# So, I've decided that I hate roleplaying



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

Let me explain.  I prefer my roleplaying in very small doses.  I don't enjoy having half a session devoted to talking "in character", nor do I like having to speak in first person for my character.  I like combat, I like tactical maneuvers, and I like killing things and taking their stuff  

Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus.  I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group.  Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group.  I don't like being "forced" to speak in first person with my character; IMO it's perfectly acceptable to say "<character name> tells the guard blah blah blah..." and that is roleplaying.  I don't have to engage in dialogue and be all like "Hail, my good man!  I am seeking blah blah blah canst thou help me?" like improv theater.  Sadly most of the people I've gamed with have not agreed and felt I was not roleplaying "properly" because I don't like speaking in first person.

My old group lost two of its members when my friend's sister and her boyfriend stopped playing (both said they weren't really "into" D&D and were just playing because the brother asked them to).  So my friend wanted to try Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and kept saying how great it is and hyping it.  So I've given it a shot for about a month now.  And I hate it.  The system is alright and a unique take, but it encourages so much roleplay and "narrative" that it disgusts me.  Since my friend is big into the roleplay aspect, to the point where he dislikes 4e for it's base "heavy combat, light roleplay" mentality, he finds this great.  I find it boring as hell.  I *like* my roleplay light and my combat heavy, since combat is where I have the most fun.  My friend is the kind I described above, where it's not "roleplaying" unless I'm talking in first person, and he loves how WHFRP pushes the roleplay even to the point of this "party tension" nonsnese that hinders you if you can't agree on something.  He even said he loves the system because it focuses on "the party narrative" which just makes me want to barf.  

So... what can I do?  I've noticed that lately, I don't even have a desire to play RPGs because I want to avoid the roleplay except where absolutely necessary (or the occasional witty remark during combat, things like that), and as far as the combat goes I feel I'd rather be playing WoW because there's no "house rules" to muck things up because someone doesn't agree with the RAW.

Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 22, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with realizing what you enjoy doing. The thing to do now is find a like minded bunch of folks and game on.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

Easier said than done, since I don't even have an FLGS close by


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?




You are not alone.


I DM for a whole group of gamers who are not too different from you.  They just want to hang out with friends, shoot the  a bit, eat some pizza, drink some beer, run around a dungeon pretending to be wizards and elves, kill monsters and take their stuff.

It's like the geek version of a weekly poker night.

Now, we do toss in some light role playing, some puzzles and mysteries and political intrigue here and there to mix it up.  But that's all salt and pepper to taste...  Hack-n-slashing is our bread and butter.

In other words, don't give up on the game yet.  Go looking for like-minded gamers who want to play a game in the same style as you do.   Be up front about what you are looking for in a game.  And don't be too hard on the people to are heavy into role playing.  Everybody plays the game for different reasons, and no one's fun is any less valid than anyone else's.


Good Luck.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?



I think so, or other crpgs.

Personally I like both aspects of rpging. Talking in character is very important to me and so is combat.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 22, 2010)

I learned a long time ago that you have to let players role play the way they want, as long as it doesn't become a (real) problem for someone else.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Easier said than done, since I don't even have an FLGS close by




Do you have a Borders or other bookstore that sells D&D nearby? Perhaps you could advertise there? 

The internet is another possibility. See if there are any Yahoo or other gaming groups based in your area that might enjoy your style.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> So... what can I do?




Look for a group of people who like playing the way you do.  While stretching a little bit can sometimes be fun, there's no call to do that which you really dislike doing.  Square peg in a round hole, and all that.

Also, you might want to look into tactical wargaming as an alternative to RPGs.  You might find more fun there.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

Pbartender said:


> Now, we do toss in some light role playing, some puzzles and mysteries and political intrigue here and there to mix it up.  But that's all salt and pepper to taste...  Hack-n-slashing is our bread and butter.




This pretty much sums up my playing style, too.  I don't mind the occasional roleplaying or intrigue, but I like it in small doses to taste, and the combat/hack-n-slash is the staple.

Also, I have looked into tactical wargames - I used to play Warhammer many years ago but it got far too expensive, and also lack of a game store meant there was little, if any, opportunities to play unless I wanted to drive 25+ miles in the hopes there would be someone to play against (even the local game stores don't really have scheduled anything, they're just "there" for anyone to wander in, typically it's the CCG folks)


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> So... what can I do?  I've noticed that lately, I don't even have a desire to play RPGs because I want to avoid the roleplay except where absolutely necessary (or the occasional witty remark during combat, things like that), and as far as the combat goes I feel I'd rather be playing WoW because there's no "house rules" to muck things up because someone doesn't agree with the RAW.




It definitely sounds like if you want to continue RPGs that you need to find a like minded group.  You will only find frustration to try to game with people that do not match your game style close enough which will sour any RPG game you are in.

As for the rules, I think there is always some debate as to RAW in some games, so even that may be hard to avoid to a degree.  Again, a lot depends on the group you are gaming with.

As for finding a new group, some have already posted suggestions.  But there is the gamers seeking gamers forum here, other sites have those as well.  There are also the D&D meetups that might let you meet people of like interests.  And these days you can get a pretty good gaming experience through a VTT and something like Skype or Ventrilo which open up a whole multitude of possibilities as to who you can game with.

After all of that, if RPG still doesn't interest you then there is alway WoW.  Do what you enjoy, if WoW draws your fancy more at the moment than RPGs, there is nothing wrong with that option either.


----------



## Orryn Emrys (Jun 22, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> I learned a long time ago that you have to let players role play the way they want, as long as it doesn't become a (real) problem for someone else.



As a life-long DM, I've always had a pretty solid knack for blending my players' stylistic interests.  My groups tend to weigh heavily on the roleplaying side (perhaps too much so, at times), so the longer they play together the easier it gets.

That being said, my wife and I recently tried a 4E game with another group and discovered that there is definitely something to be said for player compatibility.  We really enjoyed the company of the DM and the other two players, and we have endeavored to hang out a little outside of gaming, but we just weren't a good match at the gaming table.  We were too RP-oriented, they were too interested in combat and powergaming... and we just didn't make a comfortable group.  We tried... for almost three months, we tried.

Sometimes it's best to know when it isn't what you want and find a better option.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> This pretty much sums up my playing style, too.  I don't mind the occasional roleplaying or intrigue, but I like it in small doses to taste, and the combat/hack-n-slash is the staple.




It's too bad you don't live closer to Chicago...  I've got an open seat at my table right now.

Lately, my players have taken to humming the theme to the A-Team, every time they kick down a door, and rush in with steel swinging and spells blazing.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2010)

Takes all kinds.

I don't think I've met a RPer with as extreme of preference as you voice here, but its not unusual for a group to have different parts of the game that they enjoy the best.

It sounds to me like you aren't really a RPer at heart.  Sounds to me like you are a wargamer, and you don't want any 'make believe' mucking up your game.   I suggest sticking to tactical minature games - Battletech, Bloodbowl, DBM, etc. - if you really want face time gaming.  Otherwise, you are probably just as well sticking to WoW.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 22, 2010)

I had a Tuesday game that you would have liked, it was 80% combat and I ran it in 4e because I like the tactical aspect of 4e combat.

To get a game like YOU want you basically have two options:
a) get a DM to run a game like you want it
b) be the DM and run it like you want it

BTW, I do run a game with more role playing as well, and it's mostly the same people, but I run it at weekends. I do prefer the role playing, but if I don't have enough prep time, the combat-oriented game works quite well.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group.



 I've never played WoW, and I agree that anyone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a jerk who gets the boot. I've felt this way since 1e, when the party's thief tried to justify picking the cleric's pocket.



wayne62682 said:


> So my friend wanted to try Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and kept saying how great it is and hyping it.  So I've given it a shot for about a month now.  And I hate it.  The system is alright and a unique take, but it encourages so much roleplay and "narrative" that it disgusts me.  Since my friend is big into the roleplay aspect, to the point where he dislikes 4e for it's base "heavy combat, light roleplay" mentality, he finds this great.  I find it boring as hell.  I *like* my roleplay light and my combat heavy, since combat is where I have the most fun.  My friend is the kind I described above, where it's not "roleplaying" unless I'm talking in first person, and he loves how WHFRP pushes the roleplay even to the point of this "party tension" nonsnese that hinders you if you can't agree on something.  He even said he loves the system because it focuses on "the party narrative" which just makes me want to barf.



 My group plays WFRP 3e as combat-heavy. Sure, PCs die easy, but it's not like it's hard to make a new one.



wayne62682 said:


> So... what can I do?  I've noticed that lately, I don't even have a desire to play RPGs because I want to avoid the roleplay except where absolutely necessary (or the occasional witty remark during combat, things like that), and as far as the combat goes I feel I'd rather be playing WoW because there's no "house rules" to muck things up because someone doesn't agree with the RAW.



 Stop playing with that one "friend" whose style doesn't fit your own.

Start playing combat-heavy, tactical, beer & pretzels RPGs.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

I've just found, over the years, that I have no interest in really "immersive" roleplaying.  Now yeah, I don't want mindless hack and slash of the WoW variety where NPCs exist only to give quests, rewards, and sell junk to.  But I do prefer the combat and action to sitting there speaking in first person for half the session to a guard.  That's not to say I wouldn't roleplay at all, but basically I prefer this:



> DM:  The guard stops you and asks you where you're going in such a hurry.
> Me:  I explain to him that I have urgent news for the Duke - an army of goblins are gathered and threaten to destroy the town, and that it's of the utmost importance that he lets me pass.
> DM:  Okay, make me a Diplomacy check.




