Sure, but there's a clear sense of entitlement at play here, with this one person insisting that the game *not* ask anything of him in terms of character or storytelling. That's fine if you find that sort of table, but they're very rare.
I don’t think that any of us have a large enough sample group to declare what is or is not rare.
Sure, but there's a clear sense of entitlement at play here, with this one person insisting that the game *not* ask anything of him in terms of character or storytelling. That's fine if you find that sort of table, but they're very rare.
I don’t think that any of us have a large enough sample group to declare what is or is not rare.
Agreed, though I can assure you that a group that just wants to do dungeon crawl hack & slash is anything but rare, if anything it is the default way D&D has been played for nearly 50 years by the undisputed majority, this playstyle is why D&D is still the most popular and simultaneously unique RPG in the hobby. The storyteller mode that has become cosmopolitan in modern D&D has not even established any permanence in the hobby at this point, it might become "the way" to play going forward or it may turn out to be another temporary fad like larping, 2e railroading or white wolf theatre of the mind playstyles all of which faded into the background of something that was briefly popular once for a while but at its peek the community for these playstyles was both large and cocky as is the case today with this community.
I know people like to re-write RPG history on this forum, but the term "good role-player" until very recently was a depiction of your skill at the game of D&D, your actual player abilities, not your theatrical charisma and acting ability in a theatre show.
Gonna go ahead and disagree here. At least for 5e. Older editions sure I can’t comment on but 5e the focus is on a balance between story and combat. Saying the undisputed majority play it as a hack and slash is a pretty baseless claim for 5e. It’s expressed multiple times that story is important in the various rule books. And no one is saying be an actor or a voice actor or any of that. Anyone who imposes those requirements is going to be disappointed.
do some people enjoy hack and slash, less story? Absolutely. Nothing wrong with it and there are tables that run with that style. It’s perfectly valid and if that’s a preferred style you will find a place for it, whether in dnd or another game, both have excellent options. AL tables tend to be more hack and slash by their nature and with their restrictions. That might be more what you are looking for OP.
but I absolutely dispute that the vast majority play it has a hack and slash. I’d say a reasonably large majority prefer an element of roleplay. And that is NOT the crazy levels that are seen in shows, that isn’t acting, or voice acting, or theatre productions. It’s having an idea of a story for your character and linking it to the main story in some way. Does this mean this is the “right way” to play? No. It’s a valid way and a fun one to many. But there is no right way. If a style doesn’t work for someone, try other styles. Try new tables.
and you keep referencing critical role like they are a curse of something. They show a particular style of play taken to an extreme. They do it VERY well and people need to temper expectations that it is very much an exception not a rule. Nothing wrong with it, and even they say their way isn’t the correct way to play.
I really feel like you keep trying to say the roleplay way to play is wrong. You keep saying that dnd is hack and slash and has been like this way of playing Is wrong in some way. And maybe old editions were different. But as of 5e there isn’t a wrong way to play unless people are not having fun
Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.
Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions. Your character’s quirks, mannerisms, and personality influence how interactions resolve.
There are two styles you can use when roleplaying your character: the descriptive approach and the active approach. Most players use a combination of the two styles. Use whichever mix of the two works best for you.
Descriptive Approach to Roleplaying
With this approach, you describe your character’s words and actions to the DM and the other players. Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it.
For instance, Chris plays Tordek the dwarf. Tordek has a quick temper and blames the elves of the Cloakwood for his family’s misfortune. At a tavern, an obnoxious elf minstrel sits at Tordek’s table and tries to strike up a conversation with the dwarf.
Chris says, “Tordek spits on the floor, growls an insult at the bard, and stomps over to the bar. He sits on a stool and glares at the minstrel before ordering another drink.”
In this example, Chris has conveyed Tordek’s mood and given the DM a clear idea of his character’s attitude and actions.
When using descriptive roleplaying, keep the following things in mind:
Describe your character’s emotions and attitude.
Focus on your character’s intent and how others might perceive it.
Provide as much embellishment as you feel comfortable with.
Don’t worry about getting things exactly right. Just focus on thinking about what your character would do and describing what you see in your mind.
Active Approach to Roleplaying
If descriptive roleplaying tells your DM and your fellow players what your character thinks and does, active roleplaying shows them.
