Roll-playing vs. Role-playing

[Dristram]

When 3e first came out and I saw the skill system, I thought it was great. Now there was a surefire method for those players who lacked the mental abilities of their characters, to be able to through rolling. The most common was roleplaying through a diplomatic situation. That poor introverted gamer who was playing an 18 charisma paladin couldn't hope to roleplay that level of charisma properly. I could use a roll when it was needed. The anti-3e crowd in the beginning cried out how role-playing was turning to roll-playing with 3e. I was sure it wouldn't. But alas I was wrong. I've noticed a distinct lack of player creativity in diplomatic and other similar situations now. So quickly are skill rolls called for that any actual roleplaying doesn't have a chance. I have managed to keep it in the D&D games I ran, it's the ones I play in where I see this problem. I want to roleplay and the other players have no time for it. But I actually stand out among my current circle of gamers because I create characters that are fun because I roleplay which on occasion makes them roleplay more.

Well, it was a bit of a culture shock for my current batch of 3e players in my C&C game when the roleplaying situations came up and they stumbled to find out what on their character sheet they needed to look at in order to make a roll. I just looked at them and kept talking in character and they looked almost like deer caught in headlights! Ah, it was so refreshing. The end result is that most of the characters in my C&C game have more depth than any character those players have made for any 3e game. And it's been such a blast!

What C&C has over AD&D is the SIEGE system and it's with that I can arbitrate rolls as necessary without players relying upon a bulky skill system.

Thanks Trolls!

[Tadhg]

Dristram wrote:
When 3e first came out and I saw the skill system, I thought it was great. Now there was a surefire method for those players who lacked the mental abilities of their characters, to be able to through rolling. The most common was roleplaying through a diplomatic situation. That poor introverted gamer who was playing an 18 charisma paladin couldn't hope to roleplay that level of charisma properly. I could use a roll when it was needed. The anti-3e crowd in the beginning cried out how role-playing was turning to roll-playing with 3e. I was sure it wouldn't. But alas I was wrong. I've noticed a distinct lack of player creativity in diplomatic and other similar situations now. So quickly are skill rolls called for that any actual roleplaying doesn't have a chance. I have managed to keep it in the D&D games I ran, it's the ones I play in where I see this problem. I want to roleplay and the other players have no time for it. But I actually stand out among my current circle of gamers because I create characters that are fun which on occasion makes them roleplay more.

Well, it was a bit of a culture shock for my current batch of 3e players in my C&C game when the roleplaying situations came up and they stumbled to find out what on their character sheet they needed to look at in order to make a roll. I just looked at them and kept talking in character and they looked almost like deer caught in headlights! Ah, it was so refreshing. The end result is that most of the characters in my C&C game have more depth than any character those players have made for any 3e game. And it's been such a blast!

What C&C has over AD&D is the SIEGE system and it's with that I can arbitrate rolls as necessary without playing relying upon a bulky skill system.

Thanks Trolls!

Great post.

It got me thinking . . . what is the best thing about Castles & Crusades?

Chargen? Really fast and great

Roleplaying? Yep, the simplicity of the rules allows for excellent RP'ing

Rules? Easy to read, roll and then roleplay

Customization/house rules? Yes.

All are great, but really it's the SEIGE engine, IMO, that is the single best thing about C&C. Yeah, it's a d'uh for most of us, but sometimes some people don't get how powerful this tool can be for situational resolutions. And thus the excellence of role-playing comes to the forefront of the game, rather than everyone reaching for the rulebook to figure out what to do (not saying that you guys do this Distram, just my observations from many other posts about 3E and some of the problems that arise).
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[RPGmonk]

I've always loved and ecouraged the "acting" part of the game. Its just so much fun for everyone in my gaming circle. Being a DM more than a gamer now, it does seem difficult to come up with different persona for each NPC. This also humbles me in my expectations for my players.

I did have to "discuss" role-playing with a cousin once, because in the last few campaigns his dwarf fighter, barbarian, and cleric all sounded the same as the NPC's in his game he was running.
But it seems that the older we get, the more we enjoy the aspect of "role-playing"

Peace,

[Omote]

Rhuvein wrote:
...what is the best thing about Castles & Crusades?

