Why the sudden hate for Roleplaying?

[Malrex]

Being the least experienced person at the table and also being the DM was my formation in the game.

fastest way to learn it.

That makes sense. Sorta forces you to immerse yourself into everything. Reminds me of myself having played once and suddenly I was immersing myself into everything to learn as fast as I could.

Last questions because damn my curiosity @EOTB. I ask because of "No player is ever required or expected to supersede their own personality at the table with a fictional one." I know things are never set in stone or whatever but I am genuinely curious what happens at your table during these type of instances.

If a party meets a doppleganger and it somehow gets lucky, able to slay a lone character and takes its place. What happens? Do the players just use their experience and 'megagame' to slay their 'companion' immediately, or does the player need to play it out as the DM may wish--and how does that even unfold?

Same curiosity with cursed items...if it changes a character's alignment or suddenly makes a character greedy or whatever, then how do the players deal with that?

Is alignment used in your game or is it more of just a good vs. evil scenario?

The data for B/X players followed this low-level pattern with only a minor number ever actually playing anything over 6th level. The data for AD&D players however pushes the numbers much more to the 9-12 level range.

We usually get up to level 7 or 8 and then usually start over. I THINK because by that point our DM usually wants a break and I or someone else takes over for a bit, but we never seem to go back to them. It takes us forever to get to level 7ish...usually 2-3 years of real time, so by that time I think our DM likes to put his energy into something new. I generally like the low levels and being in survival mode--it feels more challenging to me.
BUT--after working on Slyth Hive and this upcoming Beware the Cannibal King (which is a huge city adventure that houses the Death Maze by Ray Weidner in NAP)--I find myself hoping for a high level gaming experience. Ive never been too impressed with high level adventures, but some good ones lately are changing my mind.

 

[EOTB]

You can decline to create a fictitious personality separate from your own and play any alignment. Also, remember the sentence does not read "a player is not allowed by the DM to create a fictitious personality..."

RE: the rest, well, if players are just being themselves at the table then that makes a doppleganger a bit harder to detect, doesn't it? It doesn't make it easier. Doppleganger scenarios play out just fine. Curses and magical influence are the exception to the rule here. But that proves the rule it doesn't nullify it.

Alignment is definitely used in my game to the fullest extent. As I previously mentioned, I can play a paladin, druid, or assassin, stay faithful to the archetypes, and still be myself.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

If a party meets a doppleganger and it somehow gets lucky, able to slay a lone character and takes its place. What happens?

I know I hate thread-sidetracking tangents, but I actually have a thought about how to run doppelgangers in general. Lemme know how you feel this vibe:

1. In an earlier session, at a point where it makes narrative sense that someone would be alone, I secretly roll a Stealth check ahead of time on behalf of the doppelganger against a target character's Passive Perception (or equivalent) to see how a fictional, single-move, stealth abduction encounter goes (just to see if the doppelganger would have successfully captured the PC and infiltrated the team or not; if the doppelganger fails the roll, it becomes an automatic encounter as the party fights the failed creature. Otherwise, it's assumed that the doppelganger used a knockout poison or something and just KO'd a PC stealthily).
2. Unknown to anyone but the DM, one of the PCs has just been replaced - the game advances as usual.
3. Eventually, the party is in a dangerous or tense situation (let's say they are sneaking up on a sleeping giant)
4. Something happens to sabotage the situation (let's say somebody loudly shatters a glass flask to wake the giant)
5. The party has a chance to notice who made the sabotage, which I secretly roll for (in 5e, this is a Passive Perception contest vs. the doppelganger's Stealth check. I assume a simple d6 roll will suffice for editions without these types of skill checks.)
6. Anyone who wins the contest notices something based on how much they beat the Stealth check (let's say the doppelganger's Stealth check was 12, and the party Wizard's Passive Perception is only 10, the party Fighter beats it by 2 points with a 14 Passive Perception, while the party Ranger beats it by 5 points with a 17 PP - in this case, the Wizard didn't see shit, the Fighter saw an empty flask thrown by someone behind him, and the Ranger saw that the Wizard was actually the one who threw it).
7. The doppelganger is revealed as the Wizard (the player playing the Wizard did not know this), and the party (minus the Wizard) fights it.
8. The party discovers the fate of the "real" Wizard - probably locked up in a cell nearby or something, maybe dead - DM's call.

You can decline to create a fictitious personality separate from your own and play any alignment. Also, remember the sentence does not read "a player is not allowed by the DM to create a fictitious personality..."

Back on topic: Now I'm confused - are fictitious personalities allowed, or not allowed at CAG tables? Because you define CAG a lot by it's absence of roleplay, but then you state that players are totally allowed to roleplay if they want.

 

[EOTB]

I used specific words in my piece that have specific meanings. Nowhere did I say roleplaying must not occur, but that it must not be enforced upon those who have no desire to do it. This is, IME, sufficient to prevent it from becoming an unwelcome focus of effort as play-acting is often preceded by a low-grade type of peer pressure, or, in more insistent tables, a DM requesting that this or that must be communicated "in character".