When you use active roleplaying, you speak with your character’s voice, like an actor taking on a role. You might even echo your character’s movements and body language. This approach is more immersive than descriptive roleplaying, though you still need to describe things that can’t be reasonably acted out.
Going back to the example of Chris roleplaying Tordek above, here’s how the scene might play out if Chris used active roleplaying:
Speaking as Tordek, Chris says in a gruff, deep voice, “I was wondering why it suddenly smelled awful in here. If I wanted to hear anything out of you, I’d snap your arm and enjoy your screams.” In his normal voice, Chris then adds, “I get up, glare at the elf, and head to the bar.”
Results of Roleplaying
The DM uses your character’s actions and attitudes to determine how an NPC reacts. A cowardly NPC buckles under threats of violence. A stubborn dwarf refuses to let anyone badger her. A vain dragon laps up flattery.
When interacting with an NPC, pay close attention to the DM’s portrayal of the NPC’s mood, dialogue, and personality. You might be able to determine an NPC’s personality traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds, then play on them to influence the NPC’s attitude.
Interactions in D&D are much like interactions in real life. If you can offer NPCs something they want, threaten them with something they fear, or play on their sympathies and goals, you can use words to get almost anything you want. On the other hand, if you insult a proud warrior or speak ill of a noble’s allies, your efforts to convince or deceive will fall short.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I gotta be honest, there's some genuinely awful advice in this thread; straight up telling the OP that D&D "may not be the game for you" despite the OP clearly saying they've been playing the game for decades is kinda insulting and insisting that that level of roleplay is "how the game is suppose to be played" is also just wrong as not everyone plays the game that way.
For the OP, I would recommend striking up a conversation with your group about your concerns for the game (preferably before or after your next game session, this isn't a subject that should be brought up during the game). Naturally you should be polite about it, but also make it clear that you don't really care for the excessive amount of roleplay that's been going on in the game. You might be able to reach some sort of compromise there, but you may also need to be prepared to look for another group that's better suited towards your particular playstyle if that's how everyone else at your current game group likes to play the game. D&D is a game and should be fun for everyone playing; if you aren't having fun with your current game, then you shouldn't be sticking around with it as that's going to negatively affect your enjoyment and possibly the table's enjoyment as well. Either way, I hope you find a game that's more enjoyable to you.
I have to disagree with you here. If someone came to the forums and said "I've been playing D&D for years and love it, I just absolutely hate talking/interacting/dealing with other people." the Forumers would rightly say, "Maybe try video games instead?"
Roleplaying is one of the pillars of the game D&D, perhaps one of the most critical. D&D is after all a TTRPG (Tabletop Role Playing Game). No one here is saying that he must do funny voices, dress up, or even act out his characters actions. The OP said he cannot put himself in his character shoes at all and that he is aggravated when other people in his group don't want to just roll from combat to combat. OP called roleplaying an "absurd waste of time", so I think it is valid to suggest a game that is not roleplay based.
D&D can be whatever the GM and players want it to be. It can be dungeon crawls, horror stories, murder hobo sessions, zero-combat campaigns, arena fights, ribald romances, and anything else in between. I do not think people need to reinvent the wheel nor use a different game system when D&D's engine is flexible to do just about anything. It is easy to learn and simple to modify too if you really want to port over mechanics from other systems.
In my opinion, roleplay is not even remotely close to being the critical pillar of D&D. Some people come for the story and character development, but not all do. Some come for the mechanics, and some just come because they want to spend time with their friends. What is fun varies from individual to individual, but the reason why people come back to D&D is because they find something fun within D&D. The OP just needs to find a group that matches his tastes and preferences.
I find that the modern D&D community actually hates everything about that very specific type of game and insists that not only does it not matter and no one ever played or plays the game that way but that if you like D&D as it actually is, a game about dungeon crawling and fighting monsters than you should go find another hobby.
I've played with enough people introduced to D&D in 5E to know that this is simply not true, and pretending it is won't so anyone any good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's ok for different people to play D&D in different ways. Just because someone prefers a differing amount of roleplay in their D&D game, that doesn't make it right or wrong - it's just a preference.
