Quote:
Originally Posted by capnzapp
Erm... the word "role" in role-playing has to me always meant playing a role, a fictitious character, acting out somebody else.
Not roles as in "tank", "damage dealer" or "healer".
While I agree your narrow and restricted definition of role is very fitting for D&D, I find it preposterous to think D&D was called a rpg because of the tactical roles you play within your party.
It was called an rpg because you could use the game to act out roles such as Conan or Gandalf. That D&D has never concerned itself much with supporting this does not change this fact.
Perhaps the time has come where we need a retronym for the original "acting in character" meaning of the "role" in role-playing game...!
|
Sorry smascrns, I'm inclined to agree with capnzapp. Firstly, the classic novels were less inclined, to my eyes, to portray Gandalf as just a "wizard." Gandalf was a wise, intense entity; inscrutable, but surprisingly fallible. He set the bar for what we would call a "wizard," but was never initially thought of as such. He was "Gandalf."
Also, defining role as "tactical position" does not do justice to the word. A role is a series of attitudes, beliefs, and concepts, not simply a position in combat or a title to one's chosen profession.
Warhammer handles it by calling it a career, and allowing a character to undertake a bevy of possible paths in life is more likely to remove the stigma of identifying a character by the name of his class. If you choose to call your character who has progressed as an Apprentice Wizard, to a Scholar, to a Journeyman Wizard a "wizard" it will be because of that is how you've chosen to personify that character. He could just as easily be a "scholar" who learned magic to attain a respected position among nobility to open up more scholastic opportunities.
As written, I don't think D&D engenders the idea of a deeper role, as in the example I've described above. I would argue that it may actually weaken the style of game that D&D attempts to deliver to give it more amorphous roles.
So, I would argue that D&D is NOT an RPG, as I define the term, but rather a tactical board game with overtures at being an RPG.
That said, D&D4e IS fun. I enjoy playing it for what I believe it to be, but all roleplaying aspects tend to disappear during routine combat (where I spend most of it missing with my Magic Missile, but them's the dice) and it's replaced by tactical positioning and careful use of spells/abilities to assure complete victory (dice willing).
Which is totally fine. Outside of combat, we play our characters and usually put the dice aside, but once combat occurs it turns into dice rolls with short, nifty descriptions of our actions as set dressing. And then we crack wise on other peoples' turns.
I don't play D&D for the roleplay aspect, I play it as a way to spend time with my friends doing something fun and light (not necessarily rules-light) with few negative outcomes (other than crap dice rolls), the game hits the spot. Nothing's more fun than blowing the crap out of kobolds. Sure, there's the possibility of tactically challenging battles, but there's still a light-heartedness about it due to all of the abilities at your finger-tips.
When we want heavy and dark with the ever-present risk of death, out comes Warhammer or Call of Cthulhu... they never want heavy and dark, though. Probably because it reminds them too much of work!
