tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post79804231292132993..comments2024-02-16T22:05:32.773+02:00Comments on LotFP: RPG: Role-Playing is not...JimLotFPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-3167251448486239592009-03-20T07:07:00.000+02:002009-03-20T07:07:00.000+02:00Trying again.Food is, at its base, sustenance. You...Trying again.<BR/><BR/>Food is, at its base, sustenance. You can add all the flavor you want to it, but that's not the point of eating.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-22911675983164042392009-03-20T00:31:00.000+02:002009-03-20T00:31:00.000+02:00Your role is entirely defined by the mechanics of ...Your role is entirely defined by the mechanics of the game?<BR/><BR/>Well, you should feel right at home in 4th Edition, then. (/snark)<BR/><BR/><I>That's old school D&D - you become a hero by earning it in game, not by writing a piece of short fiction before it starts. Your character comes into the dungeon as fresh meat and if he survives, eventually becomes a hero. This is why level titles are important: they remind you that you're not playing a hero until level 4.</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting fact: In OD&D a 1st level Fighting Man is a Veteran. Implicit in that title, you'll note, is the assumption that the character has a significant history before he ever begins play.<BR/><BR/>I think there's an interesting discussion to be had regarding crafting vs. discovering a role and the various ways in which character backgrounds can be developed and used (by both players and GMs). But One True Wayism that tries to disguise itself through a wild and absurd semantical redefinition of terms like "role" and "character" is just a waste of time, IMO.Justin Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227895898395353754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-6323994985013075772009-03-14T14:20:00.000+02:002009-03-14T14:20:00.000+02:00I haven't read all the comments or references ...I haven't read all the comments or references to the post "roleplaying is not..." (I live offline), so I might be repeating some stuff, or maybe saying obvious things… Maybe I’m just kind of stupid and un-modern bothering myself with a week old subject…<BR/><BR/>>>"Role-playing is not the characterization and speaking in voices and inventing a background and developing a persona that's a unique little snowflake."<BR/><BR/>I know, I am guilty... And I know that "unique little snowflakes" melt... <BR/><BR/>>>"Your character's personality and "what would my character do based on that personality?" are add-on extras completely irrelevant (yet can enhance and perhaps make the effort enjoyable in the first place, make no mistake about what I'm saying here) to the basic activity of role-playing."<BR/><BR/>How much (and what kind of) Player-to-Player-to-NPC -interaction you want to have in a game, is a question of personal preference, but when exactly does "getting into character" become a nuisance, or a distraction?<BR/><BR/>What is "the basic activity of role-playing"?<BR/><BR/>The "getting into character"-part can determine lots of character action in the game, that might or might not have influence on the events. In my mind it's sometimes difficult to draw the line when that immersion is irrelevant: it produces in-game action! As a player, I have to pretend I am the character: otherwise I can't see, hear, smell or grab a thing in the fantasy world!<BR/><BR/>Here's two adventurers relaxing before entering a cave:<BR/><BR/>GOOGIE THE EXORCIST: "I'm going to spend the rest of the night fiddling with little pieces of wood, trying to make little statues of the Unknown Gods, for amusement..."<BR/><BR/>DWARFO THE BIG: "Hey, you're too engaged in unimportant shit again, snap out of it!!!" (Slapping Googie's face with an open palm like Gene Hackman in "the French Connection")<BR/><BR/>It's always possible that Googie's little pieces of wood might work as projectile weapons later on, or something else... <BR/><BR/>In a fantasy world unexpected things often happen: secondary things can turn out to be important and so on... So, as a player, I think it's not smart to disregard seemingly trivial character-based actions as some kind of narcissistic acting-excercises! Now imagine that it wasn't Dwarfo who would correct Googie, but the GM? Should we set a standard on how much character immersion is permitted? <BR/><BR/>>>"Fighting Man Level 1<BR/>ST 12, IN 8, WI 10, CN 9, DX 10, CH 9<BR/>That's your character and your role, right there."<BR/><BR/>Is the player just a "necessary evil" needed to glue those bits together? The CHARACTER is often the KEY to player's (use of) imagination, which is VITAL in getting "into the game", or game "world"... whatever.<BR/><BR/>So, "character acting" can be character ACTION?... And I don't mean "using voices" or elaborate "backgrounds" either: it can be very subtle things that do the trick. Not necessarily pretending to look and sound exactly like a [character/monster of your choice here], but getting into it... often goes through details.<BR/><BR/>(And I know you know, that I know…. You know, That. With pointy teeth.)