Chargen? Really fast and great

Roleplaying? Yep, the simplicity of the rules allows for excellent RP'ing

Rules? Easy to read, roll and then roleplay

Customization/house rules?

All of the above!!!

Plus, some players just don't have the "acting abilities" to role-play a character with an 18 CHA. However, I will never, EVER discourage a player from playing the character they want to. This type of situation is handled effectively by good CKs. When an introverted player roleplays a charismatic general, then the CK could call for a few dice rolls to bring the situation out of the player, even though that player can't perform like the character. The CK can describe the effects of the dice-rolls, and word them in a way so that the palyer feel like he contributed to the effect. A good CK can learn to use this method, not as a crutch, but to slowly teach the player how to "act" the part. Some times this method is slow, and even some times it doesn't work. But it's important not to teach the method of dice becoming a crutch. Teach so that the player can learn.

.........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[rabindranath72]

Great post, Dristram!

I too was thinking about this topic when I started preparations for my one-on-one campaign. The system surely has an impact on how one "perceives" a game. When you play Monopoly, you do not assume that you are a real person in-game. It is just too abstract.

On the opposite pole, there are games like 3.x which try to detail too much, and the rules take precedence over the roles; I think it is just natural, the mind cannot hope to run behind different level of abstractions at the same time.

Rhuvein mentioned the SIEGE system, and indeed, it is a nice "mechanic" to make things not too abstract, nor too detailed. But I also found, re-reading the AD&D DMG and PHB, and playing yesterday with my girlfriend, that under the "veil" of clunkiness of the system, lies a deep zone which invites the players to take the reins of the game, and "imagine" how to resolve things by creative use of the (few) rules. Thinking about it, AD&D at the core works by "fragmenting" action outcomes, by this I mean, e.g., use d100 when you want a fine resolution, use a d6 when you are not interested in detail, use a d20 for "in-between" situations. Sure, it is not as immediate as SIEGE, but it surely is not difficult, and in some cases can be easier, since you are not explicitly dealing with thresholds, difficulty classes etc. Just pick, by intuition, the resolution method you deem correct.

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my girlfriend immediately grasped these fundamental concepts, and she tried to "improvise" the resolution while playing; for example, her character wanted to "Hide". I told her that this is mainly a thieving skill, handled with d100. So, her suggestion was: "ok, can I use a d100 with a penalty?"

Simply wonderful
Cheers,

Antonio

EDIT: PS:

I forgot to tell: Gary Gygax is a genius

[anglefish]

Dristram wrote:
Well, it was a bit of a culture shock for my current batch of 3e players in my C&C game when the roleplaying situations came up and they stumbled to find out what on their character sheet they needed to look at in order to make a roll. I just looked at them and kept talking in character and they looked almost like deer caught in headlights! Ah, it was so refreshing. The end result is that most of the characters in my C&C game have more depth than any character those players have made for any 3e game. And it's been such a blast!

What C&C has over AD&D is the SIEGE system and it's with that I can arbitrate rolls as necessary without playing relying upon a bulky skill system.

Thanks Trolls!

What Mirror Universe did spend my early gaming years in?

Where we were, the DnD crowd wasn't known for role-playing. You pretty much had to find a non-DnD game if you wanted character and acting over killing as players described their PCs in terms of magic items and spells as compared to feats and PrCs today.

I also had a LOT more issues with older editions of DnD beyond a lack of a skill system:

*I thought multiclassing and dualclassing were backwards. How can an elf or dwarf who lives hundreds of years cap out at a class? While the "flexible" humans handle only once class at a time. If you made demi-humans dual class and humans multi, level caps would happen naturally.

* Back to my local gaming groups ... No one played humans cause you got so much more as a demi-human/mutliclass combo. I played in one game that was a tad bizzare. We were all multiclassed elves (and one phanton) who were constantly saving human villages. Why? All the adventures are written from a human centric view.

* (Now this is old age creeping in). Back in the day, it bugged me that GM NPCs could create floating castles and wonderous devices and yet my PC magi had no time to do more than scribble off scrolls and spellbook pages. If I was the highest level wizard in the land, I wanted to do as much if not more. ... Now as an old GM, my attitude on that's changed.
* Charts, charts and more charts. The whole single d20 mechanic for savings throws and BtH are a welcome additon. Now only if damage could be collapsed into d6+mods or d20+mods.