To this:



> DM:  The guard approaches you and motions for you to stop.  "Halt!  Where are you going in such a hurry?"
> Me:  "Pardon me, my good guardsman.  I bear an urgent message for the Duke.  My companions and I discovered a tribe of vile goblins massing and they threaten to overrun our fair town!  I implore you, let me be on my way!"
> DM:  Make a Diplomacy check




The second one feels, I hate to say it, like way too much time and effort.  The first example is much more my preference, and still involves "role playing"


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 22, 2010)

The key words to use when you're looking are: "Beer and Pretzels" gamer looking for "kick in the door" style game.

And first-person vs. third person narration is a style thing at various tables. Usually, you'll find it's a mix of both to varying degrees.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 22, 2010)

roguerouge said:


> The key words to use when you're looking are: "Beer and Pretzels" gamer looking for "kick in the door" style game.




Our group likes to call it "semi-casual" gaming.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 22, 2010)

See if you can find D&D Encounters running near you. It's focused on combat encounters and might be good fun. I agree with other people that you just need the right group; there are lots of folks who like the same style.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 22, 2010)

Relevant question:

Are RPGA events still sponsored by "random people" rather than game stores only? 

If so, are encounters available from these events?



I ask because I used to run RPGA events for my group, but had the option to allow others to come. Maybe the OP could get around the "no gaming store issue" and hit some combat heavy 4e encounters via the RPGA?


EDIT TO ADD: Do you enjoy wow? I started playing it last year and went from spending close to 100% of my free time on RPGS to about 85% WoW and 15% RPGS. If you like it more, then your answer is simple. It's not like you're abandoning RPGs, you're just moving toward something you enjoy more.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Bad RP said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 The second example is not the definition of roleplaying. It's a type of very hammy roleplaying.

Here's how I'd do it (in the first person):

The guard approaches you and motions for you to stop. "Halt! Where are you going in such a hurry?"
Me: "There's a bloody goblin horde coming! Rouse the Duke, you fool!"
DM: Diplomacy or Intimidate, roll either.

- - -

This reminds me why I enjoy RPGs so much: it's quite fun to trash-talk in character. This can be accomplished during combat with no loss of combat.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 22, 2010)

Nifft said:


> The second example is not the definition of roleplaying. It's a type of very hammy roleplaying.
> 
> Here's how I'd do it (in the first person):
> 
> ...




Yarp. Improv theater style is only one way to approach dialogue in the first person. It isn't the only way. 

Sometimes just blurting out something on the spur of the moment without taking the time to process the thought enough to convert it to 3rd person can lead to very memorable quotes. 

(From a GURPS fantasy game years ago. )

DM (as the NPC): "You don't seem to realize that there are 30 of us with crossbows and that you are surrounded."

Me: "You don't seem to realize that I'm crazy!"


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 22, 2010)

Nifft said:


> The second example is not the definition of roleplaying. It's a type of very hammy roleplaying.




Damn straight. I like roleplaying, and as DM I expect important conversations to be played out in first person (you can summarize minor side conversations), but for the love of God, leave Ye Olde Butchered Englishe at home. Unless you've studied medieval literature, you aren't going to sound anything like a real medieval person... in fact, if you _did_ sound like a real medieval person, nobody else at the table would be able to understand you. Just use modern English and leave it at that.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 22, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Just use modern English and leave it at that.




Although, I must say, in the right circumstances i can thoroughly appreciate a thick, campy, stereotypical accent.  Just don't overdo it...  Use it for occasional emphasis of a character's personality.  Constant use of such accents and silly voices can get real old real fast.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 22, 2010)

An important part of enjoying gaming is knowing what you want and what you really enjoy.  I'm near the opposite of you, nothing but combat bores me to tears.  I don't mind a good fight, but I want to know who I'm fighting and why I'm fighting them.  Most of my games feature a single fight, and occasionally none at all.  But that's okay because my players are on the same page - we recently had a game with no violence at all, and the players considered this a great victory.  Fights in this style of game are generally a sign that something has gone wrong.

So play WoW, or specifically look for a 'kick in the door' hackfest.  Don't play a game you don't enjoy just to be gaming.



ExploderWizard said:


> DM (as the NPC): "You don't seem to realize that there are 30 of us with crossbows and that you are surrounded."
> 
> Me: "You don't seem to realize that I'm crazy!"




Awesome 

I've never experienced the third person thing, and would find it very offputting.  But to each their own.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 22, 2010)

I think there are a couple of issues going on here.



wayne62682 said:


> Let me explain.  I prefer my roleplaying in very small doses.  I don't enjoy having half a session devoted to talking "in character", nor do I like having to speak in first person for my character.  I like combat, I like tactical maneuvers, and I like killing things and taking their stuff




I've been playing and running games for twenty-six years now, and I really don't enjoy the funny voice thing either. One of my friends describes the way I handle NPC interactions as "meta" because I don't speak first person unless every word they say is important, or we're dealing with very short responses. The PCs, in-turn, respond in a similar way. Not everyone is interested in being an amateur thespian, but you can still have a full range of interactions without having to get into the exact wording or phrasing. When I do quote their exact words, I put it in quotes, as you would see in a novel so that there's no confusion between my words and a character's words.

There's nothing wrong with this approach and you can have a perfectly satisfying game that way. On the other hand, if you like to RP in first person every encounter, going so far as to do the haggling with a merchant over a non-magical mundane item, that's cool too - but it wouldn't really fly in my group. Other groups will vary.



> Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus.  I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group.  Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group.




This, I think, can be an issue. It really depends on what you mean by playing stupid. Roleplaying was originally conceived as a means of simulationist immersion in a fantasy world. Sure, it has evolved to mean different things to different people, even varying by the particular game you're playing, but the one rule I do keep at the table is that there needs to be a wall between player knowledge and character knowledge. Just because you know the Achilles heel of a monster doesn't meant that your character knows it, and I frown upon players ignoring that fact in my games. Granted, sometimes it is a bit frustrating to pull out that killer move right when you need it, but not doing so makes the game function on a more authentic level, or at least that's the way I see it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 22, 2010)

You're looking for 4e Encounters or possibly Delves, the Descent boardgame, or Kick In The Door style RP.  (Again, probably 4e).


----------



## broghammerj (Jun 22, 2010)

A bit off topic, but this is where Morrus needs to sweep in and unveil that gamer map application he is working on.  I believe the idea is that it would show Enworld members and where they lived so you can find people in your area.

I would even go so far as to say it should have a profile with each person ranking certain qualiities (like roleplaying vs. combat), games played, genre preferences, etc.

Back on topic.

My advice is go to a local gaming event if you can find one.  Having never been to one, I moved to a new area and said what the heck I'll go.  I hadn't been gaming for 6 months so I figured I would try it out.  The game was mediocre at best due to mostly environmental issues (artificalness of venue, limited time, etc.)

It was however, a great audition.  I played with 8 guys at a table.  Two were sort of people I thought I would cross the street if I saw them coming at me in the dark.  The next 2 were people I would consider playing with or tolerating until I knew more about them.  They are the sort of people if you wanted to invite another 1-2 people to a current group you could try them out to see if you meshed.  2 people were those that gamed entirely differently than the way my old group did.  It was not bad/wrong/unfun it just wasn't my cup of tea. (this is a fascinating topic in and of itself).

The last two were guys who seemed to like what I liked, had personalities to hold a socially normal conversation with a total stranger, seemed to have reasonable jobs (a good gage for normalcy, economic downturn not withstanding), and had interests that were common outside of DnD.  They were in the same group.  I asked if we could get together and the rest is history.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 22, 2010)

On voices - I have a rule.  Don't do an accent unless one of the following are true

1) You can do the accent very well
2) The character is meant to be humorous or not taken seriously

If its a serious character and you do a bad accent, you'll make it laughable at best or painful at worst.  Its okay for goofy characters - if you're doing an Austin Powers inspired spy game and have the Secret South American Nazi general spout off "Vee have Vays of Mayking you Talk!", that's pretty cool.  If your wise old mentor from Germany sounds like Colonel Clink, not so much.

Playing Stupid is a perfectly valid playstyle as well.  

I like games because they let me play out the kinds of movies, stories, and shows that I love.  Sometimes in those shows people do stupid things.  I really like games with some kind of Story Point award.  Yes, it is dumb to open the door to the barricaded house because your dog Fluffy got out and the zombies might eat them, but it leads to those kinds of stories.  I strongly prefer it when its the player's choice - you can do Dumb Thing that's appropriate for your character and get a Story Point out of it to help you later.

Some games it works for all the PCs to act like a highly trained tactical unit.  Other times its not.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?




Well, it is a _role playing_ game (RPG). I can understand not being interested in roleplaying. But if you're so heated about the roleplaying aspect of the game, you're going to be annoyed as long as you are playing D&D unless you find a group that only hack-n-slashes. Roleplaying is a part of the game.