<BR/><BR/>-mikko t.MOThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07588241756213929045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-64939056309425739872009-03-11T11:36:00.000+02:002009-03-11T11:36:00.000+02:00I don't like hack and slash either. That's got not...I don't like hack and slash either. That's got nothing to do with the post.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-49673823915021101082009-03-11T06:15:00.000+02:002009-03-11T06:15:00.000+02:00Personlly, I can't stand going in with a set of st...Personlly, I can't stand going in with a set of stats and slashing at things. That's boring as hell. I love the acting part of roleplaying.<BR/><BR/>You keep your hack-and-slash characters, you run those campaigns, and you have a blast. It doesn't make me less of a gamer that I adore playing out complex psychologies. I'd way rather play a character who willingly drops her sword because she can't bring herself to attack her friend-turned-rival than kill 200 orcs in a session. If you're the other way around, have at it. Don't belittle me.Samantha C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16880361667232252120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-47052709789433076182009-03-10T18:32:00.000+02:002009-03-10T18:32:00.000+02:00We're obviously talking about just a gaming contex...We're obviously talking about just a gaming context here.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-4587064573500898982009-03-10T18:29:00.000+02:002009-03-10T18:29:00.000+02:00Roleplaying as defined at wikipedia fits what the ...Roleplaying as defined at wikipedia fits what the OP says. But I think a real encyclopedia might be more accurate.howandwhy99https://www.blogger.com/profile/14611287591950671912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-54706678042662384962009-03-10T16:28:00.000+02:002009-03-10T16:28:00.000+02:00The Method of Roleplaying vs. Role-Assumption vs. ...The Method of Roleplaying vs. Role-Assumption vs. Role-Acting; <BR/><BR/>I told all of you so several years ago. As did Gary, even some more years back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-5455633417944315192009-03-09T23:09:00.000+02:002009-03-09T23:09:00.000+02:00>>Reality - Role-playing means whatever the ...>>Reality - Role-playing means whatever the hell one wants it to mean.<BR/><BR/>Then it doesn't mean anything at all.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-10569063598030756652009-03-09T22:51:00.000+02:002009-03-09T22:51:00.000+02:00Reality - Role-playing means whatever the hell one...Reality - Role-playing means whatever the hell one wants it to mean.<BR/><BR/>But, by all means, keep arguing about it. It's very entertaining. :PTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03192316280629844659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-47872925821810067442009-03-09T16:27:00.000+02:002009-03-09T16:27:00.000+02:00This is where I break company with the old-school ...This is where I break company with the old-school approach (which I otherwise agree with and lean toward).<BR/><BR/>I fully recognize that it's possible to play a 1st-level Fighting Man with a 12 Strength and no name. I also recognize that playing in that style would personally bore the poop out of me. Others' mileage will obviously vary.<BR/><BR/>And that's fine! We gravitate toward our own fun.<BR/><BR/>Lord HobieDoug Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08233615249302361280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-8890952292907462302009-03-09T12:49:00.000+02:002009-03-09T12:49:00.000+02:00>>Maybe next time Jim could offer more of hi...>>Maybe next time Jim could offer more of his own mind, instead of pointing to a bogglingly long RPGNet thread?<BR/><BR/>The thread had the usual talk of "4e doesn't include role-playing," but the thing is, I've glanced at 4e. Haven't read it. Don't ever plan to (just like I'm a metalhead with no real opinion on Death Magnetic, because I haven't ever bothered to listen to Load, let alone any of the albums after).<BR/><BR/>So giving my opinions on the exact debate at hand isn't possible, but I can use that to form my own opinions in a general manner.<BR/><BR/>>>You will never have to roll another character again, just roll up 10 different characters for each class and roll a d10 each time one dies.<BR/><BR/>That's actually a good idea...<BR/><BR/>>>If you don't want your character ignorant of a monsters abilities then take the proper skills that say hey I know this thing.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe the referee can describe the monster instead of saying "You see a troll." Asking an experienced player to ignore his own knowledge when it comes to these things is a sign of bad refereeing. I had one player yesterday guess that they were looking at a bulette and a wyvern and in the bulette's case all I was even taking liberties in the creature's environmental capabilities (I had a shark's fin swimming around a lake, and then it came right on shore, and nobody saw more than the fin before deciding they should split.)<BR/><BR/>... "You see a fin in the water," also caused a bit of comedy at the table, now that I'm telling the story. People wondered for a moment if I said, "You see a Finn." heh. If that was the case, I would have presented it as, 'You see a drunk longhaired guy carrying a hockey stick.'