Please don't throw around generalisms or accusations - that's how arguments happen. 😊
I find that the modern D&D community actually hates everything about that very specific type of game and insists that not only does it not matter and no one ever played or plays the game that way but that if you like D&D as it actually is, a game about dungeon crawling and fighting monsters than you should go find another hobby.
I've played with enough people introduced to D&D in 5E to know that this is simply not true, and pretending it is won't so anyone any good.
Again these introductions do not take place within the construct of the D&D game (as a game), they come in the form of an introduction by modern D&D culture players as a modern D&D culture, as a concept of how they translate the game. If you picked up the 5e read and the book and based on its instructions played the game you are going to play a different game than how modern players describe it and how they would introduce you to the game. The vast majority of modern D&D players ignore the vast majority of the books and its very clear from the discussions on this forum.
I'll again refer you to the explanation about roleplaying I quoted from the actual PHB. That aside, what exactly are these modern D&D players ignoring from the books? I'm pretty sure it's not any of the mechanics, which is over 90% of the PHB, or the monsters, which are the entirety of the MM, and for all its faults the DMG isn't typically ignored by new DMs either.
Again I'm not trying to illustrate about how people are doing it "wrong", though I know some will take it that way, it's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that D&D is a very specific game with a very specific playstyle and a specific design, it's not some arbitrary concept up for interpretation.
If you're not trying to illustrate how people are doing it wrong, what exactly are you trying to illustrate when you say D&D is a very specific game with a very specific playstyle, implying that modern players don't adhere to that playstyle? I don't agree with the very specific game premisse to begin with, but you seem to be saying something while trying not to actually say it.
The OP's problem isn't with the game, it's with the games community and modern D&D culture.
Since there are, as you say yourself, plenty of groups playing a more old-fashioned style of D&D, how can this be true? Clearly they must be part of the community too?
The advice given has been fine. There's nothing wrong with suggesting trying something other than D&D when there are games out there that seem to offer exactly what the OP wants without including what they don't want - nobody said D&D isn't the right thing for the OP, only that there are other things out there are may also be the right thing and that might be more likely to have players with similar preferences. There's also nothing wrong with suggesting they try to find another D&D group that has a playstyle that's more to their liking. They certainly exist. In fact, I'd say most AL campaigns focus sufficiently on 'getting on with it' that they'll make an excellent fit for the OP, and there are products being sold that cater to such a playstyle: DCC is the obvious example. And there's nothing wrong with suggesting having a talk with the rest of the group to try and find a middle ground, while acknowledging that the rest of the group is just as entitled to their fun as the OP is; sometimes that middle ground just isn't going to exist. In that case, the first two suggestions can offer a solution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To the OP, I believe you are in the wrong group. We don't agree on some aspects of playing and enjoying D&D, but I would not enjoy playing in the group you describe. I also favor milestone or some other advancement system that advances the party together. Anything else seems like it would pit the players against one another to attempt to get the XP that will be distributed. And the idea that a DM would exclusively award XP for roleplay just doesn't work for me.
DMs can do what they think best, but that table wouldn't work for me. I'm sure there is a table out there for you.
I like both RPing and actual rolling of the dice/swinging of the swords... And as a DM, I give XP for both things. Lesser amounts for RPing though and on rarer occasions. I give XP to the party as a whole so there is no competition for who got what. It is a group of 3 characters, so they all pretty much get involved in everything.
Funny this thread got necro'd (by the last poster on the older thread) shortly after this dropped. Actually thought of this and many threads when I watched it:
The gist: your D&D is fine. Everybody's D&D is fine.
Am I doing something wrong, or is it I just got unlucky with other players? And how should I deal with those excessive Roleplayers?
I mean, the clue is kinda in the name. RPG doesn’t stand for rocket propelled grenade in this particular situation.
Clearly you never read my previous post, and are likely too young to remember the game's past. D and D, at its inception, was a new genre of games called "Roleplaying games" - but it was labeled as such not because of some imagined theatrical performance or story-heavy playstyle, but because you took on the ROLE of a single combatant in miniatures COMBAT rather than commanding an entire army of miniatures. The original books were labelled thusly: "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns using pen and pencil and miniature figures." Do you see anything in the game's original label even remotely suggestive of "roleplaying" in the way the term is now used?