Have you tried getting a group to play the DDM skirmish game? It's a lot cheaper than warhammer and you can either get older minis and use the 1.0 or 2.0 rules, or you can still get newer minis and look online for the fan made conversion rules for new minis.

DDM is pretty much D&D without the roleplaying.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jun 22, 2010)

I think what you want is Decent or some skirmish level wargame (ie only a dozen units or less per side). You can certainly do that with D&D, GURPS, Savage Worlds and other system but you have to be upfront about it because I think a majority of other people will be wanting something else when you say "Lets play Savage Worlds".


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm NOT saying I don't like any roleplaying at all.  I'm just what you all would consider a "hack and slash" gamer; combat is the "best" part of the night.  I don't want mindless combat without meaning, but I'm not a fan of amateur theatrical roleplaying, either.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> I'm NOT saying I don't like any roleplaying at all.  I'm just what you all would consider a "hack and slash" gamer; combat is the "best" part of the night.  I don't want mindless combat without meaning, but I'm not a fan of amateur theatrical roleplaying, either.



To me you sound like a "typical" D&D player.  You enjoy the combat, you enjoy the adventure and story that create the situation, you like being able to affect the story with the actions of your PC, but you don't want to feel you *have* to enact what your PC says or does.  That is probably 80% of the D&D players I have met over my 30 years of gaming.

My best group had a mix of players.  Some enjoyed the roleplaying aspects more than others.  Everyone agreed to be patient with each other.  Some sessions were more roleplay focused, while others were straight kick-in-the door sessions, but as DM I tried to make sure nobdy felt the entire session was boring.  Overall it worked and we had a good time.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2010)

> You enjoy the combat, you enjoy the adventure and story that create the situation, you like being able to affect the story with the actions of your PC, but you don't want to feel you have to enact what your PC says or does.




Pretty much.  I guess what makes it kind of "weird" is that I enjoy having the roleplaying *background*; that is, I'm fond of campaigns with very strong themes and tightly woven plots, so I can create a character who fits the tone and style of the campaign.  I enjoy coming up with character traits, and personality, and backstory.  I just don't like a ton of immersive roleplaying and first-person character dialogue/interaction.  I have no problem with exhibiting some of my character's traits and occasionally a quote, but I don't like to saturate the game with IMO overly complex narrative.

For instance, I have no problem having a fully fleshed out character (again, matching the overall plot, theme and tone of the campaign) with a personality, and personality traits/quirks, and interjecting that into the game (e.g. if playing a cleric and fighting undead:  "I hold up my holy symbol and yell a prayer to Pelor to smite the undead"), as long as it doesn't require me to "play dumb", but I'm not a fan of narratives (e.g. "O great Pelor, your servant asks you smite these abominations!  By sunlight be cleansed!") except very short bursts where it makes sense to the plot (e.g. confronting the BBEG).  I think maybe it's the fact I've played in many games that didn't consider the first part "roleplaying", only the second, and I don't feel comfortable doing the second; typically there's always someone, or more than one person, who does the second and then my doing the first seems like I'm trying to avoid roleplaying my character.  The current situation is like this - in the WHFRP game I can't get away with doing the first, I have to do the second.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2010)

Heh. Whereas I want a much more even balance of RP and combat, and I'd prefer a night of all RP to one of all combat.

But I do agree that it cannot and should not reach the point of cheese. I don't want faux Old English or bad accents, nor do I insist on _every_ interaction being played out in full.

As for your preferences... I don't think you're "bound" to WoW but, as others have said, you need to find a group that matches your preferences. You simply aren't going to be happy in a group that's more RP-focused than you are, and they're not going to be happy if you try to get them to shift their focus. And it may be difficult, since RP _is_ a big part of the draw for a lot of people.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 22, 2010)

Wayne, it doesn't sound like you hate role-playing, you just dislike the acting/performing part, which is fine.

Role-playing is...

... creating/writing a fictional character.

... performing and/or pretending you're a fictional character.

... kicking-ass and problem-solving using a fictional character, who, if I'm really being honest, sometimes might as well be a board game piece.

You're okay with #1, dislike #2 and are gung-ho for #3. Nothing wrong with that... and plenty of folks play that way.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> On voices - I have a rule.  Don't do an accent unless one of the following are true
> 
> 1) You can do the accent very well
> 2) The character is meant to be humorous or not taken seriously
> ...



I think I always prefer a bad accent to no accent. Overall I take rpging relatively seriously, but with comedic elements. Quite possibly I'm playing Stupid but don't realise cause I'm so stupid I don't even know I'm stupid.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think I always prefer a bad accent to no accent. Overall I take rpging relatively seriously, but with comedic elements. Quite possibly I'm playing Stupid but don't realise cause I'm so stupid I don't even know I'm stupid.



So, I'm curious...what do people in Scotland use for their Dwarvish accents?  Do they speak normally?


----------



## BlubSeabass (Jun 22, 2010)

You roleplay more then most of my players. Heck, one players background used to be "amnesia", and I'm fine with it. Roleplay for me is more about making the world look real and alive, not about talking in first person. Only difference I have with you is that I don't mind people playing dumb (especially after wis/int drain). As said before, you just don't like acting.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 22, 2010)

I find accents to be tiresome and distracting from the actual RPing experience, but that's just me.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Pretty much.  I guess what makes it kind of "weird" is that I enjoy having the roleplaying *background*; that is, I'm fond of campaigns with very strong themes and tightly woven plots, so I can create a character who fits the tone and style of the campaign.  I enjoy coming up with character traits, and personality, and backstory.  I just don't like a ton of immersive roleplaying and first-person character dialogue/interaction.  I have no problem with exhibiting some of my character's traits and occasionally a quote, but I don't like to saturate the game with IMO overly complex narrative.
> 
> For instance, I have no problem having a fully fleshed out character (again, matching the overall plot, theme and tone of the campaign) with a personality, and personality traits/quirks, and interjecting that into the game (e.g. if playing a cleric and fighting undead:  "I hold up my holy symbol and yell a prayer to Pelor to smite the undead"), as long as it doesn't require me to "play dumb", but I'm not a fan of narratives (e.g. "O great Pelor, your servant asks you smite these abominations!  By sunlight be cleansed!") except very short bursts where it makes sense to the plot (e.g. confronting the BBEG).  I think maybe it's the fact I've played in many games that didn't consider the first part "roleplaying", only the second, and I don't feel comfortable doing the second; typically there's always someone, or more than one person, who does the second and then my doing the first seems like I'm trying to avoid roleplaying my character.  The current situation is like this - in the WHFRP game I can't get away with doing the first, I have to do the second.




No offense but your dialog example is poor as you said "I hold up" in the first and the second only expands upon your prayer. Also I have a friend who is very similar to you in many ways. I always say to him why did you write a 5 page background for yourself. Because he will seldom have it come out in his character unless you specifically ask the right question. Which rarely happens because we were not allowed to read his background so how would we know what to ask. 

Heres what I am hearing from you now. I think you actually enjoy roleplaying you just don't feel comfortable doing method acting and you don't want roleplaying to get in the way of your tactics. This to me says old skool, you need a game where there are no knowledge skills, so if you as a player know it you can use it. You also need a game thats heavy on the tactics end and where you can roll a skill rather than act out a scene. You also need like minded individuals to play said game. My solution D&D, any edition, you can hack the stuff out you dont want, then find some people who want a "Beer and Pretzels" game, perhaps WOW guild mates. Run it! Shadowrun may also be a decent fit. Ultimately though I think if you try and run it (and advertise it as such) you will find like minded players and perhaps even a DM you can switch off with.


----------



## Uder (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?




If you like playing games without the roleplaying, have you thought about trying some of the tactical wargames out there, like Mordheim, Necromunda, Squad Leader, Gangs of Mega City, Descent, Doom, or those sorts of things? A lot of them even have character advancement, have a "lite-roleplay" feel to them. Mordheim and Necromunda rules are even free, you just need a dozen or so figures for each side and some basic terrain for your table.


----------



## innerdude (Jun 22, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Let me explain.  I prefer my roleplaying in very small doses.  I don't enjoy having half a session devoted to talking "in character", nor do I like having to speak in first person for my character.  I like combat, I like tactical maneuvers, and I like killing things and taking their stuff
> 
> Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus.  I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group.  Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group.  I don't like being "forced" to speak in first person with my character; IMO it's perfectly acceptable to say "<character name> tells the guard blah blah blah..." and that is roleplaying.  I don't have to engage in dialogue and be all like "Hail, my good man!  I am seeking blah blah blah canst thou help me?" like improv theater.  Sadly most of the people I've gamed with have not agreed and felt I was not roleplaying "properly" because I don't like speaking in first person.
> 
> ...




I totally respect your viewpoint, and completely understand your personal preference. 

They happen to run totally and completely counter to mine when it comes to my roleplaying preferences, but that's cool, it's what makes the gaming community what it is. Personally, I feel like combat is usually the least interesting way to resolve in-game challenges. It's much more interesting to me to find unique, character-inspired choices to solve problems. 

I will say based on the responses to this thread that it seems like I'm in the minority for this preference, though, which was actually a little surprising to me. Maybe I've just avoided the "Bash heads, take stuff" crowd in my gaming groups so far, but most of my fellow players have been a lot more interested in having fun, interesting characters than in just kicking the crap out of stuff.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> So, I'm curious...what do people in Scotland use for their Dwarvish accents?  Do they speak normally?