While in a CAG game those who decline to roleplay at all aren't considered neglecting any necessary aspect.

At this point I must comment that your reading comprehension of what I wrote is rather poor, and you repeatedly are trying to engage with things I didn't say. So perhaps just sit this one out instead of trying to gin up an argument because you're bored.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

At this point I must comment that your reading comprehension of what I wrote is rather poor, and you repeatedly are trying to engage with things I didn't say. So perhaps just sit this one out instead of trying to gin up an argument because you're bored.

Well that's harsh. I come specifically for seeking clarity on someone's public-facing opinions, and am accused of just trying to "gin up arguments".
I resent that sir, I am a rum man!

 

[EOTB]

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'm sorry, did you think this whole thing was about *you*? Yeah I quoted your blog a lot (you know, the words you "didn't say") mainly because people were deferring to it for their points, but if you read through (with your superior reading comprehension) you'll notice I'm addressing a trend and positing its origin.

 

[EOTB]

None of those blog posts say that people should hate roleplaying, or anything like that. None of the posts you linked to do so. The title of the thread is a joke.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It rejects the term "roleplaying game" or "RPG" because today those names firmly convey implicit expectations running contrary to practices of successful adventure gaming.

Some years back, I decided that I would stop referring to what I do as 'role-playing' and instead refer to these things (what I once called "RPGs") as "fantasy adventure games"

I'm sorry, I had assumed those were words that implied a dislike of something, much how the words "I reject having any tomato on my sandwich, I'm not ordering them anymore" implies a newfound hatred of tomatoes.

 

[EOTB]

The effort wasn't entirely wasted; if nothing else you've provided a useful link to bookmark and use as an example of people filling in words we haven't said.

 

[The Heretic]

I used specific words in my piece that have specific meanings. Nowhere did I say roleplaying must not occur, but that it must not be enforced upon those who have no desire to do it. This is, IME, sufficient to prevent it from becoming an unwelcome focus of effort as play-acting is often preceded by a low-grade type of peer pressure, or, in more insistent tables, a DM requesting that this or that must be communicated "in character".

That's interesting. Do the players who do not want to roleplay then simply summarize what they want to say to an NPC, rather than speaking it in character? I'd probably (lightly) insist on that, but with no funny voices required.

Also, aren't a lot of the qualities you described (quoted by DP in post #8) a response to Art Punk and it's influence on the OSR (NSR whatever)? I think DP may have misunderstood because he didn't know the context within which it was written.

The Heretic

 

[EOTB]

It's perfectly fine to summarize rather than monolog, the game works fine at that level of abstraction. It's what I do more often than not. If I am not summarizing, it's probably because in the moment I've thought of a "minilog" that I think will make my fellow players laugh.

I am not responding to artpunk, I'm describing how I played before the OSR existed, let alone the artpunk school of thought.

EDIT - I would emphasize that we do not consider ourselves part of the OSR/NSR/Artpunk/whatever. It's a meaningless merit badge handed out for the asking, the equivalent of being Myspace Tom's friend in this hobby.

 

[Beoric]

It's perfectly fine to summarize rather than monolog, the game works fine at that level of abstraction.

This is how I do it. The player tells me the idea he wants to express, but the circumstances and the dice determine how it is presented/received. I don't care how eloquent the player is if he is running a half-orc thief with a 6 Cha, or how much he stutters if he is running an 18 Cha paladin.

Player: I say to the barmaid, "You are my sun, my moon, my stars, without you I live in darkness!"
Me: Uh-huh. Roll.
Player: With my charisma penalty, I get a 3.
Me: That's what you meant to say. What your character actually manages to get out is, "Nice tits!" The barmaid rolls her eyes.

I note that the current fashion would be for the DM to ask the player to explain what went wrong. In the APs I have watched/listened to, this usually results in a pause, and then a monolog as the player tries to describe the most interesting fail ever. And the player's description never, ever, suggests any serious or long term consequences. I am not a fan of this technique.

 

[EOTB]

This is how I do it. The player tells me the idea he wants to express, but the circumstances and the dice determine how it is presented/received. I don't care how eloquent the player is if he is running a half-orc thief with a 6 Cha, or how much he stutters if he is running an 18 Cha paladin.

Player: I say to the barmaid, "You are my sun, my moon, my stars, without you I live in darkness!"
Me: Uh-huh. Roll.
Player: With my charisma penalty, I get a 3.
Me: That's what you meant to say. What your character actually manages to get out is, "Nice tits!" The barmaid rolls her eyes.

Yep, almost exactly how I do it to a tee. You tell me what you're communicating ("how" isn't strictly necessary) and CHA/reaction defines the rest.

 

[The Heretic]

I am not responding to artpunk, I'm describing how I played before the OSR existed, let alone the artpunk school of thought.

Oops my mistake. I must be reading too much of Prince's blog.

 

[EOTB]

No worries