<BR/><BR/>>>Without story just go play WOW or Everquest on line where who you are has no bearing on what your doing. Where thinking is really not required.<BR/><BR/>Never played WOW or Everquest, but I don't doubt that computer role-playing games are role-playing games (Ultima IV - VI are almost how I wish I could construct campaigns... big quests are there, and things you did yesterday can greatly change things today, but there's so much to do that has nothing to do with any big quests!). I'd say that the interplay between referee and players is a key point in enjoying role-playing (and the unlimited options whereas computers can only handle actions previously predicted and programmed), but what if the core activities of our hobby can actually be wholly produced by a computer game with no human contact? Then surely a multi-player environment would be doing it better than that? <BR/><BR/>Does WOW have "scenario" builder and the capability do play 'closed games' away from the main servers or however it works?JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-61429153762504667122009-03-08T14:09:00.000+02:002009-03-08T14:09:00.000+02:00Notions as to what's being reacted to/against here...Notions as to what's being reacted to/against here are flying off in too many directions for me to track.<BR/><BR/>Maybe next time Jim could offer more of his own mind, instead of pointing to a bogglingly long RPGNet thread?Dwayanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07388657516129827977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-56646543639283439932009-03-08T13:38:00.000+02:002009-03-08T13:38:00.000+02:00For crap's sake.The Arneson example is actuall...For crap's sake.<BR/><BR/>The Arneson example is actually a really good counter-point to the whole idea that what Jim is talking about here has nothing to do with "playing a character." In Arneson's games you were a random mook as likely to be killed as to live up until you were a hero. The Great Svenny had no predetermined background, he was one of a big group of men at arms who got lucky and survived the adventure. He became a hero afterward. That's old school D&D - you become a hero by earning it in game, not by writing a piece of short fiction before it starts. Your character comes into the dungeon as fresh meat and if he survives, eventually becomes a hero. This is why level titles are important: they remind you that you're not playing a hero until level 4. Until then, you're just some guy looking for glory.Wayne Rossihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11347401495298367324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-85821483287380600912009-03-08T13:37:00.000+02:002009-03-08T13:37:00.000+02:00When I started playing 4E, I was not playing a "st...When I started playing 4E, I was not playing a "striker," "defender" or "controller; I was playing Joe So-and-So from Waterdeep (or wherever).<BR/><BR/>At the same time, I was playing <I>myself</I> in the situation -- at least to the extent that (e.g.) I reacted to an encounter with a ghost on the basis of my previous D&D experience.<BR/><BR/>The other players reacted on the basis of familiarity with the 4E <I>Monster Manual</I>.Dwayanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07388657516129827977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-68767416827594463382009-03-08T12:35:00.000+02:002009-03-08T12:35:00.000+02:00You might as well be playing a card game then. You...You might as well be playing a card game then. <BR/><BR/>You will never have to roll another character again, just roll up 10 different characters for each class and roll a d10 each time one dies.<BR/><BR/>If you don't want your character ignorant of a monsters abilities then take the proper skills that say hey I know this thing.<BR/><BR/>The great thing about RPGs is that it IS a story, one where personal convictions, honor, betrayal, desires, motivations and goals reach deeper than I'm a LG Priest of (insert generic god which will have no real bearing on game play anyway) who will act like a CN thief because alignments and moral codes are to restrictive and I want some of the good stuff that non evil PCs get.<BR/><BR/>And btw, if your character dies fighting the troll because you didn't know what it was, how about running?<BR/>OH HOW DARE THE GM PUT US UP AGAINST SUCH AN ADVANCED MONSTER<BR/>how about you frickin run, do some studying, find out what the hell it is and then pelt it from afar with flaming arrows?<BR/>Unless your haracter is really retarded with an IQ=/<7. <BR/><BR/>I don't know how many here are DMs/GMs, but part of the fun for me as a GM is letting a story unfold into unexpected directions bcause of the personal touches on a character, beyond alignment. Otherwise it's, here's a troll, here's your xp<BR/>here's a group of orcs, here's your xp<BR/>ramorraz, xp<BR/>6th level thief, xp<BR/>4 wyverns, xp<BR/>thingie, xp<BR/>thingie, xp<BR/>wooo<BR/>15th magic dagger+1<BR/>8th magic sword+3<BR/>12th fp+5<BR/>100th greater healing potion<BR/><BR/><BR/>heroism only comes if the there is a cleric who can raise dead, thereby negating the supposed heroism<BR/><BR/>I prefer to let the characters tell me the story through the circumstances I provide. <BR/><BR/>Without story just go play WOW or Everquest on line where who you are has no bearing on what your doing. Where thinking is really not required.