*Back then, the level mechanic stuck in my craw. Not so much now. But it's funny to watch "edition wars" threads where old timers use the old chestnut "Why aren't there entire armies of 20th lvl soldiers after a big war?" The same sort of fellows who could defend against that exact same question before 3.0 came up.

But perhaps as a testament to DnD, my biggest cripe was that for every 1 RPG of something else to be played, there were like 5 DnD games going on. If you were sick of DnD or fantasy and needed a change, you had a very small pool of fellow players to chose from. And God forbid you suggest playing something else to a DnD guy. He'd act like you personally insulted him.

So from my viewpoint at that time, for a hobby that espoused creativity and storytelling, all I saw was a TON of players stuck in a rut and playing hack n'slash -- all in the name of DnD. Didn't exactly give me the best impression of the game.

[Dristram]

anglefish wrote:
So from my viewpoint at that time, for a hobby that espoused creativity and storytelling, all I saw was a TON of players stuck in a rut and playing hack n'slash -- all in the name of DnD. Didn't exactly give me the best impression of the game.

I guess from my viewpoint, I quickly became the DM of my group and took Gary's words to heart about how to play D&D, which included role-playing more than worrying about the mechanics of the game. So my games, though had lots of hack and slash in the early days, evolved into indepth role-playing games as I matured into the game. And I only played with my own groups of players so I didn't initially have exposure to many other DM's styles. But the few I did seemed to roleplay as much as I did.

As a side note, I played 1e well into the 2e days. I didn't convert over until the black books came out and only did so because everyone I knew was playing 2e. I noticed a trend to a lower focus on roleplaying was happening in the 2e games. But not in the games I DMed. So there were probably plenty of 2e DMs still roleplaying plenty in their games. But with the addition of all the soft cover 2e splat books, things were getting very "powergamer" orientated. I thought 3e found a way to balance those powers. Which, if only using the core books could work, but again those damned splat books caused problems.

Anyway, I guess the purpose of this posting is that how much roleplaying is in D&D is more a part of the DM, than the game. If you experienced mostly hack and slash where D&D was concerned, then it was just an unfortunate state of affairs because there were plenty of games with a fine mix of roleplaying and combat action going on, which you just didn't run into.

[Dristram]

rabindranath72 wrote:
Great post, Dristram!

Heh, thanks.

Quote:
But I also found, re-reading the AD&D DMG and PHB, and playing yesterday with my girlfriend, that under the "veil" of clunkiness of the system, lies a deep zone which invites the players to take the reins of the game, and "imagine" how to resolve things by creative use of the (few) rules.

I too have reread much of my AD&D DMG and PHB and have been awe-struck at the wise words from Gary. I was amazed that he addresses problems in the game that happen today, but he wrote about it in the '70s! His advice to players and DMs written so long ago fit today as much as it did back then. I highly encourage any CK that has the old books to crack them open and read them again. It's been enlightening.

Quote:
EDIT: PS:

I forgot to tell: Gary Gygax is a genius

Ditto!

[angelius]

I gauge the success of my game with the least amount of dice i have to roll. Mostly cause i hate finding loose dice after.. j/k
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[old school gamer]

But perhaps as a testament to DnD, my biggest cripe was that for every 1 RPG of something else to be played, there were like 5 DnD games going on. If you were sick of DnD or fantasy and needed a change, you had a very small pool of fellow players to chose from. And God forbid you suggest playing something else to a DnD guy. He'd act like you personally insulted him.

You are so preaching to the chior with me. Although I don't hate D&D I used to have the hardest trying to get anyone to play Hero/Champions with me. They had this whole "D&D is the only thing worth playing", mentality.

Oh and in case anyone is concerned I do really like C&C but have been a Hero System player for many years.

[Nifelhein]

I am not old school, I am 26 years old and started gaming with AD&D 2nd edition, 14 years ago, I never was much of a rollplayer, but I have friends who say D&D is not for those who want roleplaying, happily I disagree, unfortunately 3.X made this even worse.

