PROOF that D&D Is Not an RPG

Рет қаралды 830

Күн бұрын

Patreon for $5
Patreon.com/ArchitraveGaming
Discord Server
/ discord
Subscribe for Fantastic World Building Ideas, game philosophy that will change the way you play D&D and other TTAGs, as well as actual gameplay tips and new mechanics.
Architrave Gaming is looking for 3 aspiring game designers and world builders to assist in the passion projects we have in store. We have created an enormous world and a game system to go with it. If you would like to participate in the playtesting of the game or contribute to the world building, please send us a PM on Discord, username architravegaming.
(Key words for the algorithm:) D&D Shorts, MonkeyDM, Adan. one dnd, dnd one. 5.5e, 6e, 5e, How to play Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons Beginners Guide, What class to play in dungeons and dragons, best class in D&D, best subclass, most powerful optimized, monk build, DandD, Warlock, Bard, Fighter, Ranger, Artificer, Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, DnD Shorts, D&D Shorts, TikTok, Dungeons and Dragons, XP to level 3, Davvychappy, Critical Role, Matthew Mercer, Brennan Lee Mulligan, DC 20 tabletop community, tabletop RPG, Fjord, Beau, Jester, Yasha, Caleb, Nott, Caduceus, Mollymauk, the Mighty Nein, Matt Mercer, Colville, 5th edition, dragons 3.5e, dungeon dudes, Dungeon Master, DM, Game Master, GM, dungeon master, game master, tips, crap guide to dnd, tiktok, Wild Shape, Multiclass, D&D, D&D 5E, D&D 5.5, D&D 6th edition, The pillars of play, player agency

Пікірлер: 56

@aloeburned 8 күн бұрын

counterpoint though: doesn't this discount all digital rpgs besides maybe disco elysium and basically any game with character progression? you cant really quantify roleplay mechanically. if 99% of what people call rpgs dont count, what does? fate? not even bitd meets this definition. roleplay is an emergent property of a game in which you must talk and explore to solve problems.

@trypt0faani161 8 күн бұрын

exactly!!

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

Exactly! THERE ARE NO ROLE-PLAYING GAMES IN ANY MEDIUM! 🎉🥳🎊 They simply don't exist. No one has gamified role-playing, at least not as far as I've seen. As you said, not even fate or blades in the dark and meet that definition. To properly be a role-playing game, a game must Have an achievable goal / rules and a risk of failure/negative consequences when you don't achieve the goal, Which is the game part, and then it must directly require role-playing to play the game. Your skill at role playing with determine your success or failure and your reward or negative consequences. Skyrim is not a role-playing game, it's an adventure game. Having character customization and progression does not make it a role-playing game. That's not even role-playing, that's just character customization and progression. People have gotten true role-playing confused with playing a single character that you have a significant level of customization or control over. But that's not roleplaying. Roleplaying takes place entirely in your head. It is the method by which you make your characters decisions. That can't possibly be mechanized in any game system. Then I'm afraid your definition of role-playing is inadequate. What if I'm role-playing in the bedroom? Is that an emergent property of the game? Must I talk and explore to solve problems? I'm afraid that definition is inaccurate.

@trypt0faani161 8 күн бұрын

@@Architrave-Gaming but that's such a useless statement. there are no adventure games just games where you go from place to place... so every game is just a walking simulator with some action scenes. the adventure is just an emergent property. get the fuck out

@aloeburned 7 күн бұрын

@Architrave-Gaming first: definitions are decided by the majority. If most people agree roleplaying games exist and include X, Y, and Z, they're correct! Second: bedroom roleplay actually is a wonderful example: because your goal is also disconnected from roleplaying there too. Your goal is to please your partner and roleplay is an emergent property- it is simply a way in which you can approach the problem. If you get into bed to have "straight sx, none of the fluff" you cut out roleplaying there too. Roleplay is something people do in pursuit of another goal. Even actors have a goal of performing and properly relaying the lines that trumps the goal of internally embodying their character. Third: anyone can simply not engage with a medium. I can boot up skyrim RIGHT NOW and do zero adventuring. I can just hang out with the jarl in whiterun and the game won't even tell me i'm doing anything wrong in any mechanical way. It'd be boring but dnd's pretty boring without any roleplay. Dnd specifically tells you TO ROLEPLAY in the rules, to act as your character. That is the most explicit a game can possibly be, and calling dnd an rpg is significantly more descriptive than. "Adventure game"

