Soldier, Seeker, Schemer

[TheEmptyRoad]

So the new Critical Role Campaign (I know, I know, just bear with me here) is going to be split up into three groups: combat-oriented ‘Soldiers’, lore and exploration-oriented ‘Seekers’, and intrigue-oriented ‘Schemers’ based on (I think) what the DM thinks will be best suited to each player. This got me thinking about the way I like to play RPGs and wondering if D&D is even the best system for all three of these concepts.

What do you look forward to when you play tabletop? Only one? Or a mixture? Which game system do you prefer or expect for the type of game you like?

[Tangerine]

The whole point is I can do any of them based on context instead of it being scripted like most video games.

[logincrash]

This whole thing was made up by CR to group up players who actually want to play a game based on rules (Soldier) and other theatre kid **** who just want to improv sucking their own dicks and huffing their own farts for 4 hours.
Out of the whole cast - 14 people - only 3 or 4 are actually worth a ****. All of them are normal (using it instead of "straight" - actually a derogatory term the purpose of which is to both denigrate normal people by calling them "square" i.e. uncool, and to legitimize the coopting of the word "gay" to mean *** instead of happy and to step away from "*****" meaning "abnormal") White males. Now, it needs to be said that all of them are on the leftist ****** spectrum, even the Texan jock Travis "My Xbox Gamertag is RapedBacon" Willingham.
Brennan Lee Mulligan is a very intelligent man but he's an incredibly devout secularist and a diehard communist. He's a prime example of how important the right upbringing is, especially for such a brilliant mind. It can be so easily fooled into being a rabid supporter of the most insane beliefs as long as it was conditioned into it from childhood. And Brennan's mother is quite an insane ****.
It's a real shame.

[J1M]

So there is a mcguffin that swaps players if the schemers are discovered? Seems ********.

[TheEmptyRoad]

I mean, when I think about it, I do enjoy all three categories, however, there are some ‘scheme’-y things I don’t think I could pull off with certain types of players. Namely the lolSoRandom Shenanigans players. Who randomly sperg out because they get bored.

[Envuen]

I can understand separating fighting from roleplaying, but they divided rp into exploring lore and scheming? Shouldnt these two go along? Knowing the situation of their setting should be required in order to scheme properly.

[OnTilt]

A lot comes from where the group prefers to place the emphasis, and how abstract they want to make each portion of the game, but it takes all three to complete the experience. Combat only becomes War Hammer tabletop -- nothing wrong with that but it's a different game altogether. The same goes for the other two, if taken exclusively they make a different game.

I prefer all three, with emphasis on exploring/seeking, using combat as way to add stakes and keep it from feeling like a choose your own adventure. It also helps me feel more connected to my character when I have a concrete measure of their power and capabilities and get to see it in action. The intrigue portion excites me the least and starts making me feel like a theatre *** unless it is abstracted as far as possible. I just want to make a roll to see if he's lying, not do 30 minutes of improv.

[Demonic Fate]

Schemers belong in large games - LARPs or social deduction games, anyway stuff with 8+ players and 3+ "teams". If it's 3-4 players it's best to just roll Deception vs. Perception with a bonus for good roleplaying and call it a day; otherwise you're just playing against the DM's acting skills and that's an inherently unfair game.

Soldiers and Seekers both work as long as it's not a cut-and-dry separation. If you're playing pure combat without any interaction with the environment or background lore, the game is barely an RPG and you should have a computer instead of a DM. And if you're not doing any combat at all you should play at least a PbtA game or even lighter, no reason to waste time with D&D.

But there's nothing wrong with asking "do you guys prefer more or less than one combat encounter per session, on average?", in fact you should always do that so nobody is too bored.

[Cipher]

Schemers belong in large games - LARPs or social deduction games, anyway stuff with 8+ players and 3+ "teams". If it's 3-4 players it's best to just roll Deception vs. Perception with a bonus for good roleplaying and call it a day; otherwise you're just playing against the DM's acting skills and that's an inherently unfair game.

Soldiers and Seekers both work as long as it's not a cut-and-dry separation. If you're playing pure combat without any interaction with the environment or background lore, the game is barely an RPG and you should have a computer instead of a DM. And if you're not doing any combat at all you should play at least a PbtA game or even lighter, no reason to waste time with D&D.

But there's nothing wrong with asking "do you guys prefer more or less than one combat encounter per session, on average?", in fact you should always do that so nobody is too bored.

I always make my games sandbox so there is no "minimum amount of combats" per game. Combat happens when it happens as a consequence from the Players' actions, just like everything else. The world reacts to what the Players are doing. They may opt to involve themselves in some court intrigue, that leads them to uncover some ancient vampire scheme and ends up in a combat encounter.

I agree with Logincrash here, this segregation seems more about having people that want to actually play a game with rules and theater kid LARPers that just want to wank each other. At the end of the day CR is just a bunch of woketards doing amateur acting instead of roleplaying so its all garbage anyways.

[Xenich]

I can deal with everything accept the ******* LARPing...

FFS, if I want to LARP as a Knight, it has to be as a Knight in that sense. At least the SCA allows you to put on ******* armor and hit someone else with menace.

OTHERWISE, if it is game night around a table, lets keep the faggotry role play to a minimum (DM story telling theatrics) and focus on the statistical game play.

Yeah, I know it may **** off those who like to "act" out ****, but... well... this wasn't how we played back in the 70's/80's, we were wargamers who liked a bit of story to our "wargame", not a **** show of theatrics.