I'm very much a traditionalist here. If it's dwarf it has to be Scottish. We usually do exaggerated Scottish accents for ours.

I know Tolkien thought of dwarves as Jewish but I really think Scottish is closer. Short, greedy, surly, drunk. If there's more to being Scottish than that, I'd like to hear about it.

Having red hair, that's the only other thing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I know Tolkien thought of dwarves as Jewish




*blink*

At the risk of a _complete_ threadjack... I'd never heard that before. Got a source/link? I'd love to read up on it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 22, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> *blink*
> 
> At the risk of a _complete_ threadjack... I'd never heard that before. Got a source/link? I'd love to read up on it.



The wikipedia article on Middle-Earth dwarves has a fair bit about it, section 1.2-1.5. It has a couple of quotes from Tolkien himself on the subject.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Short, greedy, surly, drunk. .




At last we know how Scots came to invent nearly everything


----------



## nedjer (Jun 22, 2010)

There's plenty of crunchy 4e players out there. You might also be a 'shoe-in' for Games Workshop Minatures 40k or LoR. Maybe crack open a box of Axis and Allies too. There's an online version here but it's premium.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 23, 2010)

The OP basically said, "I'm tired of funny voices and 'walking through a Ren-Faire' type gaming sessions."  The amount of "go play WoW/you're a hack 'n' slasher/D&D isn't for you" type answers really amaze me, and I wonder when talking in a funny voice while playacting out haggling over a bolt of silk began to equate with rpg'ing.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 23, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> I have no problem with exhibiting some of my character's traits and occasionally a quote, but I don't like to saturate the game with IMO overly complex narrative.
> 
> For instance, I have no problem having a fully fleshed out character (again, matching the overall plot, theme and tone of the campaign) with a personality, and personality traits/quirks, and interjecting that into the game (e.g. if playing a cleric and fighting undead:  "I hold up my holy symbol and yell a prayer to Pelor to smite the undead"), as long as it doesn't require me to "play dumb", but I'm not a fan of narratives [...]



Yeah, that really seems to say that you don't hate roleplay, as the previous posters said here. It really, really sounds a lot like you're prefer to handle your character more like a character in a novel or film, just a little more interactive; less "pretend to be an elf", more "cooperative storytelling" - on the action-heavy side. And you know, that's totally fine - I prefer the interactive novel approach as well.

So something that might work (apart from CRPGs and other group with similar preferences): be a GM, it's a good way to scratch the story itch without requiring a lot of dedication to one single character and... well, you get all the combat - just get used to losing! 

But finding other people with similar preferences would be best, they're out there.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## BenBrown (Jun 23, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> The OP basically said, "I'm tired of funny voices and 'walking through a Ren-Faire' type gaming sessions."  The amount of "go play WoW/you're a hack 'n' slasher/D&D isn't for you" type answers really amaze me, and I wonder when talking in a funny voice while playacting out haggling over a bolt of silk began to equate with rpg'ing.




The title of the thread is "So, I've decided that I hate roleplaying".

If the OP had titled the thread "Enough with the silly voices", and had the exact same words in his first post, this discussion would be different.  Name your threads carefully, kids.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 23, 2010)

The dislikes I see described here are not what I would call "role-playing" in the RPG context. I would call them "theatrical performance". That can indeed be employed as part of the RP endeavor, but the RP can also go on without it.

It's as if someone were to claim to "hate roleplaying" because he was not keen on dressing up in costume, sneaking into a university basement, and performing by candlelight such calculations as "BIF=(Charisma/2) + Social Status + Experience Level + (Honour Points/100)".


----------



## airwalkrr (Jun 23, 2010)

I imagine the OP would absolutely detest White Wolf games. I recommend never trying any of their systems if you have this attitude. That said, there is nothing wrong with appreciating the combat and wargaming side of RPGs. That's how D&D was born anyway. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson themselves were of wargaming backgrounds and simply wanted to create a game that focused more on individual heroes (the concept of heroes or unique units in wargaming wasn't unique, just a game centered around these figures). In fact, I imagine their games had very little "in-character" speech. The purist roleplayer, one focused on story and speaking in the first person seems like something that really didn't become in vogue until the early 90's.

MMOs are great if you are the kind of person who likes combat, character power builds and tactics. I don't really like WoW myself but I do play DDO and I think people who try to role-play in DDO are missing the point. MMOs are typically for people who prefer action to story. A little bit of story is all you need in those games. The fact that a vampire is evil, even if the vampire is sitting in the middle of the mausoleum minding his own business, is a good enough excuse to run in and kill him. So I think its great that you have found a game that gives you what you want.

I myself am at home both with groups that like to role-play and groups that just like to kill stuff, so long as everyone is on the same page. In fact, some groups like both and are willing to shift styles depending on the campaign. But if you want to play tabletop RPGs, it is a good idea to figure out what your group expects. If you like the tactical aspect only I doubt you'd have very much fun in a group of roleplayers, and I think that is what the OP is experiencing. It's okay to walk away from a group if you aren't having fun.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 23, 2010)

@airwalkrr I'm not a fan of the WW system so it's not something I would try in the first place.  Way back when I thought it would be awesome, but as I've "grown up" I'm just not into the whole amateur theatrics type of roleplaying.  The extent of my RPing is usually what I've already given examples of previously in the thread, stating my character's actions and maybe a small bit of dialogue.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 23, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> I wonder when talking in a funny voice while playacting out haggling over a bolt of silk began to equate with rpg'ing.




Last Tuesday. Didn't get the memo, huh? They really gotta fix the circulation issues on those things.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 23, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> The OP basically said, "I'm tired of funny voices and 'walking through a Ren-Faire' type gaming sessions." .............and I wonder when talking in a funny voice while playacting out haggling over a bolt of silk began to equate with rpg'ing.




I hate funny voices and I don't care for the Ren-Faire style gaming sessions. But I love to roleplay.

The OP said he hates roleplaying in the thread title, then followed it up with all of the things he hates about roleplaying. Other than the funny voices and old english dialogue, everything else he said he hates about roleplaying happens to be the way I roleplay. He was pretty clear about it and made perfectly valid points (even though I don't share his opinion). 



> The amount of "go play WoW/you're a hack 'n' slasher/D&D isn't for you" type answers really amaze me,



So what are people supposed to say in response other than suggesting that he try out other games? I'm really surprised that you're trying to twist those suggestions around in a negative light as if people are rubbing it in his face. I didn't get that impression at all, and I was just trying to be helpful when I suggested playing DDM. It seemed like everyone else was also.

I think he even called himself a Hack-N-Slasher! Not every single thing someone says is bad and meant to hurt feelings. Chill....


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 23, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> The extent of my RPing is usually what I've already given examples of previously in the thread, stating my character's actions and maybe a small bit of dialogue.



*shrug* Whatever works is the thing.

I truly believe that RPGs always have been, still are, and always will be, toolboxes to do with as you so wish.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 23, 2010)

Uder said:


> If you like playing games without the roleplaying, have you thought about trying some of the tactical wargames out there, like Mordheim, Necromunda, Squad Leader, Gangs of Mega City, Descent, Doom, or those sorts of things? A lot of them even have character advancement, have a "lite-roleplay" feel to them. Mordheim and Necromunda rules are even free, you just need a dozen or so figures for each side and some basic terrain for your table.




I find most wargames to be severely lacking in terms of what a character(or more specifically units) can do. In fact, I believe one of the reasons D&D gained so much popularity was that the characters could do more than just "move and shoot." I know you can do more than just that in most wargames nowadays, but none of them I know of come close to the amount of things you can have a character do in an RPG.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 23, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Role-playing is...
> 
> ... creating/writing a fictional character.
> 
> ...



Quoted simply because I think it's the most comprehensive yet succint definition of role-playing that I've seen to date.


----------



## Gog (Jun 23, 2010)

I haven't played at all for a little over two years now because I couldn't find a group. Recently I found a group of new players and played a game with them (d&d 3.5). Now as a player I could not stand the way they played, way too many house rules, stuff misunderstood, 2nd/1st edition rules thrown in and not even a basic understanding of the 3.5 game. They however were having a blast so nothing wrong with that.

I offered to run a game for them that is more my style, if they like it I'll stay with them as a DM, if not I'll thank them and move on. Maybe you could offer to run a game explaining how you like to play and see how it goes. After a few games try to talk someone else into running once in a while.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 23, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Last Tuesday. Didn't get the memo, huh? They really gotta fix the circulation issues on those things.



That explains why there were two copies in my inbox.

I'll put a new routing slip on it and toss it in the interoffice.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Easier said than done, since I don't even have an FLGS close by




Have you considered online play?  There's all sorts of options like Maptool or OpenRPG to scratch your gaming itch.  It's certainly an alternative.


----------



## ourchair (Jun 23, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus.  I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group.  Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group.  I don't like being "forced" to speak in first person with my character; IMO it's perfectly acceptable to say "<character name> tells the guard blah blah blah..." and that is roleplaying.  I don't have to engage in dialogue and be all like "Hail, my good man!  I am seeking blah blah blah canst thou help me?" like improv theater.  Sadly most of the people I've gamed with have not agreed and felt I was not roleplaying "properly" because I don't like speaking in first person.