The single aspect of D&D style games I hate is how good and evil are all too clear and without mixing, to the degree that elves are known for being good and those whoa re evil need a different skin colour, hair colour and all, making D&D a game where you can decide to kill on sight: if it is not humanoid, chances are it is going to be killed, if it is a dark elf, kill, if it is an orc, kill, and so on.

While I loved this simplicity I am now seeking more believable societies, there is no pure cultural evil, as there is no pure cultural good for me or my games.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Treebore]

I agree a society as a whole can be evil, but I do disagree with races being evil, to every last one of them. Even with societies, I agree that not every last one of them is evil, it just means their governmental rule is evil.

So to assume every last Orc, drow, duergar, etc... is evil would be wrong in my games.

Plus, take Frost Giants for example, to outsiders they are Chaotic Evil. To each other I have them be generally Chaotic Good.

So much of the evil in my world is situational and a matter of perspective.

There are few races who are purely evil.

Extreme examples of purely evil in my campaigns are Beholders and Mind Flayers. This is because they look at us as food. To each other they are more Lawful Neutral with some instances of good.

Your pretty safe to assume undead are evil, even though every once in a while you may run into a vampire who hasn't fallen under the full sway of their "curse" yet.

So I agree "evil" is mostly just a matter of perspective. Nor is it a given that every member of a society/race/group is evil.

[Nifelhein]

Treebore,

I do not use alignments because I take the whole evil and good scheme with a pov touch, but it is not only that, as I said the whole color, way of dressing and all for races is also a thing that bothers me, an evil elf has to be visually distinct of a good elf, else you would loose the see, classify kill sequence D&D is a lot into.

This is very very clear in drow and elves, as well as dwarves and duergar, this is why i rarely use the MM names for monsters, people recognize the creature, classify them, kill, without a doubt.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Dristram]

Nifelhein wrote:
I never was much of a rollplayer, but I have friends who say D&D is not for those who want roleplaying, happily I disagree, unfortunately 3.X made this even worse.

I agree that the mechanics of 3.x made roleplaying less important in games in general. But I'm surprised by the comment that D&D is not for those who want to roleplay. Ever since the beginning for me in 1983, EVERY D&D game I played in or ran had at least some focus on developing character backgrounds and personalities. Those two aspects, when used in game, denote roleplaying. Roleplaying does not have to be as indepth as the storytelling sessions of the White Wolf games to be considered roleplaying. I've never been in a D&D game that did not at least some have roleplaying in it including 3.x.

Quote:
The single aspect of D&D style games I hate is how good and evil are all too clear and without mixing, to the degree that elves are known for being good and those whoa re evil need a different skin colour, hair colour and all, making D&D a game where you can decide to kill on sight: if it is not humanoid, chances are it is going to be killed, if it is a dark elf, kill, if it is an orc, kill, and so on.

I've actually found that if you do this, as a GM, a non-evil version provides a nice twist to a game for the party to deal with. But I will agree and I stress to my players, that just because races are given an alignment in the monster stats, does not mean ALL have that alignment. It's just that their societies are that alignment. That's why players can have a non-CG elf, etc.

Quote:
While I loved this simplicity I am now seeking more believable societies, there is no pure cultural evil, as there is no pure cultural good for me or my games.

I'm not sure it's about simplicity. In the game, humans have a neutral society through the psycology of humans. I figure other race's societies will not automatically be like human societies. They will be societies that will seem very strange to humans. That's why unlike humans, most other races will have other alignments attached to them. From what you've written, it sounds like if a human walks into an elven town, it could have the same feel as a human town. And that I disagree with and feel it hurts the fantasy aspect of this genre. Although I do agree that not every person of a race is bound by the alignment of that race, I do not agree that a race's alignment as a whole should be ignored.

I'm not saying your wrong to do this, 'cause who's right or wrong where fantasy is concerned. But I'm just expressing that I feel racial alignments play an important role in the fantasy of the game.

[Dragonhelm]

Quote:
Well, it was a bit of a culture shock for my current batch of 3e players in my C&C game when the roleplaying situations came up and they stumbled to find out what on their character sheet they needed to look at in order to make a roll. I just looked at them and kept talking in character and they looked almost like deer caught in headlights!

