*sigh*
Dear JB:I joined a D&D campaign in person and have been mostly having a great time, but the DM seems roleplay averse, even when he doesn't have to roleplay.We're a group of six plus the DM, and his fights are brutal and long. We generally lose a character every dungeon and individual encounters can last weeks. The last fight took us three sessions to finish, during which time two new characters were introduced because of deaths.After the fight was finally over -- which again, took about a calendar month -- our newest player attempted to initiate roleplay, asking us how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon. We started to answer in character, but the DM quickly talked over us, sounding annoyed, and asking what we were going to do next so he could prep it. It killed any in-character talk and we just moved forward into the next fight. Likewise, I asked if I could commune with the gods for an answer to a question and was laughed at by the DM for wanting to waste a spell slot on something outside of combat.I really get the sense that others might also want to have more roleplay time, as I've spoken to a few of them, but we don't want to upset the DM who has a very dominant personality. How can we best broach the topic that we would like some time between fights to explore our characters? The DM is a very nice guy who works really hard, but he does have a DM-versus player mentality when it comes to the game. Any advice?How To Ask A DM To Let Us Roleplay
Dear Roleplayer:
A DM is required to have an adversarial mentality when it comes to the game; that's part of the gig. Your DM sounds like a bit of an ass...Commune is an excellent spell (there's good reason why it's included, why it is limited in use, and why it is only available at higher levels)...but providing players with challenging encounters is part of a Dungeon Master's responsibility.
But that's not the main thrust of your gripe, which is the lack of time being allowed space for "roleplaying" and "character exploration" during sessions. I infer from your letter that you seem to think the DM's "brutal," combat-heavy style contributes in some way to his "aversion" to roleplaying.
Maybe. But not necessarily. His "being an ass," may contribute to the "ass" way he acts when you try to engage in "roleplaying," but to me he's just trying to run the game. If a player at my table tried to have an "in-character conversation" with other players about "why are we in this dungeon" in the middle of the session, you would find I'm rather curt about shutting this down myself.
And I'm a pretty nice guy.
I'm writing this again, for the upteenth time, and it seems as crazy to me now as it ever has that I have to put these words in print: THIS IS NOT ACTING CLASS. The game is not about performance. It is not about character exploration. Jeez-Louise...even back in 2009 the OSR folks had the mantra "we explore dungeons, not characters;" it's as true today as it was then. We are playing a game called Dungeons & Dragons...a GAME.
Why do you have 300+ page rule books? Why do you have dice? Do these things help you portray your character better? Do they make you a more "believable" tiefling bard (or whatever)?
There is a difference between "role-playing" and "roleplaying." In a roleplaying game (RPG) you take on a particular role in the game using your character (again, the GAME term) as your vehicle for exploring the imagined setting and situation. You are not "portraying" anyone...the player character is YOU, your "game piece" with which you interact with the game. Without a character, you have no way to interact with the game.
"Role-playing," on the other hand, was coined by the psychiatrist Jacob Moreno in 1934 to describe a therapeutic method of acting out conflicts in order to understand different perspectives...a technique still used today in various fields.
That's not what we're doing in an RPG. When you sit down to play an RPG, you automatically engage in the act of "roleplaying," as you interact with the game through your particular "vehicle" (character). You are still using YOUR OWN perspective, just filtered through the lens of an individual who can cast spells, or fight with a sword, or that has pointy ears. And you do this in order to participate in a game of fantasy adventure...not a game of understanding the psychology of a dwarf or half-elf with childhood trauma.
Does this not make sense? You're sitting at the table to play a game in which you are pursuing fortune and glory (the latter modeled as advancement or "leveling up") by facing dangerous challenges that your DM places between you and your goal. I mean, that's the game in a nutshell.
What part of that involves pretending that you don't know "how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon?" Why on Earth would you waste time having an imaginary discussion in-character about something that is self-evident?
This is performative narcissism. What? Are you hoping to win a Tony for your portrayal of Kettlewood the Gnome?
