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

[iserith]

By your definition of roleplaying, there is no problem, so there is no need of a solution.

So, the question is not why I am discussing an open issue. The question is, why are you when you don't believe the issue even exists?

Again, it's not my definition. The challenge, as I already stated, is one of content and communication preference among players. So there is a problem. It's just not a roleplaying one.

 

[Maxperson]

Why? I can be just as personally invested and add just as much personalization - if not more - to a country or faction in a board game than a bog standard pre-gen character in a D&D game.

Not by the rules you can't. Nothing in Axis and Allies says that you personify the countries. If you want to goof around and do that, you can, but it's not roleplaying, since the game rules don't allow roleplaying. That's the thing about board games. You can only do what the rules allow and nothing more and nothing less, unless you are making your own house rules.

What makes playing a side "not roleplaying". Scale? In a D&D game, would I be not playing a role if I had two characters? Three? 1 character and 20 henchmen?

Game rules. The RPG rules allow you to take a role. Axis and Allies rules do not.

 

[iserith]

Saying it's all roleplay is nice and inclusive and all, but as soon as you break roleplaying down into nuance its going to get exclusive AF again.

Are there playstyle differences among your group(s)? How do you handle the differences?

There's no need to really break down roleplaying since we're all doing it. What we're really talking about is what kind of content should the game include and how do the players want to communicate their roleplaying. This is mostly addressed in DMG page 6. Create the content based on the player types you have at the table, then incentivize the type of communication you want with something like Inspiration. I think it also helps to get on the same page on how the game defines roleplaying so that nobody thinks they're an epic roleplayer simply because they affect a British accent while flirting with tavern denizens in first-person and that another player isn't because their fighter sounds and acts a lot like the player does and wants to delve dungeons in third-person.

Although I have not done a lot of it in the last four months or so, I generally run for a lot of pickup groups. This means I get to see how a group of players who often don't know each other and who have different ideas and interests at one table. And we all have fun simply because I take a little time to page-set, then I present a game that incentivizes their preferred behaviors and hits all three pillars.

 

[payn]

There's no need to really break down roleplaying since we're all doing it. What we're really talking about is what kind of content should the game include and how do the players want to communicate their roleplaying. This is mostly addressed in DMG page 6. Create the content based on the player types you have at the table, then incentivize the type of communication you want with something like Inspiration. I think it also helps to get on the same page on how the game defines roleplaying so that nobody thinks they're an epic roleplayer simply because they affect a British accent while flirting with tavern denizens in first-person and that another player isn't because their fighter sounds and acts a lot like the player does and wants to delve dungeons in third-person.

Although I have not done a lot of it in the last four months or so, I generally run for a lot of pickup groups. This means I get to see how a group of players who often don't know each other and who have different ideas and interests at one table. And we all have fun simply because I take a little time to page-set, then I present a game that incentivizes their preferred behaviors and hits all three pillars.

All three pillars is an interesting statement. Just last week I spoke with a player in a new game that vehemently stated that there are two pillars only to the game. I was informed that the game has basically what the OP said, adventure game and roleplay. I was told I would have a bad time in PF2 Abomination Vaults if I had any expectation of RP because it was a megadungeon.

What types of discussions do/would you have with players of this type of opinion?

 

[iserith]

All three pillars is an interesting statement. Just last week I spoke with a player in a new game that vehemently stated that there are two pillars only to the game. I was informed that the game has basically what the OP said, adventure game and roleplay. I was told I would have a bad time in PF2 Abomination Vaults if I had any expectation of RP because it was a megadungeon.

What types of discussions do/would you have with players of this type of opinion?

Obviously I would need to frame any particular discussion in the context of the actual game we're playing. I believe very much in not dragging assumptions from one game into another game. So my answer for, say, Pathfinder 2e and D&D 5e would likely be different. But in D&D 5e at least, the game straight-up defines the pillars of play: combat, exploration, and social interaction. By including all three in one's game (or at minimum an opportunity for all three), it's got something for everyone and, frankly, the game just plain works better. Pathfinder 2e may define this differently or not at all. I've only played it once and never DMed it so I can't be sure. The game in which I played had all three pillars and did feature a dungeon.

In general, a megadungeon is going to have plenty of opportunities for combat and exploration. Social interaction is likely also available simply because PCs can always try to talk to monsters (or monsters can talk to PCs). This is particularly useful in trying to play one faction of monsters against another and is often a feature of dynamic dungeon play. This can further be incentivized by the DM by awarding XP for making alliances with monsters instead of just killing them or awarding XP for treasure acquisition only (and not putting most of the treasure behind combat challenges).