ROTFL! That's hilarious!

What I always did with 3e skills was to have the situation role-played, then if the player was trying to convince someone of something major, we rolled to see how well their role-playing worked. It was a reinforcement of role-playing, not a roll in place of role-playing.

Quote:
It got me thinking . . . what is the best thing about Castles & Crusades?

Chargen? Really fast and great

Roleplaying? Yep, the simplicity of the rules allows for excellent RP'ing

Rules? Easy to read, roll and then roleplay

Customization/house rules? Yes.

All of those, definitely. What I'm geeking out about is the customization factor. Want to bring in a rule from AD&D 1e/2e or D&D 3e? Go for it! I've been using a modified version of 3e's skills for my own games.
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

[Nifelhein]

Dristram wrote:
I agree that the mechanics of 3.x made roleplaying less important in games in general. But I'm surprised by the comment that D&D is not for those who want to roleplay. Ever since the beginning for me in 1983, EVERY D&D game I played in or ran had at least some focus on developing character backgrounds and personalities. Those two aspects, when used in game, denote roleplaying. Roleplaying does not have to be as indepth as the storytelling sessions of the White Wolf games to be considered roleplaying. I've never been in a D&D game that did not at least some have roleplaying in it including 3.x.

I have seen people whose roleplaying was reduced to hulk style lines, 3.X made it worse, imo (as this is always inside each of our posts) because it gave that kind of players the tools to avoid roleplaying as much as he wanted, if he could not make something good for roleplaying, then that is nice, we can always get the roll, requiring a roleplaying is necessary, but requiring convincing one, that is too tricky, and often unfair.

I do not play the game to roll dice and make the most effective character, i play because there is a story I want to see unfold, and twist as well, if I can't change anything despite my best efforts, it does not interest me, if roleplaying is what one does when needing rest and before finding the next place to raid, count me out, if the dice are going to say what I can do and what I can't, regardless of how simple, then count me out.

Quote:
I've actually found that if you do this, as a GM, a non-evil version provides a nice twist to a game for the party to deal with. But I will agree and I stress to my players, that just because races are given an alignment in the monster stats, does not mean ALL have that alignment. It's just that their societies are that alignment. That's why players can have a non-CG elf, etc.

Often enough you take the risk of them not even trying to solve things through anything other than combat, most D&D gamers I know default to the violent solution for opponents, following the route of:

- the creature they see is an orc

- orcs are evil (a player won't be taking the non eil ones into account)

- we are good.

- good people kill evil people.

- we kill the orcs.

I have gone as far as see a group of good characters slay a whole community of goblins, we were already past the warriors and got into the place where females and children were. it was a massacre. For me, both as a gamer and as a character that was evil, unnecessary and exaggerated, inside the game both the Gm and the other players justified it with a simple detect evil spell.

You can try and use relative alignments, but when anyone calls you to make a choice for a given creature it is suddenly not relative any more, it is either evil or good, if evil, death, if good, talk.

Quote:
I'm not sure it's about simplicity. In the game, humans have a neutral society through the psycology of humans. I figure other race's societies will not automatically be like human societies. They will be societies that will seem very strange to humans. That's why unlike humans, most other races will have other alignments attached to them. From what you've written, it sounds like if a human walks into an elven town, it could have the same feel as a human town. And that I disagree with and feel it hurts the fantasy aspect of this genre. Although I do agree that not every person of a race is bound by the alignment of that race, I do not agree that a race's alignment as a whole should be ignored.

I'm not saying your wrong to do this, 'cause who's right or wrong where fantasy is concerned. But I'm just expressing that I feel racial alignments play an important role in the fantasy of the game.

It is about simplicity to an extent, when we are younger we see the world in black or white, there is good and evil, you are either, never both, that is how i started gaming, at least. Societies do vary by race, but classifying a given society as evil is not really giving the government that label unless the populace clearly disagrees with it, in the real world there are those who consider the US (from where most of you must be) evil, I consider that prejudiced uni linear stupidity, there are some things the US do i don't agree with, there are others I like a lot, some are no important to em at all and there are some, despite not being good to me that I can easily understand by placing myself in their (your) place.