Having said that, the "RPG" genre eventually grew and expanded into more actual "roleplaying" (in the sense of how we use the word now) type games. Theatrical-prone players also flocked to D and D, transforming it from a strict miniatures wargame into a hybrid game.
So yes, D and D is, and always has been an "RPG" - but the word itself has changed over time. So the "clues" you discern from the game's genre label are not suggestive of what you think they are.
The difficulty is language and games evolve over time. Role playing games then mean very different things now. Honestly that previous style was almost an entirely separate thing sharing the same name.
Honestly, d&d is different stuff to different people. If you want super heavy roleplay awesome. If you want hardcore strategic combat focus, awesome. I am personally a fan of both but they are different. And neither is right or wrong. If someone’s style or preference doesn’t match the group that’s fine. This is the sorta stuff a session zero sorts. If it doesn’t work for you find a game with a style more like what the individual wants.
and sure, I get respecting history to an extent. But lots of stuff in history needed to be changed for a reason
There is no reason for this thread to keep existing. The original poster's issue has long since been resolved, one way or another, and a number of the people involved in the previous big fight in November no longer post on the forum. Let it go. Let it die. Start a new thread if people want to have a big fight over The History of D&D and how terrible new players are again.
Am I doing something wrong, or is it I just got unlucky with other players? And how should I deal with those excessive Roleplayers?
I mean, the clue is kinda in the name. RPG doesn’t stand for rocket propelled grenade in this particular situation.
Clearly you never read my previous post, and are likely too young to remember the game's past. D and D, at its inception, was a new genre of games called "Roleplaying games" - but it was labeled as such not because of some imagined theatrical performance or story-heavy playstyle, but because you took on the ROLE of a single combatant in miniatures COMBAT rather than commanding an entire army of miniatures. The original books were labelled thusly: "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns using pen and pencil and miniature figures." Do you see anything in the game's original label even remotely suggestive of "roleplaying" in the way the term is now used?
Having said that, the "RPG" genre eventually grew and expanded into more actual "roleplaying" (in the sense of how we use the word now) type games. Theatrical-prone players also flocked to D and D, transforming it from a strict miniatures wargame into a hybrid game.
So yes, D and D is, and always has been an "RPG" - but the word itself has changed over time. So the "clues" you discern from the game's genre label are not suggestive of what you think they are.
I have been playing since the early 80’s. I was born well before then, and I very much doubt you are more than a couple of years older than I am. I have played 1st edition, red box, gold box, and every edition since with the exclusion of the travesty that was 4th. Gygax et al created d&d using wargaming as the basis for some rules and not as the be all and end all of the game. I don’t need a history lesson from you, I lived it. The game has evolved as the human race has evolved, along with the technology we used to play it. The theatrics of CR (which I detest with a passion) is clearly not what was foreseen by the game’s creators. Hell the very phrase TTRPG didn’t even exist back then. But even since it’s very inception roleplaying and storytelling was clearly meant to be a part of it. Have you forgotten (in your rush to impress me with how you are the last remaining original player that plays the game properly) that Gygax created it as a children's game? A game played with his grandchildren as a method of telling interactive stories?
There is no reason for this thread to keep existing. The original poster's issue has long since been resolved, one way or another, and a number of the people involved in the previous big fight in November no longer post on the forum. Let it go. Let it die. Start a new thread if people want to have a big fight over The History of D&D and how terrible new players are again.
There is no reason for this thread to keep existing. The original poster's issue has long since been resolved, one way or another, and a number of the people involved in the previous big fight in November no longer post on the forum. Let it go. Let it die. Start a new thread if people want to have a big fight over The History of D&D and how terrible new players are again.
Thank you Yurei, I agree, let it die.
While I definitely respect both your sentiments on this, and my similar sentiments are actually why I posted the Colville video (which pretty much boils down to saying these sorts of fights are silly) when this thread got necroed (by the thread's prior last poster....), I at the same time think the philosophy behind keeping threads opens makes sense.
