaming at all costs (for me "streamlining" is metagaming... i don't know if my character will keep the same developement until he/she reaches any high level). It's just the roleplaying is running away from the hammer of just simulating/calculating/transforming a computer game into a table game where the rush of "achieveing victory of raising level" it's far more important than "tell a good story just for the sake of it"?

I still just wonder... if any of my questions will get an answer aside from "who cares?"

Thank you for reading... =)
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics discussing about such rule like/dislike, such race presence/absence, such class feature/unfeature, and so on...

Maybe it's because roleplay is just the least important, everybody is a master/mistress roleplayer or system it's what must be focused now.

Maybe it's none of the above.

I just wonder... it's just me who doesn't care about edition or the details about the rule, it's just (my group) and me who work around the rules (whenever necessary) to keep roleplaying moving on, it's just (my group) and me who plan to continue roleplaying?

And by roleplaying, i mean... to really have a 4-D character, with a well developed backstory and a compelling in-game reason to go adventuring, to avoid metagaming at all costs (for me "streamlining" is metagaming... i don't know if my character will keep the same developement until he/she reaches any high level). It's just the roleplaying is running away from the hammer of just simulating/calculating/transforming a computer game into a table game where the rush of "achieveing victory of raising level" it's far more important than "tell a good story just for the sake of it"?

I still just wonder... if any of my questions will get an answer aside from "who cares?"

Thank you for reading... =)

I think the rules get discussed because that is the only way to differentiate one system from another.

Role-play happens no matter what rules you use.  Heck, you don't even actually need rules at all.  We've been playing Marvel Superheroes for over a decade as completely free-form improv.

I don't think the abundance of rules discussion in any way indicates that people don't care about role-play.  It's more about coming up with the best rule-set to allow randomness into the game without getting in the way of role-play.

That's my assumption anyway.
Having a system that allows for good roleplaying and having a system that's reasonably mechanically balanced are not mutually exclusive goals.  WotC has close to zero impact on how much a given table is going to roleplay though; that's up to the people at that table.  They do have a large impact on how fun and straightforward a class is to play "out-of-the-box" though.
In my group, there has been a decent amount of roleplay, but not as much as in an established game.

If I had to put a finger on why, it would be that, since this is a playtest, and things change so much (as expected), we've not been able to invest as much in the game as in an established setting. Also, each of the adventures have been, by necessity, a little generic in terms of locale and setting (with the exception of Blingdenstone, which is clearly in the Realms). That hasn't allowed us to really anchor our roleplaying in anything quite yet.

But, since it's a playtest and we've been trying out different things rules-wise, we accept that. And we've still had a decent amount of roleplaying, and we're having fun, so that's what counts. We just end up having a bit more roleplaying in the other games we play. 

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I had a good post going on, but I lost it somehow. Don't feel like retyping it so I'll keep it short:

Mechanics affect roleplaying. I can't roleplay a kobold alchemist if the rules don't support it. If I want to make an awesome dual wielder and the rules make dual wielders suck, then that's a fail.

Mechanics support roleplaying, they give us options to follow. Without mechanics we'd be playing a different game that isn't DnD.

I don't know, maybe I want to mechanics to follow my roleplaying. And why don't people get that?
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics discussing about such rule like/dislike, such race presence/absence, such class feature/unfeature, and so on...

Maybe it's because roleplay is just the least important, everybody is a master/mistress roleplayer or system it's what must be focused now.

Maybe it's none of the above.



It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics discussing about such rule like/dislike, such race presence/absence, such class feature/unfeature, and so on...

Maybe it's because roleplay is just the least important, everybody is a master/mistress roleplayer or system it's what must be focused now.

Maybe it's none of the above.

I just wonder... it's just me who doesn't care about edition or the details about the rule, it's just (my group) and me who work around the rules (whenever necessary) to keep roleplaying moving on, it's just (my group) and me who plan to continue roleplaying?

And by roleplaying, i mean... to really have a 4-D character, with a well developed backstory and a compelling in-game reason to go adventuring, to avoid metagaming at all costs (for me "streamlining" is metagaming... i don't know if my character will keep the same developement until he/she reaches any high level). It's just the roleplaying is running away from the hammer of just simulating/calculating/transforming a computer game into a table game where the rush of "achieveing victory of raising level" it's far more important than "tell a good story just for the sake of it"?