I totally think everything you've expressed is valid.

Sometimes I just want a night with three combat encounters, and letting my dragonborn fighter suffer massive hit point loss from the tactical use of his marks. To me, that's still a story, that's still role-playing, even if it doesn't involve funny accents and big words. And I LIKE funny accents and big words.

However, the part I relate with you the most is how people somehow think your roleplaying is somehow "lesser" because you don't speak in first person. I think it's perfectly alright if you choose to tell the DM what your character says rather than recite it in first-person verbatim. Your charisma stat and related skills are there for a reason.

I want my players to ask "what would my character do," and feel empowered to know that their characters can bluff their way past an obstacle better than they themselves can at their day jobs without demanding that they have to act it out. 

If they choose to act it out, then fine, but this isn't a Method class. Roleplaying isn't about trying to create a convincing performance that synchronizes with who you tell us your character is, it's about playing THE role.


----------



## Wepwawet (Jun 23, 2010)

BenBrown said:


> The title of the thread is "So, I've decided that I hate roleplaying".
> 
> If the OP had titled the thread "Enough with the silly voices", and had the exact same words in his first post, this discussion would be different.  Name your threads carefully, kids.




But then you wouldn't be so compelled to read the thread, would you? 
It's just marketing


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jun 23, 2010)

Wepwawet said:


> But then you wouldn't be so compelled to read the thread, would you?
> It's just marketing




Ah, but marketing is everything.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> The amount of "go play WoW/you're a hack 'n' slasher/D&D isn't for you" type answers really amaze me...




It doesn't amaze me.  If someone comes in and describes how he likes mocha ice cream, but how his local store doesn't carry mocha, and what should he do, I'm going to suggest he try chocolate.  It isn't the same, but it may contain much of what he's looking for.

Or not.  But that's okay - he at least gets a new experience out of it, and maybe learns something.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 23, 2010)

ourchair said:


> However, the part I relate with you the most is how people somehow think your roleplaying is somehow "lesser" because you don't speak in first person. I think it's perfectly alright if you choose to tell the DM what your character says rather than recite it in first-person verbatim. Your charisma stat and related skills are there for a reason.




To each his own, of course, but I personally find the idea very offputting.  I want to know what your character says, not the gist of it.  IMO that isn't any different than saying "My warrior wades into battle and strikes the enemy with a series of expert moves" while not wanting to reference minis or the exact rules.

I don't expect Shakespearean soliloquies or anything, but I do want to know what it is you say!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2010)

Play the game you want to play, in the way you want to play it.

Life is too short to play games you don't enjoy.

RC


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 23, 2010)

For me it's about 70% kill stuff take treasure and 30% roleplay.

Also, I feel that only pen and paper games are role playing games and that computer games, both mmorgs and non mmorgs, are strategy games.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It doesn't amaze me.  If someone comes in and describes how he likes mocha ice cream, but how his local store doesn't carry mocha, and what should he do, I'm going to suggest he try chocolate.  It isn't the same, but it may contain much of what he's looking for.



On the other hand, if someone comes in, states "I've decided that I hate comic books", and then describes how he just couldn't get into the copies of Maus and Persepolis his friends gave him, I wouldn't tell him, "Well, go play a video game instead."  I would say that not all graphic novels have to be artistic social commentaries, and that plenty of people just like reading X-Men and Batman.

Similarly, there's more to roleplaying than the "Actor" archetype described in the DMG.  Not being an Actor doesn't mean you don't like roleplaying.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2010)

I'm with you....some nights. There are times when I'm really in to my character and others where I just want to kill stuff. I can tell what my character is doing, even speak "for/through" him, but I can't share my imagination, I can only try to evoke it in others. Some nights, that's just more effort than I feel up for.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> The OP basically said, "I'm tired of funny voices and 'walking through a Ren-Faire' type gaming sessions."  The amount of "go play WoW/you're a hack 'n' slasher/D&D isn't for you" type answers really amaze me, and I wonder when talking in a funny voice while playacting out haggling over a bolt of silk began to equate with rpg'ing.



I had a similar reaction. I don't mind speaking in first person, but most of my players are more of the third-person inclination. It doesn't stop them playing their characters, either in combat or out of it.

And we certainly never have walking through fairs in our sessions, let along haggling over bolts of silk.


----------



## Uder (Jun 24, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> I find most wargames to be severely lacking in terms of what a character(or more specifically units) can do. In fact, I believe one of the reasons D&D gained so much popularity was that the characters could do more than just "move and shoot." I know you can do more than just that in most wargames nowadays, but none of them I know of come close to the amount of things you can have a character do in an RPG.




Most of them also have an equal chance of one side or the other winning, something RPGs generally don't. But you're right. D&D gained so much popularity partly because the things you could do with it expanded beyond simple combat moves - but this was quaintly classified as "role-playing" by the creators. I don't know where funny voices became a requirement, but some people are stuck on them.

Anyways wayne62682, if you want to just play one character, not have to role-play, not have to worry about house rules, not worry about _other_ people role-playing in ways you don't like, and mostly if not always win the day... well, looking back at your OP:


> So... what can I do? I've noticed that lately, I don't even have a desire to play RPGs because I want to avoid the roleplay except where absolutely necessary (or the occasional witty remark during combat, things like that), and as far as the combat goes I feel I'd rather be playing WoW because there's no "house rules" to muck things up because someone doesn't agree with the RAW.
> 
> Is there any hope for me, or are my days of RPGs over and I should just stick with WoW?




...I think sticking with WoW might be your best bet.


EDIT: For some insane reason I mixed up Leatherhead and the OP. Sorry about that to both of you.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2010)

Uder said:


> Most of them also have an equal chance of one side or the other winning, something RPGs generally don't.




Generally speaking, winning and losing have less meaning in a game form without a defined end. A campaign can go on for as long as the players want to keep playing. As far as the odds of victory within individual engagements go, there will be a wide spread of victory odds from group to group depending on the desires of the group. 

If I am interpreting the desires of the OP correctly, he wants the combat content in the game to interact with, and have meaning in the campaign and also for this type of activity to form the focus and backbone of the campaign. 

I play WOW. WOW cannot deliver this. You can have your fill (and then some) of non-stop action but the context of that action has no bearing upon the game world. Monsters simply respawn, evil villains likewise along with the same range of goodies that they dropped the day before. The only meaningful roleplaying possible is with other players. The NPC's and the rest of the world cannot interact with your character beyond the limited programming. 

There are many gamers who enjoy the high action style campaign that use a variety of systems to play them. It may seem impossible to find them but they are out there.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The only meaningful roleplaying possible is with other players. The NPC's and the rest of the world cannot interact with your character beyond the limited programming.



I think it's perfectly possible to roleplay in a single player PC game. I've done it. To me roleplaying in the narrow sense (not the sense of 'playing in a roleplaying game') is demonstrating character, ie personality, by means of word and deed.

In Morrowind (a sandbox crpg, so there's a wide choice of action) I had a character who would not steal, even though it really helps you get ahead in that game. I actually had quite a strong idea for this character's personality, it was a dark elf called Flame, who became an assassin, and I pictured her having a kind of lawful evil approach to life.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think it's perfectly possible to roleplay in a single player PC game. I've done it. To me roleplaying in the narrow sense (not the sense of 'playing in a roleplaying game') is demonstrating character, ie personality, by means of word and deed.
> 
> In Morrowind (a sandbox crpg, so there's a wide choice of action) I had a character who would not steal, even though it really helps you get ahead in that game. I actually had quite a strong idea for this character's personality, it was a dark elf called Flame, who became an assassin, and I pictured the character having a kind of lawful evil approach to life.




You can certainly do this but it is still a one way data stream. The game environment as a whole won't respond to or recognize your words or deeds beyond the programming.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> You can certainly do this but it is still a one way data stream. The game environment as a whole won't respond to or recognize your words or deeds beyond the programming.



Eh, we're always bound by rules. Whether it's the rules of a computer program or the rules of a ttrpg. In the case of a ttrpg there are many layers of rules - what the GM allows, what the other players want to do, 'realism'.

In fact I feel that the presence of other people is actually a far greater limitation on my freedom than a computer program. Many GMs don't allow evil PCs for example, so I wouldn't have been able to play Flame in such a game.

Morrowind btw has lots of mods available for it so I, a player, can even change the rules if I want. Could I do that in ttrpg if the GM said no? (And the GM probably would, most GMs like their rules as they are.)


----------



## Nifft (Jun 24, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Morrowind btw has lots of mods available for it so I, a player, can even change the rules if I want. Could I do that in ttrpg if the GM said no? (And the GM probably would, most GMs like their rules as they are.)



 You could, but if you did, if discovered it would go by the unflattering designation of "cheating".

You need to have all the *people* on the same page regarding the rules. Computers aren't people*, so you don't need to ask them before you modify the rules which the people expect.

Cheers, -- N

*) ... that you know of.


----------



## Uder (Jun 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Generally speaking, winning and losing have less meaning in a game form without a defined end. A campaign can go on for as long as the players want to keep playing. As far as the odds of victory within individual engagements go, there will be a wide spread of victory odds from group to group depending on the desires of the group.




Okay. And...?