@aloeburned 7 күн бұрын

@Architrave-Gaming also, idk how ur doing it, but i happen to do a lot of talking AND exploring in the bedroom. I'd be happy to show you.

@yeeterdeleter4101 6 күн бұрын

The point of dnd is to have fun, the way you win dnd is by having the most fun, wether this is through roleplay, adventure, victory, or defeat

@Architrave-Gaming 6 күн бұрын

Fun can be an emergent property of the activity of playing a game, but the goal listed in the rules of the game It's not simply to have fun. That's not a specific enough goal to satisfy the criterion.

@derpy9306 8 күн бұрын

An RPG is a "Roleplaying GAME", game is a very important here. A game is an entertaining activity with a defined achiavable goal. So what an RPG does, is provide the player with a goal which can only be achieved by taking up a role in a store (roleplaying). Roleplaying does not mean writing lore or making funny voices, roleplaying is the act of pretending and taking actions with a mindset other than your own. Can you complete that one-shot you mentioned without doing this? You can't, because simply using words as written abbilites won't give you a sufficient playing ground. You need to actively visualize each obstacle, enemy, social encounter or any other problem as if you are YOUR CHARACTER, thus making you roleplay. Having a goal to get to does not make it not an RPG, the opposite, for it to be an RPG it needs a set goal else it's not a game.

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

Thanks for the comment! 1You're right about a game, it has to have an achievable goal / rules with a risk of failure and negative consequences for not achieving that goal. Adventuring has been gamified because there are achievable goals, namely, explore Dungeons and get treasure and do all sorts of other adventurous things, and the risk of failure and negative consequence is loss of treasure and abilities and even loss of life. But role playing itself is not gamified in this way. There's no achievable goal with a risk of failure and negative consequences within the framework of the game itself. You may roleplay while you play, but if you fail to roleplay well, what are the in-game negative consequences? There are none. The role-playing quadrant has not been gamified because there's no risk and reward to it within the game. It is an activity you undertake, like playing the guitar is an activity you undertake, but playing the guitar is not a game. It's simply a thing you're trying to do well. And so in the same way role-playing is not a game, it's simply a thing you're trying to do well. And to your other point, you don't actually have to play the game from the mindset of your character. You can play it as a top-down adventure game like Diablo. You don't have to have the mindset of your character, all you have to do is use their abilities. You can absolutely play D&D as if it was Diablo without any role-playing at all and you would still be playing D&D. And there's even another problem with that point you made, that role-playing is playing a game with the mindset/perspective of another character. I'm afraid that can't be true because that would make everything out there a role-playing. When I'm playing Resident evil 4 and using a character with a mind other than my own, does that make Resident evil 4 a role-playing game? What about call of duty? If the definition applies to everything that it's not a good definition. No, simply playing a game with a mindset or perspective or a set of abilities other than your own does not make it role-playing. In fact there's even a third thing wrong with that definition, the fact that it leaves out role-playing yourself. Did you know you don't have to pretend to be another character to roleplay? People roleplay in real life all the time, without getting into too much detail, people roleplay in the bedroom. They aren't pretending to be someone else, they are pretending to be themselves in a different circumstance. That still role-playing. You don't have to pretend to be another person to roleplay. That means your definition doesn't actually apply to all types of roleplay, so you need a new definition. Here's the one I use. Roleplaying is purposely making the decisions your character might believably make in a situation. That's it. No requirement that it's someone other than yourself, and no guarantee that if you do take on the mindset of someone else that it's somehow role-playing. You can roleplay in any game. You can do what's optimally best in call of duty, or you can try to roleplay the decisions to character would believably make in that situation, including their own fear and adrenaline and hopes and dreams and emotions and all that stuff. You could play Resident evil 4 and roleplay Leon Kennedy, or you could just do what's optimal for the game. You could roleplay in D&D or any other tabletop game and make the decisions your character would make based on their personality and backstory and all that, or you could simply play it like Diablo and just use your abilities on a grid and blow things up. Adopting the perspective of a character is required for most games out there. That's just having an in-game avatar. Is every game with an in-game avatar a role-playing game? Nearly adopting the perspective of someone else doesn't make it RP, you have to actually make decisions in the game based on what the character would do. And even if you did that, you're just role playing on top of the game; It doesn't become a part of it. Like butter on bread. Yeah you can roleplay with your game, but don't confuse the butter for the bread. These are two separate things. 👍