I still just wonder... if any of my questions will get an answer aside from "who cares?"

Thank you for reading... =)




I'm with you! To me the mechanics are a sideshow. If they become a problem I just get out my sharpie markers and start "fixing" things! Muhahhahah. Some players hate that sort of DM meddling, thats ok, they can go and find another DM. I run a wicked cool game! And although I have had a lot of players leave my game over the years its not because I meddled with the rules.


In the past I have gotten too far into the story in my head and not been able to relate that information to the players. Or RL gets in the way. Or people tend to relax and be themselves at my table, sometimes that leads to personal problems among the players. A few campaigns have ended prematurely because a flashy new system came out and everyone jumped ship for that, myself included!


The rules arguments on this forum are fueled by the same flame reflex that has been driving these types of anonymous forums for 20 years. I think if given the opportunity to sit down at a table and throw some dice everyone on this forum would do so. Even the guys who are in the middle of knock down take no prisoners debates with each other.


 


 

My group and I are avid role-players, though each of us expresses it differently.  I enjoy conversing in character as well as building according to a concept and optimizing for that concept.  Some of the others roleplay their skill use or spell use well, but prefer to stay out of the conversations.  They seem to most enjoy the capabilities of their characters to perform the perfect move at the perfect time, and a few actively abhor trying to just talk to NPC's.  We always seem to have those quiet-type players, too, who don't say much or do much during the session, but just enjoy hanging out with us and being useful in their given roles.  I think it was the 4e DMG and the 3.5 DMG II that best discussed the different playstyles and how to engage and satisfy them all as a DM.

The rules get a great deal of scrutiny for my part because without a solid and adaptable system, it becomes very difficult to run the game as best I can for my players.  We as the D&D community are myriad groups whose common ground must be a good rules system.  If it's too generic, then each table becomes too different for the community to cohere effectively.  If the rules are too specific, those who dislike the specifics won't use them or will house-rule like crazy, leading to the same result.  If the rules are done well, so that we each have a way to enjoy them without changing the pure basics of the game, then any of us can join another group with minimal adjustment of table style.

I try to keep a balance between the role-playing and the game parts of our hobby.  Without the former, it's simply a tactical board game, and there are far better games out there for just that.  Without the latter, we end up playing Calvinball and no one gets anywhere in the story. 
 
I just wonder... it's just me who doesn't care about edition or the details about the rule, it's just (my group) and me who work around the rules  



Is it just me or should those who dont care realy just admit the situation to themselves go and play free form and not bother posting because they dont contribute anything of value when folk are discussing the game system?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Thank you for answering, but from then new questions aries.

JihVed, how come the "best" rule-set can not come from each group and its own style? D&D is pretty prollific in house-ruling, maybe just an appreciation comparing with the other games i play (like WoD, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars to name a few which i feel have little house-ruling if none at all).

Roleplaying happens only if the group choses to jump from just simulate a dungeon to live their characters inside a story. Of course it's written on the flay, that's why randomness seems that important. But by having less rules or using them just as guidelines, doesn't remove it... impredictibility of what will happen (even metagaming can predict it) it's random too. And, of course, this is solved by roleplaying.

Molecule, roleplaying can happen even with the "worst" rules... again, it just depends on group style/mood. But i agree that having to stop less for checking the rules because it conflicts with the story flux, might become annonying.

But i disagree that a set of rules will make a class funnier to roleplay. Maybe it's about what do you think it's "fun"... mechanical balance might ensure that each class have a "chance" to shine in some area. For me, shining comes from "perfoming" well the personality (if he/she has one) of my character. I was very disappointed (along with 2/3rds of the table) during a demo of 4th edition just a few weeks after it was released... we, roleplayers, try to work out the dialogs and stay in character; but the DM was up to just "checking the rules" so he proceed to discourage roleplaying in order to test the combat tactics.  But as we were majority, DM has to accept we were going to roleplaying anyway and started to allow us to do so... making the whole experience be much more satisfactory than "simulate a dungeon".