I'm just commenting because it seems a lot of RPG players have a bad reaction to wargames... and if you dig deep enough it's because the opponent is suddenly equal and the person who supposedly seeks tactical challenges doesn't really know what a tactical challenge is.



> If I am interpreting the desires of the OP correctly, he wants the combat content in the game to interact with, and have meaning in the campaign and also for this type of activity to form the focus and backbone of the campaign.



He also seems to want to not have to engage with the game in the way other players find satisfying. They're not wrong to tell him they don't enjoy his style of play, just like he's not wrong to say he doesn't like talking in first person. I'm serious - he's asking if he should just hang it up and play WoW, and I'm leaning towards, "yes."



> I play WOW. WOW cannot deliver this. You can have your fill (and then some) of non-stop action but the context of that action has no bearing upon the game world. Monsters simply respawn, evil villains likewise along with the same range of goodies that they dropped the day before. The only meaningful roleplaying possible is with other players. The NPC's and the rest of the world cannot interact with your character beyond the limited programming.




I 100% agree. I avoid MMO's for this and other reasons. I don't get the idea that the OP cares about the role-playing angle though, even going so far as to call role-players in MMO's "jerks."



> There are many gamers who enjoy the high action style campaign that use a variety of systems to play them. It may seem impossible to find them but they are out there.



Even the action-only hacks I run have more role-playing than what wayne62682 seems to want. Looking for non-roleplaying fun in a role-playing game seems like setting yourself up for heartbreak.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 24, 2010)

pemerton said:


> And we certainly never have walking through fairs in our sessions, let along haggling over bolts of silk.




My players seem to like to roleplay with the merchants and roleplay the haggling. I don't mind it either as long as they are having fun. The thing is, it sometimes leads to some very fun & memorable moments...

Just 3 sessions ago, 2 PCs needed to buy thick jackets to avoid the cold winds of Pandemonium. The merchants prices were pretty high and they annoyed him with all their haggling, so he raised the prices even more. This pissed them off, so the Sorceress tried to steal a couple of them and got caught. She grabs the robes, the merchant lunges at her with a dagger, calls out for the guards, and all hell broke out. She yells to the other PCs that were not involved to meet her at "Ivory Downs" (an inside joke in reference to a location where a very funny situation happened in town just moments before) and she teleported away.

The good cleric paid the merchant more than enough for the stolen goods, shook his head in disappointment & apologized, and left the scene to meet everyone at "Ivory Downs".

So because they like to roleplay with merchants, they ended up in a situation that gave them something to talk about for the next few sessions. They loved it. If they didn't play out the "piddly" buying/selling routine, then this would never have happened.

But of course, if this roleplaying type of stuff bothers a person anyway, then I guess this type of situation still wouldn't be any fun. But this is the kind of stuff I enjoy about D&D and roleplaying. I find it much more entertaining than just entering a room, and attacking a monster over & over & over again. Although I do love attacking the monsters.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2010)

Some folks seem to be equating _role-playing a character_ (in the theatrical sense) with _role-playing a really dull character who only does mundane and uninteresting things, in an uninteresting way_ -- like haggling over cloth or livestock, or randomly shouting 'huzzah'.

Most of my group, myself included, like the theatrical side of RPG play. But we don't slip into character to dicker over the price of chickens, or to otherwise bore the rest of the table with boring stuff. We _try_, at least, to role-play characters who are entertaining, who say clever things and are fun to listen to, even when engaged in, how shall I put this, non-goal-oriented play.

Which isn't to say haggling can't be fun. It's fine if it's down with style and clever-talk.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2010)

Uder said:


> Looking for non-roleplaying fun in a role-playing game seems like setting yourself up for heartbreak.



He's looking for a particular kind of role-playing fun, or at least an emphasis on it, like I pointed out earlier.

Hasn't low-immersion ass-kicking always been a part of D&D (it's certainly where I started).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2010)

Uder said:


> Okay. And...?
> 
> I'm just commenting because it seems a lot of RPG players have a bad reaction to wargames... and if you dig deep enough it's because the opponent is suddenly equal and the person who supposedly seeks tactical challenges doesn't really know what a tactical challenge is.




Really? I know several rpg players that also enjoy wargames. Even for those who do not, the level of tactical challenge to be found in an rpg can actually be greater than that found in some wargames. 



Uder said:


> He also seems to want to not have to engage with the game in the way other players find satisfying. They're not wrong to tell him they don't enjoy his style of play, just like he's not wrong to say he doesn't like talking in first person. I'm serious - he's asking if he should just hang it up and play WoW, and I'm leaning towards, "yes."




This is where all that advice about about finding a compatible group comes in. 





Uder said:


> I 100% agree. I avoid MMO's for this and other reasons. I don't get the idea that the OP cares about the role-playing angle though, even going so far as to call role-players in MMO's "jerks."




The jerk comment is simply a product of taking an MMO too seriously. I can enjoy playing them but they are no substitute for ttrpgs.




Uder said:


> Even the action-only hacks I run have more role-playing than what wayne62682 seems to want. Looking for non-roleplaying fun in a role-playing game seems like setting yourself up for heartbreak.




Quite possibly. Not finding a compatible group is a possibility. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't try.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Jun 24, 2010)

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.  Big ups to the OP for knowing what he likes.

My players and I are more into the role-play - not so much the "silly accents" and mangled old english but more talking as your character.

There's generally a mix of "OK, I explain why we're here and attempt to use my persuasion skills and charm to sway his opinion" and in-character "OK, our car has broken down and we need to find a replacement, do you know anywhere that can rent us another" - depending on what the situation seems to warrant or what would be quickest.

None of us expect that an encounter requires a player to recount what all of us, GM included, already know "for the sake of realistic role playing", especially if such a thing would be rather lengthy.  "I explain the situation" or something similar is quite sufficient.

However, other times, actual role play of the conversation can yield some great results and the players can get to be their character and express things as their character would.  "Dude, things are really screwed, we need you and your friends to help us out, here."

As GM, I'll use first person dialogue for characters they meet and inject the characters' personality - prejudices, idioms, register of speech etc - into it.  I'll use the occasional accent to start with then slide into my native "Kiwi" accent rather than maintain the character's accent - kind of like the way they slid from Russian into English in _Hunt For Red October_...

With the exception of me, no one says "My character is going to..." or "_Name-of-character _picks up the wallet" - and I only do it as, being the GM, I may well be playing more than one role in any given encounter.  For everyone else, it's purely first person - even when just reporting/narrating rather than speaking as the character.  "_I_ tell him who _we _are and why _we_'re here".


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It doesn't amaze me.  If someone comes in and describes how he likes mocha ice cream, but how his local store doesn't carry mocha, and what should he do, I'm going to suggest he try chocolate.  It isn't the same, but it may contain much of what he's looking for.
> 
> Or not.  But that's okay - he at least gets a new experience out of it, and maybe learns something.




Not really. This is more along the lines of a guy saying he likes vanilla ice cream, but doesn't like the butterscotch topping that people put on it, and everyone telling him he should go get pizza instead of just asking them to hold the butterscotch.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 24, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> Not really. This is more along the lines of a guy saying he likes vanilla ice cream, but doesn't like the butterscotch topping that people put on it, and everyone telling him he should go get pizza instead of just asking them to hold the butterscotch.




Or, it's like saying you are really into girls, and you spend the night with one, and then wake up with your cheek resting on her adams apple.

No wait, it's like a guy that spontaneously passes gas, doesn't like the smell of it, but enjoys finding out that he's stained his undies.

You could even say it's more like being a redneck, you're not from the south, but you still think wrestling is real.

No, everyone is right. Telling him to try something different is nothing more than us being mean. We've been had!


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 24, 2010)

Oryan77 said:


> you're not from the south, but you still think wrestling is real.




You have just crossed the line!


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 25, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> You have just crossed the line!




I said "wrestling". Everyone knows "wrassling" is real!


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 25, 2010)

Well, I think what I've established is it's not roleplaying I hate, it's:

A) I hate being forced to engage in "narratives" and first person dialogue
B) I'm more fond of "kick in the door" style play with some small doses of roleplay, than heavy roleplay with small doses of combat.

The problem I have with my current game (the WHFRP one) is that none of us are really big into the roleplay aspect, but the GM thinks it's the best part (also why he chose WHFRP) and so kind of pushes it onto us, and dislikes when we don't start doing it more often.  He tended to do the same thing in our 4E game, instead of tailoring the game to what we wanted it was more of a "You guys aren't doing this the way I would, so I'm going to make you do it my way" kind of situation.  The roleplay seems forced because none of us are really into it apart from some occasional dialogue or description, and we get shoehorned into doing it anyways for the GM.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 25, 2010)

Okay, now that you've got that settled, we can move on to what really matters:

Where do you stand on sandboxes?


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 25, 2010)

Sandbox campaigns?  I'm not a real fan of them.  I prefer very intricate and tightly-woven campaign hooks, not what amounts to here's this area, you can go to each of these towns and get "quests", some of them might lead to other quests.  Yes, I know that's how quests are in WoW; in WoW I don't mind it - in D&D I dislike it.

Really what I would LOVE to play, nobody I've gamed with has ever liked:  Oriental Adventures.  I'm a huge fan of Late Han and Three Kingdoms era China and Sengoku/Warring States period Japan, and something like that I think I'd really be able to get into because I'm very passionate about it; I haven't done it in a while but I used to really debate a lot of Three Kingdom stuff.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> B) I'm more fond of "kick in the door" style play ...