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16350284858711511229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-39053953517772484152009-03-08T11:29:00.000+02:002009-03-08T11:29:00.000+02:00The link is to the start of a thread of at least 5...The link is to the start of a thread of at least 52 pages with no immediately obvious relevance (as you said, more about reviewer and review).<BR/><BR/>"Role" as game function seems to be what 4E is all about. <I>If</I> Malizewski's "Bingo" is to Rients' comment, then I'm more confused than enlightened.<BR/><BR/>The key element to me is "putting myself in the shoes" of my character. Trying to pretend that, e.g., I don't already know about the regeneration ability of trolls is after all these years a dead letter. I'm a D&Der, Jim, not an actor! Better to subvert my assumptions.<BR/><BR/>4E is too disconnected from established referents for my taste. It's too thick with stuff that gets in my face reminding me not only that it's "just a game" but that it's not even "D&D as we know it."<BR/><BR/>A proper RPG to me goes too far neither in that direction nor in the "story-telling-author" direction. Either extreme jerks my perspective right out of those sandals smacking stone.Dwayanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07388657516129827977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-71944168045079506762009-03-08T02:46:00.000+02:002009-03-08T02:46:00.000+02:00"yet can enhance and perhaps make the effort enjoy..."yet can enhance and perhaps make the effort enjoyable in the first place"<BR/><BR/>Wait, if it takes characterisation for 'it' to be enjoyable, then that's the enjoyable thing for that person.<BR/><BR/>If the original founders of roleplay found that to be the important thing, then what your into is actually the irrelevant part and characterisation actually is roleplay - what you like is just an add on that doesn't matter too much.<BR/><BR/>As it is, if you take Gygax to be the founder of the roleplay were talking about, well there was also Dave Arneson around at that founding point as well.<BR/><BR/>I would say Gygax was into what you like, while Dave Arneson - well, he had a house rule that went "You only get XP for spending gold on things that are important to your character"<BR/><BR/>In other words, roleplay was founded both on what it is you pursue, and characterisation - even though they are not always mutually compatable.<BR/><BR/>So no, characterisation is about an irrelevant add on as the thing you pursue. How about imagining someone else going all revisionist history and writing out what you like as simply an irrelevant add on?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-10080653405690456182009-03-08T01:28:00.000+02:002009-03-08T01:28:00.000+02:00I have two possibly contradictory observations.#1 ...I have two possibly contradictory observations.<BR/><BR/>#1 is that my current game has "Anon the Mage" in it. Anon is a mage because he (or she--even that's indeterminate) had a higher MIND stat than anything else (m74). Anon's role is, yeah, to cast [i]Magic Missile[/i] and to stab monsters with a dagger to conserve its magic. Anon works fine in the context of that m74 game.<BR/><BR/>#2 is that we tried a game using m20. This was a Zombies game. And we did a 3d6-in-order character creation. My character had horrible stats (like 6,4,8, I think), and in this game, a single zombie bite is almost certain death. My role was very much dictated by my stats: I tried to run to the center of the other players, and shrieked aloud to Jesus to protect me, and didn't try to do anything useful because that would have meant almost certain death. I had a terrible time with that character, and so did everyone else. Yet, it was a very old-school game in the sense of "let the dice fall where they may." In OD&D that'd be a Fighting Man, but a really crappy one. However, in a Dawn-of-the-Dead type game, I really felt no urge to charge in and get my braaaaaaain chomped. Was I wrong?<BR/><BR/>AdamAdam Thorntonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06368676086759298705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-70038406279619662262009-03-08T00:59:00.000+02:002009-03-08T00:59:00.000+02:00Backstory - yeah. When I have a player that has a ...Backstory - yeah. When I have a player that has a fancy story about their character it usually end-up one of two ways: 1) the physics of a monster biting him solves the problem for me, or 2) I remind them that them they're first level.Josef Mieszkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12736372446365054966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-43454340154904037642009-03-07T23:10:00.000+02:002009-03-07T23:10:00.000+02:00>> If someone shows up with their half-elf R...>> If someone shows up with their half-elf Ranger with a commissioned character sketch and a history of being through three wars with the drow, etc. but their player is timid and wimpy and doesn't know how to control a fighter but insists "wait my character should know how to do that" -- fie on that.