D&D General The adventure game vs the role-playing game

[pumasleeve]

I would be interested in everyone's take on this. As we all know, all players want different things from d&d and other rpgs, the DMG does a pretty good job of laying this out on page 6 - Know Your Players section. But I have noticed that more and more, over the past few years, players at the table tend to fall into one of 2 camps, and each wants little to do with the other type of game. On the one hand you have the adventure gamers, who want to explore a dungeon or other exotic environment, filled with good combat encounters, which hopefully feels like a living, lived in environment. This player is very interested in character builds and options, but much less in exploring character personality. On the other hand, you have the role-players, who are most interested in creating and stepping into a character, acting in character (possibly voice acting) interacting with NPCs and roleplaying social scenarios. I have tried to accommodate both types at my table, but im finding that each type of player is often board to tears during the time spent on the the other style of play, and am beginning to wonder if I would be better served to just pick a style and market my game to that type of player. I do think that different styles of play can lead to a rich gaming experience, but I see more gamers getting frustrated and less able to compromise.

I am interested to see what you have to say. Do you see this particular divide in your gaming groups? A different type of divide? Or do you find players that enjoy both aspects more or less equally or can compromise? I would love to hear your feedback.

 

[payn]

I used to think that the compromise amongst play styles was a worthy goal to keep a group together at the table. Now with access to folks all over the world via online means, I think its easier to target a specific playstyle. I do this through detailed ads, through sessions zeros, and one shots. I try to keep my session #s low so commitment isnt an issue. Once I find compatible gamers, I try and keep them in my available pool and recruit them for longer term campaigns. Sometimes the churn is often, and sometimes its seldom.

 

[Lanefan]

I see this divide to a point, but in most cases it's not extreme as many players enjoy - or eventually come to enjoy - elements of both aspects.

 

[pumasleeve]

I used to think that the compromise amongst play styles was a worthy goal to keep a group together at the table. Now with access to folks all over the world via online means, I think its easier to target a specific playstyle. I do this through detailed ads, through sessions zeros, and one shots. I try to keep my session #s low so commitment isnt an issue. Once I find compatible gamers, I try and keep them in my available pool and recruit them for longer term campaigns. Sometimes the churn is often, and sometimes its seldom.

It seems we are at about the same point. I confess I lean to the adventure game side myself. Old school gamers like me (playing since 1st edition) tend to lean this way. Its really just in the last few years that I have seen a mass influx of the roleplayers who groan when you say "roll initiative"

 

[pogre]

It seems we are at about the same point. I confess I lean to the adventure game side myself. Old school gamers like me (playing since 1st edition) tend to lean this way. Its really just in the last few years that I have seen a mass influx of the roleplayers who groan when you say "roll initiative"

Right there with you. We lean heavily on the adventure side. I imagine players who relish opportunities to sit around the campfire or tavern or marketplace to interact PC to PC would be very frustrated in my game. We have some roleplaying, but I run a fast paced game and there is usually lots of combat. For the most part this is what my players want.

I have seen the influx of roleplayers just as you describe. Particularly because I ran a high school D&D club (pre-pandemic). From my very unscientific and biased observations, a lot of new players coming to the table have the expectation for this kind of game.

Oddly, when my group is not playing D&D I usually see a lot more roleplaying. Even with a similar game like WFRP and certainly with CoC. Just different expectations I reckon.

 

[iserith]

I don't think there's really any trade-off here. One really can have a good "adventure game" with plenty of acting and portrayal of the adventurers' personal characteristics. There's no need to choose one or the other.

 

[TheSword]

Yes this is something that I enjoy both sides in moderation. I think the game as a whole would be a lot less enjoyable if I couldn’t do both adventuring and roleplay.

I would say either in extremis is a fairly unpleasant experience.

 

[pumasleeve]

Thats great im glad you are able to find an enjoyable balance. My experience is that more and more, it is getting harder to find players that want to balance adventure with roleplay.

 

[TheSword]

Thats great im glad you are able to find an enjoyable balance. My experience is that more and more, it is getting harder to find players that want to balance adventure with roleplay.

Do you expect them to talk in first person?

I had two players at the table in a newish (18 months old) group. One was clearly struggling with the roleplay, but when I explained he could just tell me what his character says rather than act it out he took a much more active interest.

“Tell me you swine where the keys are or by all the gods these fists will leave you weeping.”

“I threaten the guard with a good beating if he doesn’t tell me where the keys are.”

Both roleplay. Both equally valid.

 

[Gorg]

Right there with you. We lean heavily on the adventure side. I imagine players who relish opportunities to sit around the campfire or tavern or marketplace to interact PC to PC would be very frustrated in my game. We have some roleplaying, but I run a fast paced game and there is usually lots of combat. For the most part this is what my players want.

I have seen the influx of roleplayers just as you describe. Particularly because I ran a high school D&D club (pre-pandemic). From my very unscientific and biased observations, a lot of new players coming to the table have the expectation for this kind of game.

Oddly, when my group is not playing D&D I usually see a lot more roleplaying. Even with a similar game like WFRP and certainly with CoC. Just different expectations I reckon.

We've always fallen into that category, too. Except none of us really care to optimize or get's too excited about "builds". We're all there to play the game- as in sitting around a "table" with other players and a DM, and playing D&D. I think that, too is a legacy of being B/X- AD&D players.

My take was that the expanded options of 3.0 and on were great for coming closer to the character you really wanted to play; for trying something a bit different from your usual go-to's; and for stepping away from the usual cookie cutter classes. Making the super- uber- One- Character-To-Rule-Them-All; or squeezing every +1 out of the rules until they scream in pain just isn't my bag. Prestige classes were just as much about the flavor, as the crunch, for example, imo. Ie what cool new things can my character do now? as opposed to Which combo will make me the mostest powerful with no weaknesses?

To be fair though- the ROLL player vs ROLE player war has been going on for more than 20 years, now. Even before message boards, they were fighting it out and name calling in the letters and forum sections of Dragon Magazine, lol.

And any bias on my part vs the RP'er type has mostly to do with the sour taste left in my mouth by all the flamewars, and the condescending nature of much of the flamage. The talky talky stuff DOES get tedious, when it gets overdone. (Seriously, dude- just let me buy a coil of rope, some spikes, and a 10' pole without having to spend an hour of gametime rping it out in detail...)