Going back to discussion. Rules can promote roleplaying by some other reason, but roleplaying can be encouraged anyway if it falls in the definition of "fun" chosen by each group. Of course, by reading these threads, rules can be very fun for some players... and i aknowledge it. It's not that i dismiss them outright, but if they become a rock to drag, (my group and) i'm ready to leave them by the road and let roleplaying (instead of simulation) makes the work of "randomly" creating a story.
 
I just wonder... it's just me who doesn't care about edition or the details about the rule, it's just (my group) and me who work around the rules  



Is it just me or should those who dont care realy just admit the situation to themselves go and play free form and not bother posting because they dont contribute anything of value when folk are discussing the game system?



While the OP's premise is very flawed, most people who value roleplay over the rules (myself included in that group) don't automatically dismiss the rules as having no value and will discuss them heavily.  I value roleplay very highly, but freeform roleplay doesn't cut it for me.  There has to be structure around which you roleplay or the game will often devolve into arguments over whose ability trumps whose, better known as "Nuh Uh!  Yeah, huh!"
I had a good post going on, but I lost it somehow. Don't feel like retyping it so I'll keep it short:

Mechanics affect roleplaying. I can't roleplay a kobold alchemist if the rules don't support it. If I want to make an awesome dual wielder and the rules make dual wielders suck, then that's a fail.

Mechanics support roleplaying, they give us options to follow. Without mechanics we'd be playing a different game that isn't DnD.

I don't know, maybe I want to mechanics to follow my roleplaying. And why don't people get that?



Man I feel for you on the lost post, I had that happen earlier today. 

As for mechanics that follow your RP. It sounds like you want to RP a hero. Nothing wrong with that at all. But its tough to make every char a hero and keep them all balanced.

And as for myself I don't even try to RP chess. To me the idea of "balanced competition" has nothing to do with the fun of RP. If I want to compete then D&D is not my goto game.



There has to be structure around which you roleplay or the game will often devolve into arguments over whose ability trumps whose, better known as "Nuh Uh!  Yeah, huh!"



Reminds me of playing shoot 'em up against my cousins as a kid.  "I hit you!"  "Uh-uh!  I totally ducked!"  Ah, good times.  Bob bless dice.
No, I don't plan to roleplay anymore.

I think we will stop bothering with useless ego trips from the guy behind his stupid screen and just roll dice based on full random generation of combat and social encounters.
To simplify things, NPCs will explode and give XP on successful social encounters.

Who still roleplay nowadays ? Seriously ?
Why do you think that people want to roll everything from stats to HPs ? Dice are creative and funny enough to handle everything from character creation to encounters.

Do you still plan to roleplay ? You must have a lot of spare time.
If I could, I would have let the dice write this post.
There's nothing more obsolete and despisable than roleplay. Except dogs as pets, maybe.


There has to be structure around which you roleplay or the game will often devolve into arguments over whose ability trumps whose, better known as "Nuh Uh!  Yeah, huh!"



Reminds me of playing shoot 'em up against my cousins as a kid.  "I hit you!"  "Uh-uh!  I totally ducked!"  Ah, good times.  Bob bless dice.



That's exactly what I was getting at


There has to be structure around which you roleplay or the game will often devolve into arguments over whose ability trumps whose, better known as "Nuh Uh!  Yeah, huh!"



Reminds me of playing shoot 'em up against my cousins as a kid.  "I hit you!"  "Uh-uh!  I totally ducked!"  Ah, good times.  Bob bless dice.



Slightly after discovering D&D I also discovered a game called Lost worlds followed by Amber and a huge many more since ... it doesnt take dice to create structure around which we roleplay.

Quite honestly I find the original post borderline insulting... basically another if you care about the system you must not really roleplay diatribe that needs a sock stuffed in it.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

My group and I are avid role-players, though each of us expresses it differently.  I enjoy conversing in character as well as building according to a concept and optimizing for that concept.  Some of the others roleplay their skill use or spell use well, but prefer to stay out of the conversations.  They seem to most enjoy the capabilities of their characters to perform the perfect move at the perfect time, and a few actively abhor trying to just talk to NPC's.  We always seem to have those quiet-type players, too, who don't say much or do much during the session, but just enjoy hanging out with us and being useful in their given roles.  I think it was the 4e DMG and the 3.5 DMG II that best discussed the different playstyles and how to engage and satisfy them all as a DM.