Kick in the door in my game and you're likely to wind up on the wrong side of a TPK - I aim for gritty hard realism rather than "good clean fun"/"I'll hold the narrow pass while you all escape" kind of play and realistically a major gang or organisation is going to have defenses aimed at stopping another major gang or organisation - a small group of 4 "adventurers" is going to be a light snack for these guys.  

In order to avoid being someone's light snack, my players take a more strategic approach than head-on "damn-the-torpedoes" assaults when it comes to tackling the big targets so it's definitely more role play than combat.  Combat's for when the other party is relatively small and weak or when things go completely *wrong *and they've got to fight or die.

So far, the only combat the players have seen is a quick run-through to demonstrate a) how combat works in my game and b) why you _*really *_don't want to get shot.



wayne62682 said:


> The problem I have with my current game (the WHFRP one) is that none of us are really big into the roleplay aspect, but the GM thinks it's the best part (also why he chose WHFRP) and so kind of pushes it onto us, and dislikes when we don't start doing it more often.  He tended to do the same thing in our 4E game, instead of tailoring the game to what we wanted it was more of a "You guys aren't doing this the way I would, so I'm going to make you do it my way" kind of situation.  The roleplay seems forced because none of us are really into it apart from some occasional dialogue or description, and we get shoehorned into doing it anyways for the GM.



That seriously sucks.  If he wants people to play like that, he needs to find people who want to play like that, not deem the players to be "wrong" for wanting a different style of game.  And you guys definitely need a GM who is happy with running a more action-oriented game with only a little amount of role play where appropriate.


----------



## Galloglaich (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Let me explain.  I prefer my roleplaying in very small doses.  I don't enjoy having half a session devoted to talking "in character", nor do I like having to speak in first person for my character.  I like combat, I like tactical maneuvers, and I like killing things and taking their stuff
> 
> Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus.  I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group.  Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group.  I don't like being "forced" to speak in first person with my character; IMO it's perfectly acceptable to say "<character name> tells the guard blah blah blah..." and that is roleplaying.  I don't have to engage in dialogue and be all like "Hail, my good man!  I am seeking blah blah blah canst thou help me?" like improv theater.  Sadly most of the people I've gamed with have not agreed and felt I was not roleplaying "properly" because I don't like speaking in first person.
> 
> ...





Thanks for posting this.  I think you have wonderfully encapsulated the most common WOTC target audience and specifically the ideal 4E fan right here.

Personally, for this type of gaming I'd rather play squad leader, I'm just not that into the kind of middlebrow cartoon world you see in WoW as a combat arena.  I have trouble suspending disbelief.

For a perpetual war type of computer game I used to like planetside a little, it was at least sort of plausible.  I couldn't get into WoW.  

But anyway I think WoTC should go ahead and make 5E DnD a complete "rollplay" game with no role-playing at all, and then maybe they can address the "role-playing" niche with a fresh start rather than combining the two types of game which makes nobody happy.   Or failing that Warhammer Fantasy RPG (which is a pretty good game) can take over that niche.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (Jun 25, 2010)

I'd also like to add that I also equally dislike the kind of phony "Thee and Thou" Elizabethan accent fake Ren Faire fantasy dinner theater type of role playing at least as much as I dislike "roll playing" FRPGs.  I think role playing FRPG games should be kind of like a grown up fantasy novel with an edge, and like original REH Conan or Jack Vance, or even maybe a bit campy ala Lovecraft, but not cheese Ren Faire / made for Sci Fi channel films about Chimeras vs. Zeus or something. 

I know a lot of people like that kind of playing style as well of course.  Maybe they could make a spin-off genre for that as well...

G.


----------



## Wolf1066 (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Sandbox campaigns?  I'm not a real fan of them.  I prefer very intricate and tightly-woven campaign hooks, not what amounts to here's this area, you can go to each of these towns and get "quests", some of them might lead to other quests.



So you prefer a "train trip" sort of game where the GM has everything mapped out in advance?

A number of other people here utterly detest that style of play, personally I don't mind it - or sandboxes, for that matter.  I do like to have some means of shaping the tale - like having a number of ways available to achieve the desired result rather than "Sorry, the campaign specifically calls for you to find Mr X and *buy *the potion from him, you can't just smack him over the head and take it" - but I don't mind if the GM has come up with an interesting train trip through engaging "scenery" and we can make up our own minds about how we tackle each of the set scenes along the way.

i also like sandboxes where you can decide, "stuff it, let's go here and see what's happening".

Each style of game has its merits and downsides.

Most of our last AD&D game was a train trip - fairly much linear dungeons that you go through taking each passage, room and group of monsters in turn until you've cleaned the place out.  Then you meet another stranger in a tavern who tells you where the next adventure's going to be.  Quite enjoyed it, wandered from adventure to adventure, cleaned out a number of tunnels, dungeons, catacombs and cave systems, became a filthy rich 14th level character.  Along the way, we surprised the DM a number of times with our inventive ways of dealing with the encounters she threw at us.

Also enjoyed wandering around the Traveller universe choosing where we went based on how much we could sell our cargo for and what we could buy cheaply there that would fetch us a good profit elsewhere - and then getting into scrapes because miner bars with signs saying "No Spacers" are just too much of an outright challenge to ignore...


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 25, 2010)

Wolf1066 said:


> So you prefer a "train trip" sort of game where the GM has everything mapped out in advance?




Not necessarily *everything* mapped out.  I don't mind some possibilities for changes based on our actions.  I do, however, prefer there to be an actual plot with some "forks" based on what happens, instead of a fully-open sandbox where anything happens and there's no real story.

Since I like to make very specific themed characters that are tightly woven into the storyline, I've found I can't effectively operate in a sandbox because I have no idea what "fits" the campaign.  The worst thing for me is a game where I can't create an appropriate character but I'm left to my own devices, not because I'm not creative enough, but because I like my gams to feel like an actual story from the start.  I was never a fan of games where the story isn't even developed until midway through, because it doesn't feel like an actual story.

Let me give an example to illustrate the type of player I am, and the type of player I "dislike".  Let's say we as a group agree to do a kind of dark, gothic campaign where the ultimate goal is that the PCs liberate their town from an evil vampire lord who has ruled it; so the campaign will feature lots of undead and dark horror.  Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign.  That's what I enjoy.  On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Let me give an example to illustrate the type of player I am, and the type of player I "dislike".  Let's say we as a group agree to do a kind of dark, gothic campaign where the ultimate goal is that the PCs liberate their town from an evil vampire lord who has ruled it; so the campaign will feature lots of undead and dark horror.  Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign.  That's what I enjoy.  On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.



That's good stuff, I see what you're talking about. Your paladin is a good character, strong motivation. That's something I often see missing from PCs. Lots of detail about what they can do, nothing about why. I'm probably to blame myself as GM for not giving more guidance.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jun 25, 2010)

There are many different definitions of "role playing" and I can't say that any particular one of them is "wrong". Strongly disliked by me, but not objectively wrong.

An interpretation I strongly dislike is "you're role playing because you're playing a role". By that interpretation, Monopoly is an RPG, after all, you play Landlords in that game.

I don't mind if players aren't super immersive, but I do want some minimum. For example, instead of "I haggle with the shopkeeper for a lower price" I at least want "I explain I could get it cheaper elsewhere."  Naturally there are times when you can't be as creative, and that's fine too.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> /snip
> Let me give an example to illustrate the type of player I am, and the type of player I "dislike".  Let's say we as a group agree to do a kind of dark, gothic campaign where the ultimate goal is that the PCs liberate their town from an evil vampire lord who has ruled it; so the campaign will feature lots of undead and dark horror.  Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign.  That's what I enjoy.  On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.




You are certainly not alone in this one.

One of the biggest things we've done in our group is sitting down and making characters AS A GROUP.  No more of this go off and make characters by yourself stuff anymore.  Sure, the mechanical nuts and bolts stuff you can do at home.  I'm talking about the stuff that actually matters - like personality, background, whatnot.

I really, strongly believe that a coherent group (or group template as some call it) is key to a good campaign.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> You are certainly not alone in this one.
> 
> One of the biggest things we've done in our group is sitting down and making characters AS A GROUP.  No more of this go off and make characters by yourself stuff anymore.  Sure, the mechanical nuts and bolts stuff you can do at home.  I'm talking about the stuff that actually matters - like personality, background, whatnot.
> 
> I really, strongly believe that a coherent group (or group template as some call it) is key to a good campaign.




Yes, yes, 1000x yes.  EVERY group I've been with have always been of the mentality making characters as a group limits their creativity (I had some players actually say this) so it's something I never get to experience, and I hate it because I agree 100% that a coherent group who fits well together makes for a much more enjoyable atmosphere than the old "you guys meet in a tavern" scenario where nobody really gets along and the only reason they stick together is for the metagame reason that they're all playing the same game.  I hate that with a passion.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> EVERY group I've been with have always been of the mentality making characters as a group limits their creativity (I had some players actually say this)



Yeah, that's crazy talk because being a player in an rpg inherently limits your creativity. You can't just make up any character and do anything. You have to fit with a) what the GM has prepared and b) what the other players want.