@derpy9306 8 күн бұрын

@@Architrave-Gaming Right, I see what you mean but I still disagree. Let's take something like an Economy based LARP for example. Let's say we have different pieces of paper with an information written over them -> that information determines what that piece of paper represents. And we'll all play as Merchants trying to become the richest man in the realm. Now, if I am acting as myself, the paper is just that - paper. There is no intrinsic value in it, it's just a token. However to my Merchant character that paper isn't the token but it's value -> the material it represents. In order for us to play the game, we must both acknowledge the value of the tokens (what's written on the paper), it's context in the imaginary world of the LARP and pretend/play as our characters in order to want it. The system of the LARP might work regardless of the roleplay but it will fail to be entertaining, because it's role wasn't to serve as goal in it of itself but instead act as tool to create the context necessary to facilitate the game. It is the same thing with your example of Leon, the context/theme of the game is necessary to create the atmosphere and experience of the game. You could very much replace Leon with a square and all items/surroundings/enemies with different colored squares and the game would play the same, but it wouldn't feel the same. In order for the game to become itself you need to have all those aspects, so you immerse the player in the role of Leon. And that is by definition roleplaying. I am not acting as myself anymore, because I am not trained with firearms and instead of being in a zombie infested medieval village, I am sitting at home behind a desk. So while yes, you could look at the game as simply the operations of the rule system, you would be leaving out the Mechanics and Theming part of what makes all games, games. I'd dig to debate this over something else then yt tbh, it's kinda pain.

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

So you do think Resident Evil 4 is a role-playing game? architravegaming is my discord username, eager to continue this discussion.

@owlbeartales5270 7 күн бұрын

I think it depends highly on each group and hope they play the game. We are telling a story together, fighting only comes up if it is absolutely necessary and progresses the story. Otherwise everyone just Roleplay

@Architrave-Gaming 7 күн бұрын

Exactly! Most of the time you aren't t even playing D&D, you're just telling stories and roleplaying. Only when you engage with the rules of a game are you playing the game, and storytelling and role-playing aren't part of the rules of D&D. People have been storytelling and role-playing long before D&D ever came around, it's a separate activity. That's the point of this video and the whole series; playing D&D is just one quarter of the experience. The other quarters our building a simulation, telling stories with and about each other, and role-playing. These are four separate activities that we alternate between, and sometimes do simultaneously, in order to achieve the full experience that I call the Arch Dream. It's a big wonderful collaborative imagination daydream experience, and it's the most fun you can have with your brain.

@MattMuun 10 күн бұрын

Just spreading joy and helping the algorithm. Keep doing what you enjoy. 😊

@AlexanderEllis-x7v 8 күн бұрын

Wasn’t expecting to see this face. A very pleasant surprise.

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

Where do you know me from? Long Con?

@AlexanderEllis-x7v 8 күн бұрын

@@Architrave-Gaming I played that one necromancer named Bonhoeffer. I think the last time I showed up at your house I was trekking with the tall one carrying bags of cans to the recycling company and making that KZbin video.