For me, the REAL question is: why are you playing this game called Dungeons & Dragons? If you'd rather be acting, why aren't you polishing up your monologue and auditioning for roles? If you'd like to "explore your character" why aren't you writing a novel (or even a short story!) diving deep into the character's inner journey of discovery? If you want to do improvisational theater, why aren't you forming a troupe with these like-minded friends? If you want to do "collaborative storytelling," why don't you just do THAT? Grab some collaborators and tell some stories!
Why in the name of all things holy do you need a 900 page GAME to do these things? Is it such a BADGE OF HONOR to be labeled as a D&D nerd? Christ Almighty! Most of us hid this fact from our "normal" friends, back in the day.
Here's my advice, friend:
You write that you "have been mostly having a great time." You write that your "DM is a very nice guy who works really hard." That's a leg up over a lot of tables! And you have a chance to game in-person (as opposed to on-line)? That's the best way to play the game...human interaction! Yay!
SO if you want to play a game of D&D, and you have an in-person game with a DM who is both "nice" and "hard working" and the sessions are (mostly) "a great time" THEN quit your bitching. Do your flavor of "roleplaying" away from the table...i.e. between sessions. Hang out with your friends over drinks and talk and act in character...no one's stopping you! DO your "character exploration:" write a journal! In-character! Share it with the group! See if the other players want to do the same and share with you!
This is all stuff you can do OUTSIDE the game at the table, and it can be fun...just in the same way a DM, working on their campaign setting, creating "lore" that players will probably never see can be a fun and enjoyable activity for the DM. I'll tell you a dirty secret of mine: my friends and I used to do this kind of stuff ourselves (back in the late-80s) because we were so invested in our characters, we couldn't even put them down when we were away from the table. We were big geeks, okay?
BUT...we didn't bring that stuff to the table. It may have contributed to situations and adventures, but we weren't "acting" in character...we were still PLAYING A GAME when we sat down.
Focus on what you're doing when you're doing it. That's my best advice.
Sincerely,
JB
A 3-4 session fight?! Followed immediately by another? Honestly, it sounds like the DM just wants to play Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
ReplyDeleteWe have 300 page rulebooks because editing is apparently a lost art and the spell lists are titanic.
ReplyDeleteWhile personally I wouldn't be that keen on such a discussion (because I am capable enough of empathy to suspect my character backstory is as interesting to others as theirs are to me - not very), I think such a discussion can have real merit if kept brief (Conan is more interesting when he has motivation. He is less interesting when he talks about it at length. Which is why he doesn't). More to the point, not everyone takes the same view. There are plenty of lifelong gamers who are into emotional exploration of their characters and such. Some others even enjoy doing it as part of a group. Note the bit where you admit to doing it yourself, a lot, when you were younger.
I would like this a lot more if you presented this as 'yes, I used to do this, it is an acceptable thing to do, but this is why this is the wrong time to do it' then on 'this is a terrible thing to do and the wrong way to play D&D but btw I used to do it and it's actually fine.' The first feels like a rather more natural structure, the second rather undercuts itself.
Just because I used to do something when I was 13-14 years old, doesn't mean I want to promote it in any way, shape, or form...I'm not nearly as young and dumb as I once was. To be clear, the extent of our "character exploration" generally consisted of making lists of our likes, dislikes, loves, and hates, and detailing the names of our parents and siblings as based on our (rolled) social class information from the UA tables. And, as I wrote above, this was nothing that we brought to our game sessions...this was done AWAY from the table, not AT the table.
DeleteBecause that's not what the GAME is about.
So, yeah, I find the writer's request for "more roleplay" (in the "playacting" sense of the term) during gameplay to be pretty much UNacceptable. While I offer them suggestions to fill this empty hole in their heart that compels them to LARP, you'll note that ALL these suggestions are to be done AWAY from the table.
I don't care that "not everyone takes the same view." There are a lot of ignorant people in this world. I'm trying to be a light in the darkness.