<BR/><BR/>That is a definite pitfall of adding on too many bells and whistles to the character before play. If you can't pull it off then it's been done for nothing.<BR/><BR/>>>Deliberate reduction of various elements the game to a minimum suggested by 70's play as it is remembered and understood can be good when the game is the better for the approach, but this philosophical minimalism is not the game, nor fundamental to it.<BR/><BR/>Developing your character as you go and grow with your character, that's a method that makes sense to have been the original way of doing it. Before the player characters even had a role they were just faceless, nameless troops. The role defined the character before everything else and over time the extras were added to sort of support bringing the character to life.<BR/><BR/>So as for the minimalism not being fundamental, I think it is. But I don't think that means it should stop someone from adding extras if they really wanted to, or if they felt comfortable with pulling off the extras without having a "What would my PC do?" moment. Over analyzing should be left to post game banter or it could paralyze the momentum of the game.Nopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02743719179352388875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-72647260877602208582009-03-07T21:57:00.000+02:002009-03-07T21:57:00.000+02:00>>It's bad to do so when it interferes w...>>It's bad to do so when it interferes with the game. It's not bad to do so when it does not. It's good to do so when it enhances the game. But it isn't the game.<BR/><BR/>I think that the most aggressively austere positions of--forgive the term-neoclassicist play have equal or great potential for interference. Deliberate reduction of various elements the game to a minimum suggested by 70's play as it is remembered and understood can be good when the game is the better for the approach, but this philosophical minimalism is not the game, nor fundamental to it.Welcome to Dungeon!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14346914156633328775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-34688215650703833192009-03-07T21:50:00.000+02:002009-03-07T21:50:00.000+02:00Good God man, there's no way I'm wading through 50...Good God man, there's no way I'm wading through 50+ pages of RPGnet discussion about 4E.<BR/><BR/>I think you like to phrase things strongly for effect but the parenthetical near the end is important to the meaning. It looks to me like Cole and Mr. Bat in the Attic have misunderstood, despite the explicit warning not to.<BR/><BR/>I'll say that for me, good roleplaying is when you feel like you *are* the character, and bad roleplaying is when you are sort of "piloting" the character, or dragging it along behind you. It's like if a LARPer, instead of wearing the costume himself, put the costume on a mannequin that he hauled around with him and occasionally primped, and in a confrontation would explain how the mannequin had just run away too fast for you to follow.<BR/><BR/>For this reason it is best if PC's start out relatively blank, because I believe the character concept should adjust to the actual way the character is played at the table. What goes on at the table should in some way be reflected in what goes on in the game is a DMing commandment, I feel. If the players are spending a year arguing about which corridor to go down, their characters are wasting time arguing in the game world arguing as well. If the players are arguing loud, increase the chance for a wandering monster.<BR/><BR/>If someone shows up with their half-elf Ranger with a commissioned character sketch and a history of being through three wars with the drow, etc. but their <I>player</I> is timid and wimpy and doesn't know how to control a fighter but insists "wait my character should know how to do that" -- fie on that.K. Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623767121412820113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-73435071415907237782009-03-07T21:48:00.000+02:002009-03-07T21:48:00.000+02:00>>You did claim it was bad to do so: Look at...>>You did claim it was bad to do so: <BR/><BR/>Look at what I just quoted back to Conley.<BR/><BR/>It's bad to do so when it interferes with the game. It's not bad to do so when it does not. It's good to do so when it enhances the game. But it isn't the game.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-16315040436375925972009-03-07T21:43:00.000+02:002009-03-07T21:43:00.000+02:00You did claim it was bad to do so: '"Adva...You did claim it was bad to do so: <BR/><BR/>'"Advancements" and advice that bypass the heart of the games are no good, that's why. It's easy to get caught up in a lot of things, and miss the very basics.'<BR/><BR/>>> and that doesn't turn Monopoly into a role-playing game.<BR/><BR/>To an extent, it does, though of course a poor one. In my experience, I have observed that players with even a very limited exposure to D&D often do just this when playing board games among other RPG players. Generally you play to win, but generally you play to win in RPGs as well, where winning is generally "surviving."Welcome to Dungeon!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14346914156633328775noreply@blogger.com