Rather than having someone open up yet another "playstyle wars" threads (that's all these threads are, conflicts over how different people play the game differently, not saying it's a righteous conflict, because it ain't, but it is what it is) pop up periodically (and really, wasn't this thread opened up within a few hours of similar conflagration getting shut down?), just keep this one open as a repository for future well picked cherry pie inaccurate treatises on TTRPG history, or arguments against styles of play the poster finds irritating, etc.
I mean, that repository role is the most likely use value of this thread. There's also the hopeful potential that keeping it open will allow a would be playstyle warrior to see the thread, realize their perspective is a reiteration of what's already been said, and maybe, upon reflection, leave it at that. But realistically, the thread's utility is in being the default repository for the combative sentiments.
Am I doing something wrong, or is it I just got unlucky with other players? And how should I deal with those excessive Roleplayers?
I mean, the clue is kinda in the name. RPG doesn’t stand for rocket propelled grenade in this particular situation.
Clearly you never read my previous post, and are likely too young to remember the game's past. D and D, at its inception, was a new genre of games called "Roleplaying games" - but it was labeled as such not because of some imagined theatrical performance or story-heavy playstyle, but because you took on the ROLE of a single combatant in miniatures COMBAT rather than commanding an entire army of miniatures. The original books were labelled thusly: "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns using pen and pencil and miniature figures." Do you see anything in the game's original label even remotely suggestive of "roleplaying" in the way the term is now used?
Having said that, the "RPG" genre eventually grew and expanded into more actual "roleplaying" (in the sense of how we use the word now) type games. Theatrical-prone players also flocked to D and D, transforming it from a strict miniatures wargame into a hybrid game.
So yes, D and D is, and always has been an "RPG" - but the word itself has changed over time. So the "clues" you discern from the game's genre label are not suggestive of what you think they are.
The difficulty is language and games evolve over time. Role playing games then mean very different things now. Honestly that previous style was almost an entirely separate thing sharing the same name.
Honestly, d&d is different stuff to different people. If you want super heavy roleplay awesome. If you want hardcore strategic combat focus, awesome. I am personally a fan of both but they are different. And neither is right or wrong. If someone’s style or preference doesn’t match the group that’s fine. This is the sorta stuff a session zero sorts. If it doesn’t work for you find a game with a style more like what the individual wants.
and sure, I get respecting history to an extent. But lots of stuff in history needed to be changed for a reason
And conversely, history needs to be preserved for reasons you may not agree with, but which may be apparent to past and future generations. Consider this - if you disrespect those who came before you, should you expect any better treatment of your values, history, and legacy from your children and grandchildren?
Honestly tthat’s down to whether my legacy is worth respect or not. I want them to look at what I did and decide for themselves if I was a good person. And if they ended up deciding, as many young people do, that I had flaws and was lacking in some areas I would want them to learn from that. And if I am found to be a horrible person, then may I be swiftly forgotten. That isn’t disrespecting. That’s learning. And that’s what I propose here. Sure. This game was something different then, or it’s parent was. This version is something else with aspects of the original. And the next will be different.
I am absolutely here for taking inspiration for and learning from the past. But I am also here for the game evolving past it and not being shackled to it. That isn’t disrespect. That’s room to grow.
and sometimes certain history is best to leave behind once the learning is done
I am sure there are great things back there. And bad things. And I like that the game can be played in ways that suit both audiences that enjoy RP and tactical combat in its current format. Both are valid styles. We will see where it goes
That said however I think a lot of arguments could be made for the concept of simplicity. While not universal, I think the overwhelming majority of the community agrees that the game should be simple and streamlined to make the game approachable, easy to absorb and allow players to play the game rather than struggle with rules.
I'd half agree with you. I think the base game should be relatively simple. Learning 5e by jumping in the deep end was challenging enough, and the simpler that process can be, the better. On the other hand, now that I have a grasp of the mechanics in general, I'd appreciate more depth. More mechanics and complexity to more easily adjudicate how things happen with nuance. I'd be perfectly happy with a base game with the simpler set of rules, with an expansion that caters for my current level of understanding. They kind of did that, but I found that they actually put some of the important stuff that should have been in the PHB in the expansions instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don’t think that any of us have a large enough sample group to declare what is or is not rare.