RE page counts
The 5E DMG is over 300 pages in length and has no spell lists. In general, it just seems to do less (work) with more (pages).
Hmm, I'm increasingly diverging from JB's view on DMing as the mailbag gets fuller, I guess.
ReplyDelete"how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon" is an absolutely critical in the context of the game.
Answering in character can be a waste of time if it's spun out lengthily, but a little bit really doesn't hurt. And if your players & characters don't know why they're there and what their goal is, they can't plan, strategize, subvert, factionalize...
Perhaps you and I are interpreting the writer's situation differently:
DeleteI am a DM with six players. During a long fight (lasting multiple sessions), two characters are killed and their respective players create new PCs who join the fray. This is all fine and dandy.
Then the fight finishes and the players want to have a "roleplay session" to discuss why these new characters are in the dungeon?
No.
I don't do "mega-dungeons." Every scenario I run, every adventure I write, provides SOME motivation for being there, even if it's just the 'grave-robbing' (loot the tomb) variety. The players receive this background info; the players KNOW why they're there.
But I do not need to go through the pantomime of having players "act out" their PCs meeting each other and 'why are YOU here?' and blah-blah-blah. That is a waste of time for everyone at the table. In this particular instance? It's enough to say the new PCs are there for the same reasons the other PCs are. Now let's get on with it.
You can still plan, strategize, "factionalize," etc. We don't need to LARP a how-do-you-do thing; it adds nothing (save self-aggrandizement and filling some narcissistic need for attention or performance).
This is similar to the whole "adventure session in a tavern" thing, where you force the PCs to "role-play" as their characters and interact with various NPCs in order to acquire jobs or quests or whatever. Sure, I used to do that when I was a kid (20-30 years ago). But it wastes time and, in the end, it adds very little to game play. There are PROCEDURES already in place for hiring people and interacting with NPCs...those procedures are there for a reason. I'd argue that reason is to facilitate and speed game play through systemization but, regardless, that's the practical effect of using them.
I'd rather just get down to the brass tacks of playing the game. "Your characters have decided to adventure together because the world is dangerous and it's more helpful to have friends with skills than to go it alone." Do you need more than that? I don't.
When I see "roleplaying" contrasted with combat, my mind goes to non-combat interactions with monsters and NPCs -- negotiating, gleaning information, forging temporary truces or alliances of convenience, manipulation and trickery, etc. -- stuff that's essential to a well-rounded D&D game. In that context, I don't mind if players want to talk in-character (or not), so long as they stick to relevant game goals and keep things moving briskly, but navel-gazing inter-player dialogue? No, thank you. I felt half-inclined to call out the DM on his combat obsession, but then I wonder if that's the only way he knows how to keep game sessions from spiraling down into tiresome Amateur Hour at the Improv stuff. Either way, it sounds like a dreadful campaign to me.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that the DM needs to tighten up his own game...three sessions to run a single combat?...but then I remember they're probably playing 5E which is a different beast from 1E or the various older editions (and clones). It may just be a system problem.
DeleteRegarding interaction with NPCs/monsters: this is a fine, acceptable, and well-established part of the game. No issues with that. And if players want to add a little characterization to such interactions? No skin off my nose.
But, yeah: intra-party discussions? No thank you. "Naval gazing" is a good phrase for this kind of behavior.
Is JB just trolling? I cannot tell if he is serious.
ReplyDeleteAlso, no single combat encounter should take four sessions, assuming your sessions are 2 to 4 hours each.
What part seems to be “trolling?”
DeleteI can get through 5-7 combat encounters in a 4-hour session…using AD&D. I’m pretty sure these folks are using a later edition.
“System matters.”
I don’t think JB trolls.
DeleteAlso, Tom Hudson, are you diverging from JB’s opinion the longer the mailbag series goes on, or wanting more and more to see his DM’s guide that he’s been teasing? I see the mailbag as entertainment, JB’s showboating, perhaps he would self-effacingly say procrastinating, while he lets his ideas percolate for his upcoming manuscript.