The rules get a great deal of scrutiny for my part because without a solid and adaptable system, it becomes very difficult to run the game as best I can for my players.  We as the D&D community are myriad groups whose common ground must be a good rules system.  If it's too generic, then each table becomes too different for the community to cohere effectively.  If the rules are too specific, those who dislike the specifics won't use them or will house-rule like crazy, leading to the same result.  If the rules are done well, so that we each have a way to enjoy them without changing the pure basics of the game, then any of us can join another group with minimal adjustment of table style.

I try to keep a balance between the role-playing and the game parts of our hobby.  Without the former, it's simply a tactical board game, and there are far better games out there for just that.  Without the latter, we end up playing Calvinball and no one gets anywhere in the story. 



Then, even my very flawed premise, there are still people who chose roleplay no matter the rules. Of course, there's always a "must" of having that balance between roleplaying and game parts.

I've seen many tactical boards approaches to D&D (as it was in its origins... trying to go from controlling an army of miniatures, to just one) and i've never been appealing to them. What makes D&D so wide it's because the diversity of styles and moods, from zero role-playing to mostly role-playing. If the group really wants to cooperate, low ruling it's not going to make the story a Calvinball... because they're ready to follow the flux.

OP: I do try to roleplay as much as possible, and to make it as meaningful as possible. When I play in a RPG, I want the rules to either get out of the way, or to compliment the character I'm making.

If I want to be a blacksmith, there should either be a way for me to be one with no hard rules for it, OR for hard rules that allow me to be a reasonable blacksmith while still being a competent adventurer.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

If I could, I would have let the dice write this post.



I laughed.
Indeed, sir.  I think we agree that mechanics exist to promote that cooperation between players.  The Calvinball phrasing was a little bit of fun hyperbole.  

I run D&D combats rather tactically in my games.  This system seems to handle it well conceptually so far.  The rules are simple enough that combat can run smoothly even on a grid or whatever map setup you like.  That appeals to the tactical members of my group.  They're also permissive enough that if someone wants to try something like darting between the ogre's legs to stab him in the back of the knee, I can fairly adjudicate it using the clear deliniation and versatility of this rule system.  I like where they're heading with this, for the most part.  It should shape up to be a balanced core from which any group can use as much or as little as they desire to keep the game interesting and fun. 
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics discussing about such rule like/dislike, such race presence/absence, such class feature/unfeature, and so on...

Maybe it's because roleplay is just the least important, everybody is a master/mistress roleplayer or system it's what must be focused now.

Maybe it's none of the above.



It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.



Exactly... 

I also think the rules create a shared set of expectations about what is possible and what is not and that makes them important. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



There has to be structure around which you roleplay or the game will often devolve into arguments over whose ability trumps whose, better known as "Nuh Uh!  Yeah, huh!"



Reminds me of playing shoot 'em up against my cousins as a kid.  "I hit you!"  "Uh-uh!  I totally ducked!"  Ah, good times.  Bob bless dice.



That's exactly what I was getting at




As a kid, there was freeform shoot em up, and there was PvP shoot em up.  They played differently.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Yeah, nerf guns hadn't really been invented yet, and those penny flingers were wildly inaccurate.  heh  Don't even get me started on the rubber band guns. 
My group and I are avid role-players, though each of us expresses it differently.  I enjoy conversing in character as well as building according to a concept and optimizing for that concept.  Some of the others roleplay their skill use or spell use well, but prefer to stay out of the conversations.  They seem to most enjoy the capabilities of their characters to perform the perfect move at the perfect time, and a few actively abhor trying to just talk to NPC's.  We always seem to have those quiet-type players, too, who don't say much or do much during the session, but just enjoy hanging out with us and being useful in their given roles.  I think it was the 4e DMG and the 3.5 DMG II that best discussed the different playstyles and how to engage and satisfy them all as a DM.

The rules get a great deal of scrutiny for my part because without a solid and adaptable system, it becomes very difficult to run the game as best I can for my players.  We as the D&D community are myriad groups whose common ground must be a good rules system.  If it's too generic, then each table becomes too different for the community to cohere effectively.  If the rules are too specific, those who dislike the specifics won't use them or will house-rule like crazy, leading to the same result.  If the rules are done well, so that we each have a way to enjoy them without changing the pure basics of the game, then any of us can join another group with minimal adjustment of table style.