Gonna go ahead and disagree here. At least for 5e. Older editions sure I can’t comment on but 5e the focus is on a balance between story and combat. Saying the undisputed majority play it as a hack and slash is a pretty baseless claim for 5e. It’s expressed multiple times that story is important in the various rule books. And no one is saying be an actor or a voice actor or any of that. Anyone who imposes those requirements is going to be disappointed.
do some people enjoy hack and slash, less story? Absolutely. Nothing wrong with it and there are tables that run with that style. It’s perfectly valid and if that’s a preferred style you will find a place for it, whether in dnd or another game, both have excellent options. AL tables tend to be more hack and slash by their nature and with their restrictions. That might be more what you are looking for OP.
but I absolutely dispute that the vast majority play it has a hack and slash. I’d say a reasonably large majority prefer an element of roleplay. And that is NOT the crazy levels that are seen in shows, that isn’t acting, or voice acting, or theatre productions. It’s having an idea of a story for your character and linking it to the main story in some way. Does this mean this is the “right way” to play? No. It’s a valid way and a fun one to many. But there is no right way. If a style doesn’t work for someone, try other styles. Try new tables.
and you keep referencing critical role like they are a curse of something. They show a particular style of play taken to an extreme. They do it VERY well and people need to temper expectations that it is very much an exception not a rule. Nothing wrong with it, and even they say their way isn’t the correct way to play.
I really feel like you keep trying to say the roleplay way to play is wrong. You keep saying that dnd is hack and slash and has been like this way of playing Is wrong in some way. And maybe old editions were different. But as of 5e there isn’t a wrong way to play unless people are not having fun
From the PHB:
Roleplaying
Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.
Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions. Your character’s quirks, mannerisms, and personality influence how interactions resolve.
There are two styles you can use when roleplaying your character: the descriptive approach and the active approach. Most players use a combination of the two styles. Use whichever mix of the two works best for you.
Descriptive Approach to Roleplaying
With this approach, you describe your character’s words and actions to the DM and the other players. Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it.
For instance, Chris plays Tordek the dwarf. Tordek has a quick temper and blames the elves of the Cloakwood for his family’s misfortune. At a tavern, an obnoxious elf minstrel sits at Tordek’s table and tries to strike up a conversation with the dwarf.
Chris says, “Tordek spits on the floor, growls an insult at the bard, and stomps over to the bar. He sits on a stool and glares at the minstrel before ordering another drink.”
In this example, Chris has conveyed Tordek’s mood and given the DM a clear idea of his character’s attitude and actions.
When using descriptive roleplaying, keep the following things in mind:
Don’t worry about getting things exactly right. Just focus on thinking about what your character would do and describing what you see in your mind.
Active Approach to Roleplaying
If descriptive roleplaying tells your DM and your fellow players what your character thinks and does, active roleplaying shows them.
When you use active roleplaying, you speak with your character’s voice, like an actor taking on a role. You might even echo your character’s movements and body language. This approach is more immersive than descriptive roleplaying, though you still need to describe things that can’t be reasonably acted out.
Going back to the example of Chris roleplaying Tordek above, here’s how the scene might play out if Chris used active roleplaying:
Speaking as Tordek, Chris says in a gruff, deep voice, “I was wondering why it suddenly smelled awful in here. If I wanted to hear anything out of you, I’d snap your arm and enjoy your screams.” In his normal voice, Chris then adds, “I get up, glare at the elf, and head to the bar.”
Results of Roleplaying
The DM uses your character’s actions and attitudes to determine how an NPC reacts. A cowardly NPC buckles under threats of violence. A stubborn dwarf refuses to let anyone badger her. A vain dragon laps up flattery.
When interacting with an NPC, pay close attention to the DM’s portrayal of the NPC’s mood, dialogue, and personality. You might be able to determine an NPC’s personality traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds, then play on them to influence the NPC’s attitude.
Interactions in D&D are much like interactions in real life. If you can offer NPCs something they want, threaten them with something they fear, or play on their sympathies and goals, you can use words to get almost anything you want. On the other hand, if you insult a proud warrior or speak ill of a noble’s allies, your efforts to convince or deceive will fall short.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If a conversation on the history, progression, and styles of D&D play is desired, please initiate a new thread.
This thread is to focus on the topic/question posed by the OP only.