This is true to any fantasy society as well, or should be, if you see things through an orc's eyes you will see that your race is condemned to the least fertile soils and lands, your race is given harsh treatment and all because you are how you are, if you did not have fangs and had another skin color you would be well treated and given a chance. What would you do if you were sent to live in the mountains where nearly nothing can be grown and where life is harsh for you and all of your family?

I would not sit idly and consider that place one i really should be, I would strive to better my own position, given that i have been forced to the place am war would often be the only way.

To me it is hard to have roleplaying when a single spell, die roll or mechanic will set the course of action that should be taken, there is a game i played in and that is still pending a finale for the campaign, we have this little joke that all elves are traitors, and elven women are worse, my own character is an elf, reason is the GM made most of the elven characters we meet that had some importance be traitorous bastards, his world is very convincing to me because an orc is evil if you consider what he has done or is doing, bot because he was born an orc inside a society where the strongest rule and that getting your next meal means you have to be on constant war for more fertile soils.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[angelius]

I think all the association of roll-playing and 3rd ed stems from the "customization" of the game. People tend to look ahead of their levels and go , "wow two more levels and I get or ah next level I can finally get and be a "...

All of you know those players. When someone says that, bells go off for me. I'm lucky that I only have one player that is like that.

To balance him out, I have another player who everytime when he looks in the rulebook he gets more powerful! lol...because he doesnt read the rules and doesnt really care to. He likes the RPing.

Fortunately, I have about 90% of my players like the later one. It goes well with my style.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[Metathiax]

Quote:
People tend to look ahead of their levels and go , "wow two more levels and I get or ah next level I can finally get and be a "...

I think that there was always some of this except that, back then, it was more like "one more level and I'll be able to cast Fireball" and "I'll soon get 2 attacks per round"...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

[Treebore]

Nifelhein wrote:
Treebore,

I do not use alignments because I take the whole evil and good scheme with a pov touch, but it is not only that, as I said the whole color, way of dressing and all for races is also a thing that bothers me, an evil elf has to be visually distinct of a good elf, else you would loose the see, classify kill sequence D&D is a lot into.

This is very very clear in drow and elves, as well as dwarves and duergar, this is why i rarely use the MM names for monsters, people recognize the creature, classify them, kill, without a doubt.

I blend the POV with actual alignments. Like my players typically find out by 3rd level that not ALL orcs are evil. A few are even good.

Like one particular way that I clued them in that the orcs they had captured for questioning weren't evil is when I had one of them say,

"Me no like eating humans, burnt or bloody. Makes my stomach want it to come back out."

Then they went "Huh?"

Then did the alignment checks and we shocked when 3 of their orc prisoners weren't evil.

2 of them are now henchmen. One is a 3rd level Druid and the other a 3rd level Ranger.

Plus I also tweaked detect evil and know alignment by saying that it reacts to what is the predominate thought in the persons mind at the time they are checked.

So if they cast "know alignment" on a passerby who is an author roleplaying in their head a serial murdering rapist they will detect him as C/E just like they would the priest of Orcus passing by pleasantly reminiscing about last nights sacrifices.

That way they never know for sure who is evil or is having a bad enough day to make them think about murdering someone.

[Nifelhein]

Heh, I like to say that with munchkins you always get a lot of great knight lords of somewhere, with level 1....
3.X begun as what I thought would be my dearest dreams of a system and ended up being a big disappointment for me...

And Treebore, treating alignments like that was how I had things before taking alignment away completely, now I let them judge in their player minds and take the decision. Overall i am all for roleplaying/ story over rules and the alignment system bears little utility for me.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Dristram]

Dragonhelm wrote:
What I always did with 3e skills was to have the situation role-played, then if the player was trying to convince someone of something major, we rolled to see how well their role-playing worked. It was a reinforcement of role-playing, not a roll in place of role-playing.

I'm the same way, but over the years, I found that the battles took so frickin' long that my roleplaying situations suffered and I would use the rolls to speed things up to make sure there was enough time to get in the battles. One of the main frustrations of 3.x for me.