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

Xander! So good of you to drop by. Yeah, I finally started my KZbin channel. It's cool how KZbin recommends things to just the right people.

@AlexanderEllis-x7v 8 күн бұрын

@ It is amazing. I’ll probably watch a few more of your videos. Keep up the good work friend.

@Architrave-Gaming 7 күн бұрын

Thank you Xander! Lord willing, we will.

@Wkeyy 8 күн бұрын

disagree but partially because I dont really understand your point. what exactly is an RPG in your definition? I dont really do organised play but occasionally do one shots. and all dnd I play is absolutely about crafting a story together, "winning" different encounters and stuff is secondary to creating a story together through the PC's actions. I'm not trying to be inflamatory or anything, just interested in your perspective and why its seems to be different from mine

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

People play these games for a bunch of different reasons, but it mainly falls into one or more of these four quadrants: simulation, adventure, character story, and roleplaying. The GM's common sense experience brings most of the simulation, their descriptions making the world feel real. The adventure game of D&D brings the adventure quadrant. The character story is supplied exclusively by the players at the table. You don't need D&D for that, you could craft stories and build characters and do all sorts of things without ever opening the players handbook. And lastly there's role-playing, which you may or may not do at your table. If you mostly enjoy creating a story about your PCs doing cool things, go right ahead. You're not wrong. The point is that that is technically a separate activity from playing the adventure game, whichever one you choose. People have been telling stories for thousands of years, long before D&D came around. Storytelling is not reliant on D&D. It's a separate activity you add on top of playing D&D, just like roleplaying is a separate activity you add on top as well. Let's not give D&D too much credit. It's an adventure game, an engine for thrill and finding adventure, but the part that a lot of us like the most, the connection to the characters and the stories we tell about them, are what we come up with ourselves. The adventure game is a tool in that process, and we made stories about what our characters did in the adventure game, but the adventure game didn't tell any stories. We told the stories. It is a quadrant that lies outside of the cover of the players handbook and is not found within its pages.

@emergentc5398 8 күн бұрын

Why are 'role-playing' and 'adventure' mutually exclusive in your paradigm? The fact of the matter is: an RPG is a game in which you take the role of a 'character' in which the objective can be anything. Yes, you can ignore role playing in favor of completing the objective, but that is metagaming. While this aspect often overwhelms the RP side of the 'G' (game) it doesn't disqualify it. Most designers these days don't understand the core principle of these games, so you'll get products that do a bad job of promoting RP, and instead focus on G. The current mainstream community surrounding RPGs does fit your criteria but does not incorporate the medium as a whole. Blame the edition, not the hobby. I will say, however, I've fallen into this 'gamer' mentality in these later years as I became more engaged in the online community--much to the detriment of my pure style before I was ever influenced by a buncha well spoken but fundamentally unsound online discussion. My games were far better before I was poisoned at the well. Now I'm making the effort to divorce myself from grifters and white noise. I was doing it better long before the internet was even a thing. The quality of player has only dropped (though thats due to compounding factors, and not just the community, but society as a whole). P.S. Burn WotC to the ground. After 3rd edition its been a steady spiral down the drain to where DnD currently resides in the sewer.