I gotta be honest, there's some genuinely awful advice in this thread; straight up telling the OP that D&D "may not be the game for you" despite the OP clearly saying they've been playing the game for decades is kinda insulting and insisting that that level of roleplay is "how the game is suppose to be played" is also just wrong as not everyone plays the game that way.
For the OP, I would recommend striking up a conversation with your group about your concerns for the game (preferably before or after your next game session, this isn't a subject that should be brought up during the game). Naturally you should be polite about it, but also make it clear that you don't really care for the excessive amount of roleplay that's been going on in the game. You might be able to reach some sort of compromise there, but you may also need to be prepared to look for another group that's better suited towards your particular playstyle if that's how everyone else at your current game group likes to play the game. D&D is a game and should be fun for everyone playing; if you aren't having fun with your current game, then you shouldn't be sticking around with it as that's going to negatively affect your enjoyment and possibly the table's enjoyment as well. Either way, I hope you find a game that's more enjoyable to you.
D&D can be whatever the GM and players want it to be. It can be dungeon crawls, horror stories, murder hobo sessions, zero-combat campaigns, arena fights, ribald romances, and anything else in between. I do not think people need to reinvent the wheel nor use a different game system when D&D's engine is flexible to do just about anything. It is easy to learn and simple to modify too if you really want to port over mechanics from other systems.
In my opinion, roleplay is not even remotely close to being the critical pillar of D&D. Some people come for the story and character development, but not all do. Some come for the mechanics, and some just come because they want to spend time with their friends. What is fun varies from individual to individual, but the reason why people come back to D&D is because they find something fun within D&D. The OP just needs to find a group that matches his tastes and preferences.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I've played with enough people introduced to D&D in 5E to know that this is simply not true, and pretending it is won't so anyone any good.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHey folks,
another quick reminder!
It's ok for different people to play D&D in different ways. Just because someone prefers a differing amount of roleplay in their D&D game, that doesn't make it right or wrong - it's just a preference.
Please don't throw around generalisms or accusations - that's how arguments happen. 😊
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I'll again refer you to the explanation about roleplaying I quoted from the actual PHB. That aside, what exactly are these modern D&D players ignoring from the books? I'm pretty sure it's not any of the mechanics, which is over 90% of the PHB, or the monsters, which are the entirety of the MM, and for all its faults the DMG isn't typically ignored by new DMs either.
If you're not trying to illustrate how people are doing it wrong, what exactly are you trying to illustrate when you say D&D is a very specific game with a very specific playstyle, implying that modern players don't adhere to that playstyle? I don't agree with the very specific game premisse to begin with, but you seem to be saying something while trying not to actually say it.
Since there are, as you say yourself, plenty of groups playing a more old-fashioned style of D&D, how can this be true? Clearly they must be part of the community too?
The advice given has been fine. There's nothing wrong with suggesting trying something other than D&D when there are games out there that seem to offer exactly what the OP wants without including what they don't want - nobody said D&D isn't the right thing for the OP, only that there are other things out there are may also be the right thing and that might be more likely to have players with similar preferences. There's also nothing wrong with suggesting they try to find another D&D group that has a playstyle that's more to their liking. They certainly exist. In fact, I'd say most AL campaigns focus sufficiently on 'getting on with it' that they'll make an excellent fit for the OP, and there are products being sold that cater to such a playstyle: DCC is the obvious example. And there's nothing wrong with suggesting having a talk with the rest of the group to try and find a middle ground, while acknowledging that the rest of the group is just as entitled to their fun as the OP is; sometimes that middle ground just isn't going to exist. In that case, the first two suggestions can offer a solution.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Thank you Pangurjan, for asking all the questions I was going to ask of BigLizard.
BigLizard, can you clarify what you are trying to say?
I like both RPing and actual rolling of the dice/swinging of the swords... And as a DM, I give XP for both things. Lesser amounts for RPing though and on rarer occasions. I give XP to the party as a whole so there is no competition for who got what. It is a group of 3 characters, so they all pretty much get involved in everything.