I'd further explain to this player you mention that whether we choose to fight monsters in the dungeon, explore it stealthily while keeping an eye out for traps, or engage in high-stakes negotiations to turn the troglodytes against the goblins (or whatever), all of that is roleplaying and getting to do any of those types of activities will be dependent upon the content the DM is presenting and the choices the players are making.

 

[overgeeked]

I haven't watched (close to) all of it, but what strikes me about CR is that they're better at the talky stuff, but in terms of time spent at the table (or on camera), they're doing plenty of the adventure stuff. Their characters have personalities, goals, background experiences, etc., but again, it's all pretty traditional RPG character stuff. If there are episodes where they just sit around talking in character, I haven't seen them.

So one episode out of ~250?

Okay. Still more all-talk sessions I'd run, but this doesn't seem overly talky.

The CR crew seems to average one combat every three to four episodes. So they typically have between 1-3 hours of combat in every 12-16 hours of roleplaying .

According to critrolestats.com, Campaign 1 has a total gameplay time of 373:22:38 and of that 110:37:58 is combat...or about 24%. Campaign 2 has a total gameplay time (so far) of 443:43:11 and of that 94:14:25 is combat...or about 21%.

They just sit around talking in character the majority of the time. For Campaign 1 that's about 76% of the time and for Campaign 2 that's about 79% of the time. They just sit around talking in character a lot. Like a lot a lot.

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that role-playing originally referred to "playing a role" not acting but like most terms, over time the emphasis changed.

The opinion piece I attached below from Dragon #102 (October 1985) has Gary Gygax weighing in on the issue way back then.

(Note: I have not re-read this yet, just went and found it in my boxes in the basement and scanned it, so will be back later to see what it has wrought and what I think).

I'm reading through it now. It's an interesting piece. Not done reading it yet and not sure I agree with Gary, but it's an interesting read. Thanks for that.

 

[Marc_C]

We had a big argument with my first D&D group back in 1981. We had 6 players. Two got tired of dungeon crawls. They complained we didn't do enough roleplaying just 'hack&slash'. I told them to do more roleplaying but they complained the system didn't support it - no skills, DM fiat of rolling a d6 when something is not covered by the rules. They left the group to play Call of Chtuluh. Which was very coherent of them.

Today with 5e that is not a concern.

Did you force combat on the players who are trying to use role-play to 'parley' with the opponents in old school parlance? Maybe that is why the don't like it when you say 'roll for initiative'.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Saying it's all roleplay is nice and inclusive and all, but as soon as you break roleplaying down into nuance its going to get exclusive AF again.

Are there playstyle differences among your group(s)? How do you handle the differences?

I think the point being argued is: calling some styles "roleplaying" is going to make some people defensive, since it's not at all uncommon for 'not roleplaying' to used as a way of dismissing playstyles. This usage is out there, and so any exclusive definition will get pushback.

Anywho, to answer the actual questions:

There's obviously a 3-d continuum of "frequency of different types of encounters or scenes in our games", and sometimes this is based on dm style. Some dm's love (including me) running fights so do a lot of that. Some dm's (that I've greatly enjoyed playing with) hate running fights so have very few. And you could say that about any kind of thing that might come up in the game. But plenty of dm's simply vary based on other factors, like who the players and pc's are or where the characters happen to be.

There's also an array of ways to perform one's character at the table: voice acting is the most obvious, but using descriptive prose is also common and popular, and I've seen a couple players who like to sketch stuff. Even something as simple as speaking in the first person counts, although third-person play isn't any less immersive if you talk about the character. If people have internalized the rules of the game, the rules themselves can be performative, since they precisely describe the intended fictional results (although I'll admit there seems to be a cap on how effective this is when used by itself). And there are degrees of each: some people will only do a bit of description, others can write novellas on the fly.

One thing I want to add about performance: Roleplaying is not performance, but performance almost always comes from roleplaying. Performance, in any form, also helps with immersion for yourself and everyone else at the table. And immersion leads to roleplaying. So it's not just acceptable but actually positive to encourage performance of each character at the table. There's good and bad ways to do this, of course, but it's a good goal to have if that's what everyone wants. The good ways to encourage performance are usually about rewarding performance when it does happen, in a way that accounts for differences in skill, but never punishing a lack of it. As more people do it, other players get more comfortable trying it, and if this is encouraged, you'll see more and more, and thus more immersion.

Just don't conflate lack of performance with lack of roleplaying. Roleplaying can happen entirely internally.

As for handling the differences: the same way I handle different houserules. Be as up-front as you can, keep communication open, and accept that compromise must happen for the game to work. Read the room. Don't be a wangrod.

 

[Undrave]

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.

I think it's because DnD combat is just better and more fun