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Adventure and role-playing are not mutually exclusive at all. There is the adventure quadrant and the roleplaying quadrant of the activity we enjoy, and we tried to do both simultaneously. It's like butter on bread. They're not exclusive by any means, in fact they go quite well together, but they are not the same thing. The Man problem I have with the name role-playing game isn't that it claims to be adventurous, it's that it claims to be a game. Role playing has not been gamified in D&D or any other game that I've ever seen. Feel free to educate me. A game has to have a goal/rules and a risk of failure/negative consequences. All of that must exist within the game. So where is that in any so-called TTRPG? The goal and the rules and the risk and consequence all lie within adventure, not within role-playing. It is your skill at adventuring that determines whether you get the gold or die trying, not your skill at role-playing. No one grades you on your role-playing, there are no consequences if you don't role play well, therefore role-playing is not part of the game itself, but is a separate activity you do alongside the adventure gaming. I respect your years of gaming, but I'm afraid your definition of an RPG is wholly inaccurate. "An RPG is a game in which you take the role of a 'character' in which the objective can be anything". This means that Resident evil 4 is a role-playing game. I take on the role of Leon Kennedy and my objective is saving the president's daughter. Call of duty is a role-playing game. I take on the roll of Ghost and my objective is to kill the bad guys. Monster Hunter World, Half-life, Halo, every game in the world is a role-playing game. I'm afraid if the definition includes absolutely everything, it's not a very good definition. Here's my definition of roleplaying: purposely making the decisions your character might believably make in a situation. There's no requirement that the character is someone other than yourself, as proven by the bedroom role-playing argument. And just because you are attempting to accomplish a goal well doesn't make it a game either. Driving a car isn't a game, playing guitar isn't a game, building cupboards isn't a game, they are simply activities that one is trying to execute accurately. Forging for food isn't a game, it's a necessary activity. You turn into a game if you try to hop over every tree root you see before you get there, But even then that's a game that is technically unrelated to the active foraging berries. So if you wanted to actually turn foraging berries into a game, you would have to give yourself some unnecessary challenge on top of it. This leads me to my core definition of what a game is that I think stands up to the most scrutiny and applies to all games, but not to other activities, such as playing guitar: A game is a voluntary undertaking of unnecessary challenges. There are several things implied by the word challenges. One is that there is a goal, and if there's a goal then there are necessarily rules. The parameters of the challenge must be defined, which means there is a rule. And lastly there must be some chance of failure, and the word failure implies a negative consequence. So a more wordy definition would be: A game is a voluntary undertaking of an unnecessary challenge to reach a goal within outlined rules with a risk of failure leading to negative consequence. I don't believe anyone has ever inserted the act of role-playing into the rules/goal/risk of failure/negative consequence, therefore I don't think role-playing has ever been turned into a game.

@emergentc5398 7 күн бұрын

@@Architrave-Gaming I made a lengthy reply, but my wifi dropped and it was lost while restoring my connection... I'll sum it up like this: You are too deeply rooted in semantics and don't understand the spirit of the game. It shows in how you critique my response. Its obvious that a video game is scripted, and an RPG is not; allowing you to role play in a TTRPG, and not RE4, for instance. Furthermore, 'gamifying' role-play was inherent in older editions, with a meta-narrative throughout of 'rulings over rules'. In recent years (and predominantly since the internet era) there was a large and vocal movement suggesting that rulings over rules was not true TTRPG, and instead was akin to playing 'mother may I', which is extremely disingenuous and disrespectful. The best games I've ever run were always groups who respected their GM, and vice versa. Thats not to say disagreements didn't occur, but when everyone is more or less on the same page, it allows the GM to have confidence in their ability and to simulate so much mechanical non-sense with practical (and stylized!) abstraction. This is whats been lost in modern renditions. The importance of mutual respect, confidence, and understanding of the spirit of the 'game'. People may sum it up with "Rule Zero" without even understanding what that really entails. The deeper you root yourself in semantics, the less intuitive you become. Until the game doesn't breathe or flow, but rather clanks around like a mechanical monstrosity--or a bad video game. Modern editions are obviously most guilty of this as well. Regardless of what 'advice' they may give, their rules and design promote a bad video game mentality, ironically. I asked youtube to not recommend your channel before you even responded. This is not to insult you, but because you are like the 'white noise' I described in the scene. Its not bad to discuss game theory--in fact its why I stopped by--but you support current era WotC, which is indefensible to me. Its either out of ignorance, or active participation in their disgusting ethics and degenerative game 'design'. That said, I don't hate you, I just don't have time to dedicate to supporters of things antithetical to what they profess. I will reply/clarify any further replies you may have for this thread. God bless. P.S. Because I sounded harsh with my judgement above, I will say I have hope you will mature famously, since you are so vocal in searching out these mysteries of our hobby! And I am by no means God of TTRPG, just more experienced than you for obvious reasons. Hopefully you can glean something useful out of my spiel, as it is meant to help and not hurt you. In any event, God bless.