Funny this thread got necro'd (by the last poster on the older thread) shortly after this dropped. Actually thought of this and many threads when I watched it:
The gist: your D&D is fine. Everybody's D&D is fine.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I mean, the clue is kinda in the name. RPG doesn’t stand for rocket propelled grenade in this particular situation.
The difficulty is language and games evolve over time. Role playing games then mean very different things now. Honestly that previous style was almost an entirely separate thing sharing the same name.
Honestly, d&d is different stuff to different people. If you want super heavy roleplay awesome. If you want hardcore strategic combat focus, awesome. I am personally a fan of both but they are different. And neither is right or wrong. If someone’s style or preference doesn’t match the group that’s fine. This is the sorta stuff a session zero sorts. If it doesn’t work for you find a game with a style more like what the individual wants.
and sure, I get respecting history to an extent. But lots of stuff in history needed to be changed for a reason
There is no reason for this thread to keep existing. The original poster's issue has long since been resolved, one way or another, and a number of the people involved in the previous big fight in November no longer post on the forum. Let it go. Let it die. Start a new thread if people want to have a big fight over The History of D&D and how terrible new players are again.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have been playing since the early 80’s. I was born well before then, and I very much doubt you are more than a couple of years older than I am. I have played 1st edition, red box, gold box, and every edition since with the exclusion of the travesty that was 4th. Gygax et al created d&d using wargaming as the basis for some rules and not as the be all and end all of the game. I don’t need a history lesson from you, I lived it. The game has evolved as the human race has evolved, along with the technology we used to play it. The theatrics of CR (which I detest with a passion) is clearly not what was foreseen by the game’s creators. Hell the very phrase TTRPG didn’t even exist back then. But even since it’s very inception roleplaying and storytelling was clearly meant to be a part of it. Have you forgotten (in your rush to impress me with how you are the last remaining original player that plays the game properly) that Gygax created it as a children's game? A game played with his grandchildren as a method of telling interactive stories?
Thank you Yurei, I agree, let it die.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While I definitely respect both your sentiments on this, and my similar sentiments are actually why I posted the Colville video (which pretty much boils down to saying these sorts of fights are silly) when this thread got necroed (by the thread's prior last poster....), I at the same time think the philosophy behind keeping threads opens makes sense.
Rather than having someone open up yet another "playstyle wars" threads (that's all these threads are, conflicts over how different people play the game differently, not saying it's a righteous conflict, because it ain't, but it is what it is) pop up periodically (and really, wasn't this thread opened up within a few hours of similar conflagration getting shut down?), just keep this one open as a repository for future well picked cherry pie inaccurate treatises on TTRPG history, or arguments against styles of play the poster finds irritating, etc.
I mean, that repository role is the most likely use value of this thread. There's also the hopeful potential that keeping it open will allow a would be playstyle warrior to see the thread, realize their perspective is a reiteration of what's already been said, and maybe, upon reflection, leave it at that. But realistically, the thread's utility is in being the default repository for the combative sentiments.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Honestly tthat’s down to whether my legacy is worth respect or not. I want them to look at what I did and decide for themselves if I was a good person. And if they ended up deciding, as many young people do, that I had flaws and was lacking in some areas I would want them to learn from that. And if I am found to be a horrible person, then may I be swiftly forgotten. That isn’t disrespecting. That’s learning. And that’s what I propose here. Sure. This game was something different then, or it’s parent was. This version is something else with aspects of the original. And the next will be different.
I am absolutely here for taking inspiration for and learning from the past. But I am also here for the game evolving past it and not being shackled to it. That isn’t disrespect. That’s room to grow.
and sometimes certain history is best to leave behind once the learning is done
I am sure there are great things back there. And bad things. And I like that the game can be played in ways that suit both audiences that enjoy RP and tactical combat in its current format. Both are valid styles. We will see where it goes
I'd half agree with you. I think the base game should be relatively simple. Learning 5e by jumping in the deep end was challenging enough, and the simpler that process can be, the better. On the other hand, now that I have a grasp of the mechanics in general, I'd appreciate more depth. More mechanics and complexity to more easily adjudicate how things happen with nuance. I'd be perfectly happy with a base game with the simpler set of rules, with an expansion that caters for my current level of understanding. They kind of did that, but I found that they actually put some of the important stuff that should have been in the PHB in the expansions instead.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.