I try to keep a balance between the role-playing and the game parts of our hobby.  Without the former, it's simply a tactical board game, and there are far better games out there for just that.  Without the latter, we end up playing Calvinball and no one gets anywhere in the story. 


Everything I would say was said right here.
 
Yeah, nerf guns hadn't really been invented yet, and those penny flingers were wildly inaccurate.  heh  Don't even get me started on the rubber band guns. 



I got really good at shooting wads of paper with rubber bands.  I used to practice by picking flies off of walls and ceilings ;)
Haven't successfully role played a Nat 1 as a true hit yet.

That's how I like it.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

We were idiots and played with BB guns.  Nat 20 to the forehead.  Thank heavens for Nerf.  We threw Nerf footballs before the darts came out.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

It's easier to discuss the mechanics and mathematics of the system because they are objective.  Stating that something is over or underpowered can be backed up with facts, figures and mathematics.

Roleplaying is purely subjective, and when you consider that rules just get in the way of roleplaying, it's simply nothing relevant to the discussion.  Game system is irrelevant to roleplay quality.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
We were idiots and played with BB guns.  Nat 20 to the forehead.  Thank heavens for Nerf.  We threw Nerf footballs before the darts came out.



we used 6 foot tall weeds hurled rather like spears and I had one give me a pierced ear ... the blood freaked out my brother.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

We were idiots and played with BB guns.  Nat 20 to the forehead.  Thank heavens for Nerf.  We threw Nerf footballs before the darts came out.



we used 6 foot tall weeds hurled rather like spears and I had one give me a pierced ear ... the blood freaked out my brother.



No way.  My brother gave me several stiches under my left eye from a 6 foot reed.  The blood freaked out my mother.

It's easier to discuss the mechanics and mathematics of the system because they are objective.  Stating that something is over or underpowered can be backed up with facts, figures and mathematics.

Roleplaying is purely subjective, and when you consider that rules just get in the way of roleplaying, it's simply nothing relevant to the discussion.  Game system is irrelevant to roleplay quality.



Sorta agree.  Role play quality and Role play quantity are two seperate things.  I understand the OP as saying a heavy system stomps on role play qauntity.  And he might have a point. 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

We were idiots and played with BB guns.  Nat 20 to the forehead.  Thank heavens for Nerf.  We threw Nerf footballs before the darts came out.



we used 6 foot tall weeds hurled rather like spears and I had one give me a pierced ear ... the blood freaked out my brother.



No way.  My brother gave me several stiches under my left eye from a 6 foot reed.  The blood freaked out my mother.


Heh, my Mom has always been pretty near immune to freaking out (both parents were uber high on the awesome scale) and I had the bb bouncing off a barn hitting me near an eye once too. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I wonder how I survived my childhood sometimes. 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I agree with many of the posts in this thread.   One thing we can discuss or mention is that some of the rules (or the fluff that goes along with the rules) in D&DNext do seem to help roleplaying.

Racial fluff, backgrounds and skills, specializations, etc...all help to inspire ideas for roleplaying.

Additionally, these rules for feats, abilities and maneuvers (including Skill Dice and skill tricks) seem to be branching out more into the three pillars (combat, exploration and interaction), which also encourages more development of narrative in game from DM as well as players.   Also, since combats don't take so long, the DM and players can think about adventures more globally.  There is more time in any given gaming session to do exploration and interaction (both of which give opportunities to roleplay more).

I'm also finding that the skill dice idea is helping to liberate players from looking at their character sheets when they want to apply a skill to their ability check.   Instead of seeing which skill they've trained to +4 or +5, etc., they just have to remember the die to use for the skill.  It seems as if this is promoting more fluid play and faster decision making, although there is a cost...with Skill Dice it is not possible to specialize or decide which skills to train as PCs level up.  That's ok for me.  I'd much rather have fluid and faster game play than micro-management in character development...just a personal opinion.

In short, yes.   I am concerned about roleplaying in the game, but I feel as if the rules are encouraging roleplaying more and more.