@Architrave-Gaming 7 күн бұрын

I appreciate your entire comment! If you want to go your separate way then that's perfectly fine, I'm not going to try to rope you back in. I will say though that I don't support WotC In any way shape or form, and I think their game design and lack of understanding of the hobby is appallingly negligent, and I have absolutely no idea how I came across as supporting them. Please explain?

@emergentc5398 7 күн бұрын

@@Architrave-Gaming Ah... well, its your #tags. It read to me like a manifesto, lol... I glanced over your past videos and nothing really perturbed me, but I saw a vid about the DMG or something... but if you say you don't support them, I'll admit my fault, even if it was due to your #tags. I appreciate your measured response. Subscribed.

@Architrave-Gaming 7 күн бұрын

I'm not sure where my tags are showing up on the video, nor their order. I thought they were just a back end thing. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your own decorous demeanor. 👍

@braetondavis143 5 күн бұрын

DnD was the first role playing game....

@Architrave-Gaming 5 күн бұрын

Was it? Wow.

@codasinger5298 6 күн бұрын

@Architrave-Gaming Bruh, the achievable goal is to make a good story. yes, dnd was once strictly a dungeon-crawl simulator; and I have no doubt that if D&D had started as a computer game and nothing else it might've STAYED that way. But in making it a tabletop game it EVOLVED over time, because the rules were so nebulous and vague to begin with. Plenty of people used it simply as that Dungeon-Crawl simulator and loved it; and many many others made assumptions, adaptations, and addendums to the rules they were presented. Why did they do this? Why did the game evolve in this way, not just edition to edition but table to table? Because my argument is this: Since you're so stuck on definitions, I posit D&D is a Language. Changed by popular usage, the very rules ignored and eschewed COUNTLESS times for the sake of the flow and exchange of information in a satisfying and dramatic way. Even when you play hard into the rules, attempt to ignore any and every roleplaying aspect of the game, you have a GM whose practically a CONDUCTOR he railroads you so hard it's like you're playing a point and click/Telltale style computer game but without the personality of the graphics and art style: YOU CANNOT AVOID telling a STORY, but you can sure as Hell ruin the QUALITY of it. Great job, you've refused to engage with my world on a personal level in any way shape or form. Your character has the most one dimensional backstory I've ever heard and is literally just you without the societal conventions preventing you from stealing and killing. You never gave NPCs the chance to speak and even when you did you didn't listen. But hey, you killed the guy I told you was the biggest and the baddest, so I guess you win. The rules of D&D are there to adjudicate your characters interacting with the story. Once upon a time the rules were there so the GM could HURT you, and they can still be used in that way; but times have changed. The rules provide context and structure for the GM and PCs to fall back on. Reading your other replies and comments; yes OF COURSE you don't need D&D's to tell stories, we can all just gather round a table and start making it up! But what happens when someone says no? What happens when someone disagrees, doesn't like a story-choice, or refuses to let you change the story in specific ways? "No killing my character. This character always ends up on top, even if its a close call." "No, you can't just kill the bad guy right away you have to fight him a little at least!" "Well I don't want you to be an elf, I hate all stories with Elves in them." Again, a lack of structure, of agreed context, unsatisfying jumbled garbage. Even in Improv, they are called "Improvisation GAMES". But how can they be called that if they don't have a winning or losing condition? If it's just a bunch of people making shit up? BECAUSE THE POINT OF THE GAME IS TO MAKE UP A GOOD FUCKING STORY And when the actors, or "Players" (How's THAT for twisting a definition), fail to make a good story you can TELL and it SUCKS