[Dristram]

Eh, as far as alignments go, for me, I don't equate the other races of the world to humans. In other words, "that orc would be good if raised by a good church", does not flow in my game. The evil races were born out of the evil in the universe and are intrinsically evil. They are born evil...but not all end up that way. Sometimes an orc is not born evil or even good. It's rare, but can happen. Why? Who knows? It's fantasy. And the other races are born of their alignments which represents many facets of the mysterious universe. It's what makes humans so rare and an enigma in the world that they can freely choose their destinies, or are easily influenced by their surroundings. The other races dont have this and ones such as elves and dwarves are fascinated (or irritated) by this.

I kind of look at it like wild animals. We have domesticated animals. That does not mean you can take any wild animal and raise it from birth, turning it into a domesticated animal. It doesn't work that way.

That said, my players know this. And they know to expect creatures like orcs to be evil. And thus they expect the orcs to attack them on sight. But if I say one simple thing like, The orcs see you, but dont seem to look aggressive towards you., my players always pause and wonder whats going on. Ive never had players who say, Who cares! Theyre orcs and evil and should be destroyed! Not even paladin characters. An exception would be if in the characters background he has a hatred or orcs lets say. But besides that.
But, the cool thing is we can run our worlds as we see fit! I'm sure I'd have fun playing in your game [Nifelhein]. I'd just have to adjust my thinking which is totally fine. 8)

[Nifelhein]

Dristram wrote:
I'm the same way, but over the years, I found that the battles took so frickin' long that my roleplaying situations suffered and I would use the rolls to speed things up to make sure there was enough time to get in the battles. One of the main frustrations of 3.x for me.

Quoted for truth.
And I agree, i can have fun in any game where roleplaying is going on, regardless of alignment and all that. 8)
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[anglefish]

Actually, I managed to do both with a 3.5 Eberron game that had regular 2-hour sessions.

The trick was to do either one or the other. We'd spend a couple of sessions role-playing the high-society affair on a newly unveiled skyship and then we'd spend a couple of sessions where some PC tackled mind-controlled minions while one PC fought off the tentacles of a mind flayer by himself.

Oddly enough, the sweet spot for such a game was levels 1-12 since the pulpy nature of the game allowed a GM to send sponsors and influential PCs to the party at 5th level as compared to 10th as in regular DnD.

[rabindranath72]

Dristram wrote:
Eh, as far as alignments go, for me, I don't equate the other races of the world to humans. In other words, "that orc would be good if raised by a good church", does not flow in my game. The evil races were born out of the evil in the universe and are intrinsically evil. They are born evil...but not all end up that way. Sometimes an orc is not born evil or even good. It's rare, but can happen. Why? Who knows? It's fantasy. And the other races are born of their alignments which represents many facets of the mysterious universe. It's what makes humans so rare and an enigma in the world that they can freely choose their destinies, or are easily influenced by their surroundings. The other races dont have this and ones such as elves and dwarves are fascinated (or irritated) by this.

I kind of look at it like wild animals. We have domesticated animals. That does not mean you can take any wild animal and raise it from birth, turning it into a domesticated animal. It doesn't work that way.

That said, my players know this. And they know to expect creatures like orcs to be evil. And thus they expect the orcs to attack them on sight. But if I say one simple thing like, The orcs see you, but dont seem to look aggressive towards you., my players always pause and wonder whats going on. Ive never had players who say, Who cares! Theyre orcs and evil and should be destroyed! Not even paladin characters. An exception would be if in the characters background he has a hatred or orcs lets say. But besides that.
But, the cool thing is we can run our worlds as we see fit! I'm sure I'd have fun playing in your game [Nifelhein]. I'd just have to adjust my thinking which is totally fine. 8)

I too usually approach the creatures' alignments in the Tolkien's way. Some creatures are inherently evil, more so when it is by choice. Moral dilemmas can be interesting, but I do not like when every orc/drow/ogre etc. is viewed under a "new-age" light, as the product of its environment, the evil that the others have done on it etc. etc.

SPOILER ALERT FOR DRAGONLANCE FANS: IF YOU ARE READING THE WAR OF SOULS, DO NOT READ FURTHER!!!

As one extreme example, look at what they have done to Lord Soth in some of the latest Dragonlance novels: he has become "good" before being blasted into nothingness by Takhisis! What a ludicrous end for one of the most memorable villains ever.