        

A Brave Knight of WTF

Having a system that allows for good roleplaying and having a system that's reasonably mechanically balanced are not mutually exclusive goals.  WotC has close to zero impact on how much a given table is going to roleplay though; that's up to the people at that table.  They do have a large impact on how fun and straightforward a class is to play "out-of-the-box" though.


I disagree a bit. Skills like diplomacy and bluff can be a way out of roleplay for some people.


They CAN be, but they also provide a way for people to play character with vastly different social skill levels than the player.  Without social skills you can have a master orator playing a socially unskilled mountain man who can out-talk the shy kid playing the bard.

It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.



^^ This too ^^
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

 
It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.



^^ This too ^^



When max as me, you and salla agreeing with him ... there is something happening here.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.



^^ This too ^^



When max as me, you and salla agreeing with him ... there is something happening here.



I have finally brought you guys around to my way of thinking!  Muahahahahahaha!
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics discussing about such rule like/dislike, such race presence/absence, such class feature/unfeature, and so on...

Maybe it's because roleplay is just the least important, everybody is a master/mistress roleplayer or system it's what must be focused now.

Maybe it's none of the above.

I just wonder... it's just me who doesn't care about edition or the details about the rule, it's just (my group) and me who work around the rules (whenever necessary) to keep roleplaying moving on, it's just (my group) and me who plan to continue roleplaying?

And by roleplaying, i mean... to really have a 4-D character, with a well developed backstory and a compelling in-game reason to go adventuring, to avoid metagaming at all costs (for me "streamlining" is metagaming... i don't know if my character will keep the same developement until he/she reaches any high level). It's just the roleplaying is running away from the hammer of just simulating/calculating/transforming a computer game into a table game where the rush of "achieveing victory of raising level" it's far more important than "tell a good story just for the sake of it"?

I still just wonder... if any of my questions will get an answer aside from "who cares?"

Thank you for reading... =)

As a roleplayer, the rules are important to me.  I need a good set of rules so that the rules do not get in the way of roleplaying.  "Houseruling" is a crutch in that regard, as it excuses rules of an unprofessional quality and requires more of the playing base.  Houserules are alos more difficult to promote in online and convention play, and that is a market that needs to be fostered if roleplaying is to grow in popularity.

Working around the rules takes energy better spent on roleplaying.  We've just been conditioned as a player base to accept that which should not be acceptable by those wishing to make a quick buck off of us.
 
It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.



^^ This too ^^



When max as me, you and salla agreeing with him ... there is something happening here.

It seems as if a sufficiently absurd and misguided opinion can bring all kinds of people into line against it.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
It's easier to discuss the mechanics and mathematics of the system because they are objective.  Stating that something is over or underpowered can be backed up with facts, figures and mathematics.

Roleplaying is purely subjective, and when you consider that rules just get in the way of roleplaying, it's simply nothing relevant to the discussion.  Game system is irrelevant to roleplay quality.



Also, the playtest packets consist almost entirely of rules, plus some modules that are not expected to be representative of 5e play upon launch. (That is, any story/NPCs/etc. will likely be different from both the modules that are released after the system, the RPGA campaign that emerges in 5e, and obviously home games.) We could maybe debate a bit about the fluff they give out for elves and such (and I've seen a bit of debate about the warlock and their required fluff-penalties of getting uglier as you level). But for the most part the assumption is going to be that we are all going to fluff and RP our games differently than the playtest.
The mechanical rules, on the other hand, will be developed from the ongoing experiment/discussion we are seeing now. And usually people feel safer refluffing than houseruling: if you refluff with the same rules you know the balance won't get any worse, but if you houserule the balance may get better or worse, and not everyone is willing to take that risk. 
 
It's because there's very little reason to actually talk about it.  I can roleplay the pieces on a Monopoly board.  Roleplay is something your group does and doesn't really need any rules.  Some rules can aid roleplay through guidance, such as alignment restrictions or Diety tenets that clerics/paladins must follow, but that's about it.  Rules on the other hand need to be heavily talked about in order to get the game right.



^^ This too ^^



When max as me, you and salla agreeing with him ... there is something happening here.

It seems as if a sufficiently absurd and misguided opinion can bring all kinds of people into line against it.




Perhaps the Mayans meant today?