Other people in the room = I am not free.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> You are certainly not alone in this one.
> 
> One of the biggest things we've done in our group is sitting down and making characters AS A GROUP. No more of this go off and make characters by yourself stuff anymore. Sure, the mechanical nuts and bolts stuff you can do at home. I'm talking about the stuff that actually matters - like personality, background, whatnot.
> 
> I really, strongly believe that a coherent group (or group template as some call it) is key to a good campaign.




Also from a purely tactical perspective, assembling a team together can provide a better benefit for the group than individual members being designed alone.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jun 25, 2010)

Ironically you seem to roleplay more than full-blooded roleplayers. Roleplay is much more than dialogue at a table. If DnD is a supposed narrative then third and second person are narrative tools and thus roleplaying.

Just because you like to play action-blockbuster narratives doesn't make it less or more than an art-house narrative or better/worse than that meshing of both worlds, the Tarantino narrative.

I wouldn't say you hate roleplaying because you roleplay just fine. I would suggest you hate first person dialogue in place of action.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 25, 2010)

wayne62682 said:


> Given this brief, I would go and create a character who fits the tone exactly, something like a paladin of the sun god who's brother was killed by the vampire lord; the point being my character fits into the story perfectly, with plot hooks and a background that lets him seamlessly integrate with the campaign.  That's what I enjoy.  On the flip side I've played with MANY players who, given a brief like that, would make a character that really has no ties to anything and is the "odd man out", let's say a dragon-hating ranger from a far away land, and then throughout the campaign complain repeatedly that there are no dragons to fight, just undead, and nothing in their backstory is coming into play.



There is only one thing in this that would tick me off.  The complaining and expectation that the campaign would re-define its core elements to fit a character.

But, the idea of a "dragon-hating ranger from a far away land" finding himself caught up in the anti-undead campaign is perfectly cool to me.  The paladin is also plenty cool.  *BUT*, to me the implication that the character must fit the campaign is a real concern, while an odd-man out character in the game isn't. (Unless they bitch about being the odd man out, of course)

Obviously there are extremes.  You can't be a wolverine inspired character in my Song of Ice and Fire based campaign.  And you can't be a half dragon centaur sorcerer of Azothoth in my low magic sword and sorcery game.

But the dragon hunting ranger isn't at all out of bounds as I see it.  And I'd think it is reasonable to expect this kind of character to fit.  If you have a long standing group and everyone knows that a tight fit is assumed, then cool.  I'm absolutely not being critical of that.  But if a new player joined in, he would be justified to be quite surprised that his ranger was considered a problem.  It is ok to presume that "now you know, maybe this group isn't a good fit for this player".  But it isn't right to point fingers at a player who has more open ideas than the group.  (The same thing applies to the half dragon centaur.  Nothing wrong with the idea, you just don't fit.  Do you want to comply?  Yes? Lets go.  No?  Good gaming with whatever group you do find)

And there are shades of grey.  And reasonable groups can work those out.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 25, 2010)

Yeah, and that's what I meant.  I would have nothing wrong with playing the odd man *provided I had a good way to integrate him into the campaign*.  But the kind of people I would play with wouldn't bother with that, they would get the campaign brief, and knowing full well what the campaign dealt with make something totally 180 degrees to the theme of the campaign, and then whine and complain later when nothing relevant to their PC shows up.  Of course, these people would also only use the PHB when other books were allowed (this was 3.5) and then throw a fit when someone used a new class or feat or spell from an allowed book, because THEY chose to stick with Core PHB.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jun 25, 2010)

I would have a conversation with your group as a whole. Saying you want more action less talking. Seams like the issue is with the GM not with the group. Also tell them that your just not enjoying WFRP because you want more fights and you dont want to do something you dont enjoy so if you cant get some more fights your going to have to sit out. I was recently in a group where I was amazed they were gaming together because if you use the 4 quadrant gamer types they were in the 4 opposite corners. It broke up eventually...


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 27, 2010)

There are those who are just 'roll players' and is just there to see the numbers invoked.

And then there are 'role players' who are just there to just do the 'social interaction', less dice using, more talking.

Then there are folks who are out there...that balances both aspects. (Like me) For some, that is a sign of maturity increasing, taste changing and adjusting one's perpection on what you want of the game.

Then again...there are some who don't wish to excel and stay 'stationary' for the duration of their gaming life. (You all has seen this effect during your gaming experience), and some folks wll never change, cause they don't want to leave their 'comfort zone'.

For me...recognizing that this 'game' does requires *social interaction* to function well, to have fun and progress either in level or learning something new (and you do, some of the time). I make it a mission to be active with the character and as being a player as well.

Now these days...I just lay back and let 'new' players show their stuff before me and I adjust my input on what they do. Still a challenge these days and it keeps my halves of 'roll' & 'role' playing pretty busy.

I won't tell you outright on where to find your 'lost' taste. When that happens....take a break and do some self-examination on what you need to be fullfilled.




wayne62682 said:


> Let me explain. I prefer my roleplaying in very small doses. I don't enjoy having half a session devoted to talking "in character", nor do I like having to speak in first person for my character. I like combat, I like tactical maneuvers, and I like killing things and taking their stuff
> 
> Roleplaying, to me, is something that should be the background and not the major focus. I don't want to "play stupid" with my character, and therefore make poor tactical decisions that hurt the rest of the group. Maybe it's because during the past year I stopped playing D&D and started playing WoW, but it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group. I don't like being "forced" to speak in first person with my character; IMO it's perfectly acceptable to say "<character name> tells the guard blah blah blah..." and that is roleplaying. I don't have to engage in dialogue and be all like "Hail, my good man! I am seeking blah blah blah canst thou help me?" like improv theater. Sadly most of the people I've gamed with have not agreed and felt I was not roleplaying "properly" because I don't like speaking in first person.
> 
> ...


----------



## nedjer (Jun 27, 2010)

Truth Seeker said:


> a sign of maturity increasing ...there are some who don't wish to excel. they don't want to leave their 'comfort zone'.




different styles of play can be more or less complex or novel but all can be played with maturity and excellence


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 28, 2010)

No disagreement there...


nedjer said:


> different styles of play can be more or less complex or novel but all can be played with maturity and excellence


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2010)

@ the OP:

You have a preferred playstyle.  Good for you!  I hope you can find a group of like-minded gamers.



> it's now my view that _someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk_ and doesn't belong in the group.




(Emphasis mine.)

That is my only issue with your original post.

Their playstyle may differ, and depending on the makeup of the group, may not belong in that campaign, but playing your role ≠ total jerk.

...even if the person IS a jerk.

Its not the roleplay that is making him thus, its his innate "jerkidity."


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 28, 2010)

->  OP

You can find other people who play RPGs like you do, but in your place I'd just head over to WoW or another MMO.  They handle combat much better than an RPG ever will, with everything automated and much faster.  The strength of RPGs in in the support for roleplaying.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its not the roleplay that is making him thus, its his innate "jerkidity."



The roleplaying helps, though. It means he can say, "It's not me being a jerk, it's my character."

Hiding behind a role acts as an enabler for jerkidity. Much as hiding behind an online name enables the same thing on the internet.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 28, 2010)

That's what I meant.  The kind of person who will screw over the other players and use the excuse of "Oh but I'm playing my character!  I'm roleplaying!".  I've gamed with a lot of these types.

Having mulled it over quite a bit, I'm going to try and find a new group.  Not sure how to break it to my friend though since he seems to think everything is fine and he's always telling me how he can't wait to play more WHFRP, and maybe start D&D again.. but really the problem is I don't like gaming *with him*.  I dislike his play style, I dislike his gaming personality, I dislike how he feels the game "should" be run, and I dislike his overall view of gaming in general.


----------



## Mark Andrew Packer (Jul 21, 2017)

Pity I don't have any openings in my groups, because my games are very much non-roleplay heavy.  I prefer to focus on sim and tactics without a lot of needless dialogue.  I hate roleplay too.  I absolutely can't stand it.  For one thing, it takes too long, it creates the most arguments and high tension situations between players, and worst of all, most people just plain suck at it.  I had a player who's intelligence was 10 and he thought that was very low, so his character spoke like a tard and drooled all over itself, and got into stupid situations that hurt the party because HE thought it would be funny.  Another thought that, because he was a thief, it was his job to rob everyone and claim every single magic item he found without sharing with the rest of the party.  "Duh, I'm a rogue, so I got to steal all the time."  In short, you're not alone!  There are still plenty of us who don't like the childish, make-believe play time with their characters.


----------



## Nagol (Jul 21, 2017)

Well, the complaint was from SEVEN YEARS ago.  It is likely the OP has found a game/group he enjoys or moved on.


----------



## Bill Reich (Jul 22, 2017)

I have played for years with mixes of people with varying attitudes toward the amount of roleplaying they want in a game. While it is futile to play in a group where you are a total misfit, some compromise must usually be made. In the games I run, we go for weeks doing mostly things that would satisfy you but we also have sessions that would bore you to tears. If you can't find a perfect group for you and you don't want to compromise, go play WoW. 

The one thing I want to say is: "it's now my view that someone who hurts their party for "roleplay reasons" is a total jerk and doesn't belong in the group." That looks like you really don't want to play with roleplayers at all.


----------