@Architrave-Gaming 6 күн бұрын

"The achievable goal is to make a good story" I think you have the Arch Game confused with the specific adventure game that one chooses to play. Did you watch the video about the Arch Game? kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqaWn6GBrL-Bhtksi=TxbMZvTnBXTDSRn8 Perhaps one group's goal is to tell a good story, and though that is not the ultimate fulfillment of the arch game, it's still part of it. But that doesn't turn D&D into a storytelling game, because the specific goal and stakes of D&D aren't about storytelling. You don't lose at D&D if you don't tell a good story, though you may "lose" at your intended experience of the Arch Game. You see the difference? And I get what you're saying about D&D being a language, but I think if we were to use the same terms, I would say the Arts Game is a language, or rather than the Arch Game is malleable, which I think is what you really mean when you say it's a language. It changes over time and between groups to suit whoever's playing. So I agree with all that, I'm just saying that that is something above D&D. The experience that we share at the table isn't strictly D&D, it's a game above that, a meta game you could say. I call it the Arch Game and not a meta game because the hobby already has an association with the word metagame, but the activity that we all engage in is really a game above D&D, it's a game that incorporates D&D as a part of it (or whichever particular tabletop adventure game you choose to play), but the meta game/Arch Game is actually the thing that contains the simulation and the adventure game and the storytelling and the role-playing. Those other things aren't part of any particular adventure game, like D&D, but are instead parts of the meta game, what I call the Arch Game.

@michaelsorensen7567 8 күн бұрын

If you have a roleplay kink, does that mean the goal is to NOT get laid? That seems to me to be the argument you're making here: if it were ACTUALLY about roleplay you'd do that to the exclusion of all else. No? Even in one shot situations, most people take the pre gen character and try to figure out how they'd act in the situations presented. You get handed the pre gen character sheet, and you don't have time to get familiar with it much, but you don't take your 7 STR wizard to go grapple someone because you're playing into the role. You're given a chaotic evil sheet, you're not going to immediately suggest that the party should donate all the money to the town watch so they can build an orphanage (or if you do it's so you can manipulate them to your own ends and it's not actually altruistic). There are definitely adventure mechanics, but they are merely the scaffolding to inform you what role you have and how to mechanically play it. Either way, I feel like your issue is more that "roleplay" is a poorly used/understood word, rather than that you think dnd doesn't actually have roleplay involved.

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

I never said roleplay wasn't involved in the activity that we all partake in around the table. It is In fact the fourth quadrant. What I am saying is that the fourth quadrant and the second quadrant, being adventure, are not the same. You can role play on top of other activities, the way you put butter on bread. No, you don't have to roleplay to the exclusion of all else The reason you don't grapple someone if you have a 7 strength is because the game mechanics discourage it, not because you're role-playing. It's the same reason you don't play call of duty and use anyway all the time instead of your assault rifle. It's because it's not as powerful. Are you therefore role-playing in call of duty? Is call of duty a role-playing game? Using the features that are the most likely to get the job done has nothing to do with roleplaying. That's just playing any and every game out there.

@caetano1998 8 күн бұрын

what RPG system is actual Roleplay, then? Storyteller? FATE?

@Architrave-Gaming 8 күн бұрын

That's the thing, there are no RPGs! At least none that I've ever seen. What we have is a set of 4 activities that we try to do simultaneously, which amount to the experience we all enjoy so much. The four activities are: 1. Simulation 2. Adventure 3. Social Interaction 4. Roleplay We are taking turns doing each of these activities while at the table, and we sometimes do multiple at the same time, but the adventure game part is separate from the roleplay, simulation, and social parts. They're all separate from each other. The roleplaying is not a game, the simulation isn't roleplaying, the game isn't storytelling, etc. These are different things that we do at about the same time but they're all separate activities. What real roleplay consists of is you making decisions your character would make in their situation. That is done in your head, not in a game. It's done outside of and independent of any game rules. You are gaming and you are roleplaying at the same time, but the two don't become the same thing. They're still separate.