Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[Raven Crowking]

I surely would not handwave setting up the inn, but wouldn't require the player to babysit it once operational. The inn would become a part of the world, but the player had to work to change it just like overthrowing the local regent to bring in a new lord that is more fair.

Even that east river can be made to move directions, but it needs depth into how it will happen rather than just saying that it happens because a player wants it to.

This inn requires funds to build, people to build, etc. So changes to the world can be made by the players, but through actions, not just words.

No arguments here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks.

Hey, I call 'em as I see's 'em.

 

[Krensky]

In the definition of martial arts, are all of them arts for being martial? I don't believe Tai chi chuan is, but I cannot think of any other. Here we could say is a change of intent. The forms are still somewhat martial, but performed for health reasons. But could Tai Chi practitioners use those forms for combat? Probably not nearly as well as most other schools. I've never heard of Tai Chi combat competitions. What do you think other martial artists would say, if the dictionary definition became: "Martial Arts are exercises for health and longevity" and then used as examples: aerobics, yoga, and jazzercise along with Ju-jitsu and Tae kwon-do?

Since Tai chi chuan literally translates as "supreme ultimate fist" (or a variation on the theme) and it was developed as a means of self defense in the early nineteenth century. It's (very) somewhat analogous to Akido. Modern instruction and modern forms tend to emphasize the spirituality and exercise aspects far more then the practical, but the style is still capable of being an effective defense. It's is a different defense then more typical hard or hard-soft martial arts, based on the premise that the best defense is to passively accept and redirect violent acts around the practitioner, rather then to block or intercept them. It's also worth remembering that tai chi chuan in combat or a martial floor display is much faster then the meditation and exercise routines.

I think there's an analogy there that relates this back to the debate at hand, but I can't quite phrase it. Something along the lines of: Tai chi chun:Shaolinquan (the broadest and best known hard Chinese style)::narrative/storytelling:simulation/gamist. Or something.

As for myself, I'm in the camp of challenging both the stats and the player. Part of this is preferred playstyle, and part is one of my groups. One player is a salesman by trade, and a good one. He's probably the smoothest, most charming person I know. He alternates between playing smooth tricksters (himself, really) and oafish brutes. When he's playing a brute and tries to be suave and charming, he gets a bonus based on whatever his role-played and acted line of bs is, but he rolls the character's social skill. He rolls when he's playing a charmer, too.

On the other side of the table, I have a player who is extremely shy, a little socially awkward, and quiet. She likes playing charming, socially adept, Machiavellian tricksters and rogues. If asked to get up and do amateur theater, she'd refuse. Drama would probably occur, but having a player break down in tears and leave is not the sort of drama anyone wants. She gives a abstract of her character's goals, I give it a penalty or bonus based on it's impact on the target and she rolls.

If I just had them role-play/act, I'd have Gronk the 'Special' Barbarian (Low INT, WIS, and CHA) pulling off cons that make the Sting look amateurish, and I'd loose another player entirely. On the other hand, if I just rolled (which I admit I do some times for simple things like haggling with the bartender or whatnot) then we'd miss some of the better lines of BS from the salesman and the cunning logic and manipulations from the shy player.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, just because a portion of background is undefined (as in your Paladin example), it doesn't mean defining that background in the course of a gaming session is playing the character.

What if an aspect of the character's personality is undefined, but you cement it in the course of play?

For example, I haven't specified that my character is impatient and short-tempered before the first session. But when Bob starts playing his wizard as a hemming-and-hawwing, dithering, indecisive person, I find that my character blows a fuse and yells at him to make up his mind.

I now know that my character has those personality traits, which will help me hew more closely to the personification in future.

Was I roleplaying at the point the character threw a tantrum, even though the ill temper wasn't nailed down before it happened? I've effectively retroactively added it to the description of the character.

-Hyp.

 

[justanobody]

Just to note there is a right way and wrong way to play D&D.

This of course varies from person to person, and determines what games and groups people play with.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to note there is a right way and wrong way to play D&D.

This of course varies from person to person, and determines what games and groups people play with.

You forgot the Max Power way........That's the wrong way, but faster!

 

[justanobody]

You forgot the Max Power way........That's the wrong way, but faster!

What's that? Max out every skill, power, die roll and play like that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

What's that? Max out every skill, power, die roll and play like that?

No, it's from The Simpsons. Homer changes him name to "Max Power".

I paraphrase by (questionable) memory:

Homer: There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way!

Bart: Isn't that the wrong way?

Homer: Yes. But faster!


RC

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps how far one is willing to go away from challenging the Player, modeling the role-playing challenges, is the matter of degree for your definition?

<snip>

Also, just because a portion of background is undefined (as in your Paladin example), it doesn't mean defining that background in the course of a gaming session is playing the character. Perhaps that focus of attention is the boundary for what counts as "staying in character" by your definition?

<snip>

I'm not really looking to plumb the depths of what qualifies as both storytelling & role-playing for your definition here. By my own account, I think the two don't crossover (it takes an outside 3rd-party like a referee). I assume it is a matter of degree for you like CRPGs discerning between an RPG (widely-focused simulation, MMORPGs), an Adventure game (probably participationalism here, like later Zelda games), and an Action Game (narrowly-focused simulation, like Duck Hunt).

I don't know enough about computer games to apply your examples to the "matter of degree" that is part of my notion of RPGing. But I think what you say above about the boundary of the focus of attention (ie it is primarily on or about the PC, even if it is not "playing the role" in your strict sense, such as narration of how a PC uses his/her skills to solve a challenge) is probably about right for what I think.

 

[howandwhy99]

What if an aspect of the character's personality is undefined, but you cement it in the course of play?

For example, I haven't specified that my character is impatient and short-tempered before the first session. But when Bob starts playing his wizard as a hemming-and-hawwing, dithering, indecisive person, I find that my character blows a fuse and yells at him to make up his mind.

I now know that my character has those personality traits, which will help me hew more closely to the personification in future.

Was I roleplaying at the point the character threw a tantrum, even though the ill temper wasn't nailed down before it happened? I've effectively retroactively added it to the description of the character.

-Hyp.

Acting is an even more narrow kind of role-playing (type 3) and characters are more or less defined by personality there. Scripts, specific motivations, as little as a mood description, whatever. Those are unneeded in traditional "role-playing" (type 2) because you can choose to do whatever you wish (no one can say "you're playing your character wrong"). There needn't be any rules for character portrayal, but any rules a game wants to give shouldn't necessarily interrupt your ability to succeed in the role. They may also be moving closer to theater games: defining personality in attempt to engender kinds of personality-based conflicts/situations. But in those cases you still don't barter or bet or whatever to "win" narration rights. You still only control your character.

In most games there are little to no rules on how to portray your PC, so Players may choose to act (#3) while role-playing (#2). This is like playing baseball while dressed as Mickey Mantle (example is a few pages back). It won't help you succeed, but you can certainly pretend you're him. "In-character" and "out-of-character" play delineates this difference.

I don't know enough about computer games to apply your examples to the "matter of degree" that is part of my notion of RPGing. But I think what you say above about the boundary of the focus of attention (ie it is primarily on or about the PC, even if it is not "playing the role" in your strict sense, such as narration of how a PC uses his/her skills to solve a challenge) is probably about right for what I think.

I follow you. I think that can exist without rules though. And what D&D and other RPGs give us is a chance to actually be the characters we read about in books. Rather than "just saying" we're the characters doing great things. (The "NAR" rules vs. R-P game rules distinction again)