Haha. Your faith in me is heartwarming. Must be the holiday season!
Delete; )
(currently writing a section on "how to run combat" for the book)
DeleteSee! Progress! Have a happy Thanksgiving if I don’t catch you next week.
DeleteBack at you!
Delete: )
100% agree with JB's opinion here.
ReplyDeleteToo many people treat D&D like a group therapy session where they can explore their "true selves" and some such, blah blah blah
I didn't sign up for that, nor is it what the game is for.
The one thing unmentioned: if you don't like it, run your own game. Everyone is free to put in the effort to run their own game with whatever pacing and feel they would like.
Personally, I allow some roleplay, but draw the line when it detracts from the adventure.
I once had a married couple that ALWAYS played where his character was the pimp and his wife's character was a prostitute, regardless of the system and genre. We tried playing for months with them, and we finally went our separate ways. It was just never going to work out. I'm sure they're still running a brothel next to Justice League headquarters or some such.
I've left a few tables where I was required to always speak in character. In one group, a RIFTS game, I was required to always speak in military lingo because I played a solider, including calling out cadence sometimes. Weirdly that character died and I went on to play a mute.
So the whole "why are we in this dungeon" bit from what you quoted is coming from a new player who apparently joined in the middle of a multi session fight. The problems of having a fight last that long(I've heard of that in 4e, but not even 5e should take that long to resolve a fight on a regular basis) aside, it sounds like the dm didn't tell the new player what was going on when they joined the group, the player asked some questions(maybe in character) and before the other players could respond(again probably in character) the dm shut it down so they could move on to the next fight. Maybe the dm was trying to prevent a drawn out "roleplaying" moment. Or maybe the dm just doesn't care about anything else besides running a war game. It doesn't sound like the dm explained anything, he just moved on without explanation, it doesn't sound like he talked about what type of game he wants to run or anything or offered any reasons. Maybe the player in question does want to act out the character too much and should go write a novel, but maybe the dm is also playing the wrong game
ReplyDeleteMy inference from the letter is that the player who wanted to initiate the "role-playing" was not new to the group but, rather, wanted to introduce their new character to the group through play-acting.
DeleteI don't know whether or not the DM "cares" about wargaming, role-playing, skiing in the Bahamas. I don't know because, I'm not this particular person. But I DO know that if it were me running the game, I'd want to keep the focus of the game on the game and not extraneous distractions.
However, I 100% believe that whenever a new player joins the session...whether as a regular or as a one-off...that it is the DM's job to explain the situation and 'set the stage,' getting the player up-to-speed and on the same page with the other players. Failing to do this is a disservice to both the players and the game.
I've got to say that if I'd been playing in a campaign with three sessions of non-stop combat, I'd probably want some sort of a breather before immediately launching into the next one; maybe I've just been spoiled by mostly running B/X over the years, but the idea of a straightforward dungeon combat taking that long sounds dreadful. And a dungeon that just consists of non-stop combat...sounds pretty un-fun to me. Traps, mysterious puzzles, strange NPCs are all part of the fun.
ReplyDeleteGot to say that I'm moving further and further away from big dungeons myself; I prefer more focused, smaller dungeons these days, a session or two for each, precisely to keep the player focus where it belongs. Short recap at the start of each session if needed - though again, discord servers are great for handling that, not to mention pre-game chatter.
It looks to me as though there is something of a clash of expectations here, and my personal advice would be for the player to set up his own campaign run along the lines he prefers - sounds like he has some potential players for it!
And I will say that I now want to start a session with the PCs waking up in a room in a dungeon filled with cultists with no idea how they ended up there...
Even spending ONE session on a single encounter (assuming it takes the whole session) is pretty ridiculous...if you're playing an older (pre-1998) edition of D&D. I can get through 3-4 encounters in two hours of play.
ReplyDeleteBut I think it's pretty clear they're playing a late edition version of D&D. And those combats? They can take a while.