[The Doomed One]

I have 18" ones from some Games Workshop game.  Only two have survived the years at their original length though.

We used to call those things fun-wreckers, because they HURT when you hit someone with them.  We also used to have sword fights with them.

 I never really thought of using them for anything other than that though.

[Outrider45]

Role VS Roll.

I say there is room for both at tables. While my general preference is 'role' I also like having a campaign where being total combat monsters is a blast.

Right now I'm running two different PFRPG campaigns: Rise of the Runelords and Carrion Crown. Both groups are with people I've gamed with for (in some cases) over 18yrs. As the DM both run totally different. And its ok by me. The Runelords group is more 'roll' and action with a lighter take on 'role' as we seem to be having fun smashing through more and more difficult challenges. Its comprised of six players that historically like to 'role' but it is a bit more combat and action heavy.

The Carrion Crown group is the more 'role' heavy game (with FastJack playing his uber dwarf in it). They have taken vested interest in the world around them, I've had to create personalities for basic townsfolk just because they talk to them, text blocks in the module have gone from reading out loud to I'm throwing in more emotion and improv acting. One of my favorite roles was that of the Beast of Lepidstat (think frankenstein's monster). Lots of physical power with the mind of a child. Good role playing there. This group challenges me to improve the world for them as they interact with it. Runelords group interacts more with themselves and the mission than their surroundings. Nothing wrong with that.

So its not wether 3.x/PFRPG has more roll or role. Its the groups of players. It happens in any RPG setting. You will always find the power gaming mega weenie that just wants to sling dice and you will always find the ones with the in depth character history that wants to play out their personality all night. Either is fine & acceptible for the group dynamic.

Just as long as you as DM and your players are having fun, in the end, does roll vs role really matter?

[Red Canti]

So my question is: Am I really just the lucky guy who finds all the 3.x/PF roleplayers over roll-players, or has anyone else actually found any? And do you dislike/hate/loath/wish to eliminate all traces of either one from the universe and why?

I have a grand total of 2 DMs. One I've played a number of games with (just one session of DnD3.5), but plays way too fast and loose with the rules, and doesn't understand how casters are built (which hampered us both during character creation), and his DMPC is fucking absurd. Roleplaying is encouraged amongst that group, but none of us are that good at it, I can't recall the exact details of our last session

Meanwhile the other one is a tool with selective hearing, a love of the sound of his own voice and a tendency to lecture during character creation (How he managed to talk someone playing a kender out of taking any points in Move Silently, Hide and Slight of Hand is being my reckoning).
The group is strictly rollplayers, we didn't even roleplay how the group met, we were just together, no IC chatter between characters either, and in OOC chatter it was revealed that our Barbarian actually lacks a name, much less a backstory. Speaking of names, I don't know the IC names of any of my fellow players (except one Pizarro the Mighty, a Monk). Rollplayers one and all. But good people, the twinked out mage (Wizard/Sorceror/Theurge) cast Fly on my Cleric and told me to get to safety when I was pretty injured, and the Barbarian didn't attack me while I was healing her as she was in a rage. So they're all right. Even if one's a pretty obvious 3aboo.


...


Don't ask me what that word means. I'm ashamed I even remembering it.

[Zilfer]

So my question is: Am I really just the lucky guy who finds all the 3.x/PF roleplayers over roll-players, or has anyone else actually found any? And do you dislike/hate/loath/wish to eliminate all traces of either one from the universe and why?

I have a grand total of 2 DMs. One I've played a number of games with (just one session of DnD3.5), but plays way too fast and loose with the rules, and doesn't understand how casters are built (which hampered us both during character creation), and his DMPC is fucking absurd. Roleplaying is encouraged amongst that group, but none of us are that good at it, I can't recall the exact details of our last session

Meanwhile the other one is a tool with selective hearing, a love of the sound of his own voice and a tendency to lecture during character creation (How he managed to talk someone playing a kender out of taking any points in Move Silently, Hide and Slight of Hand is being my reckoning).
The group is strictly rollplayers, we didn't even roleplay how the group met, we were just together, no IC chatter between characters either, and in OOC chatter it was revealed that our Barbarian actually lacks a name, much less a backstory. Speaking of names, I don't know the IC names of any of my fellow players (except one Pizarro the Mighty, a Monk). Rollplayers one and all. But good people, the twinked out mage (Wizard/Sorceror/Theurge) cast Fly on my Cleric and told me to get to safety when I was pretty injured, and the Barbarian didn't attack me while I was healing her as she was in a rage. So they're all right. Even if one's a pretty obvious 3aboo.


...


Don't ask me what that word means. I'm ashamed I even remembering it.

Funny i was about to ask that..... o.O'

[Red Canti]

So my question is: Am I really just the lucky guy who finds all the 3.x/PF roleplayers over roll-players, or has anyone else actually found any? And do you dislike/hate/loath/wish to eliminate all traces of either one from the universe and why?

I have a grand total of 2 DMs. One I've played a number of games with (just one session of DnD3.5), but plays way too fast and loose with the rules, and doesn't understand how casters are built (which hampered us both during character creation), and his DMPC is fucking absurd. Roleplaying is encouraged amongst that group, but none of us are that good at it, I can't recall the exact details of our last session

Meanwhile the other one is a tool with selective hearing, a love of the sound of his own voice and a tendency to lecture during character creation (How he managed to talk someone playing a kender out of taking any points in Move Silently, Hide and Slight of Hand is being my reckoning).
The group is strictly rollplayers, we didn't even roleplay how the group met, we were just together, no IC chatter between characters either, and in OOC chatter it was revealed that our Barbarian actually lacks a name, much less a backstory. Speaking of names, I don't know the IC names of any of my fellow players (except one Pizarro the Mighty, a Monk). Rollplayers one and all. But good people, the twinked out mage (Wizard/Sorceror/Theurge) cast Fly on my Cleric and told me to get to safety when I was pretty injured, and the Barbarian didn't attack me while I was healing her as she was in a rage. So they're all right. Even if one's a pretty obvious 3aboo.


...


Don't ask me what that word means. I'm ashamed I even remembering it.

Funny i was about to ask that..... o.O'

It's an Insult, coming from /tg/ on 4chan. It refers to the people who go online and talk shit about DnD 4th Edition, who are almost always fans of 3.5 and Pathfinder, also the trolls pretending to be said people. The word itself is portmanteau of Three and Weaboo, which itself is another insult that has to do with some of the dumber Anime fans who think of Japan as this screwy nerd promised land. 3aboo  was coined in retaliation of '4rry" which sounds like Furry and 4E, a fetish that is given no small amount of scorn throughout 4chan, Circa 2007 anyway.

/tg/ got the worst of the Edition wars. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're actually being a lot more mature about this time around at least. Last I checked anyway.