Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5929173" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>We have used miniatures for:</p><p></p><p>- Scaling a cliff, with some characters helping the poorer climbers and gear being hauled up, too.</p><p></p><p>- Navigating trap-strewn dungeons, where traps may affect others standing in specific places (but you gotta stand somewhere!)</p><p></p><p>- Tense social situations, where a swift exit (or the start of a fight) may be needed at any moment, and where certain interpersonal effects may be aided (or defused) based on relative position.</p><p></p><p>- Simple marching order for travel and transit situations, in case of ambush (or to inculcate the idea that ambush might occur...) Also includes camp layout and positions of those on watch.</p><p></p><p>- Sneaking up situations and scouting, where both the scouts' positions and the scene being scouted out can be represented in a "picture" rather than a (necessarily) partial verbal description.</p><p></p><p>Plus several I've forgotten, probably.</p><p></p><p>I'm happy dropping the "stances" terminology, even though it just makes the discussion clunky.</p><p></p><p>To be clear: not only do I think speaking in first person, visualising the scene in first person and seeking to think in first person as the character ("immersing") are unnecessary, I think they can be a positive hindrance to playing a character.</p><p></p><p>The reason for this is that we all have a raft of assumptions, beliefs and defaults surrounding how we view the world, and we have a complex skillset around modelling what other people think and believe, and around shaping our own behaviours and words in ways that we believe will move those other peoples' opinions and beliefs in certain ways. These assumptions, beliefs and skills are with us regardless of whether we are "roleplaying" or not. If we want to deliberately play a character with somewhat divergent views and assumptions to our own, then focussing purely on a first-person view will hinder our attempts to consciously separate ourselves from our own default assumptions and views, thus hindering our "roleplaying", as I define it.</p><p></p><p>Immersion and first person focus can be a useful roleplaying tool, but like many tools it tends to make us see things in characteristic ways. If I imagine that <em>I</em> am seeing what the character sees, I will habitually interpret the scene as <em>I</em> would interpret the scene, not as the character might. By separating myself from the character a little, I can consciously choose to skew things a little to represent how I imagine the character interprets the scene. Skill systems can be particularly useful, here, as there may well be things in the scene that are "obvious" to me, but not obvious at all to the character (and, to be clear, might easily be either correct <strong>or incorrect</strong>). Similarly, there may well be things that are opaque to me, but quite obvious to the character (even though I might know them; for example, having heard the players talk prior to approaching an NPC, I might know perfectly well what their aims are in the encounter, even though I would not have done had I not been privy to the prior discussion; meanwhile, the NPC might or might not "see" what the PCs are after - either correctly or incorrectly - based on their own interpersonal skills and world model).</p><p></p><p>Basically, interpersonal interactions are a complex set of processes that we are only just beginning to understand through science. The book I referred to is a nice little introduction to one aspect of this. Having played "the DM and the player interact yet again and take the (predictable) outcome of their interaction as a cipher for what happens between the characters in the game" for many years, I'm sick of it and would much rather explore the terrain of how these interactions might be represented in ways similar to those in which we model combat in RPGs. I want to get the players engaging with the game world on an intellectual level, not an emotional one (although that may follow, if the situations are framed well and appropriately) from the point of view of their character.</p><p></p><p>I guess it's like the difference between sentiment and sentimentality; the interactions the folks I game with and I get through our own models and assumptions have sort of become cliché to me; I want something more, and achieving that needs form and structure to help me reach it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5929173, member: 27160"] We have used miniatures for: - Scaling a cliff, with some characters helping the poorer climbers and gear being hauled up, too. - Navigating trap-strewn dungeons, where traps may affect others standing in specific places (but you gotta stand somewhere!) - Tense social situations, where a swift exit (or the start of a fight) may be needed at any moment, and where certain interpersonal effects may be aided (or defused) based on relative position. - Simple marching order for travel and transit situations, in case of ambush (or to inculcate the idea that ambush might occur...) Also includes camp layout and positions of those on watch. - Sneaking up situations and scouting, where both the scouts' positions and the scene being scouted out can be represented in a "picture" rather than a (necessarily) partial verbal description. Plus several I've forgotten, probably. I'm happy dropping the "stances" terminology, even though it just makes the discussion clunky. To be clear: not only do I think speaking in first person, visualising the scene in first person and seeking to think in first person as the character ("immersing") are unnecessary, I think they can be a positive hindrance to playing a character. The reason for this is that we all have a raft of assumptions, beliefs and defaults surrounding how we view the world, and we have a complex skillset around modelling what other people think and believe, and around shaping our own behaviours and words in ways that we believe will move those other peoples' opinions and beliefs in certain ways. These assumptions, beliefs and skills are with us regardless of whether we are "roleplaying" or not. If we want to deliberately play a character with somewhat divergent views and assumptions to our own, then focussing purely on a first-person view will hinder our attempts to consciously separate ourselves from our own default assumptions and views, thus hindering our "roleplaying", as I define it. Immersion and first person focus can be a useful roleplaying tool, but like many tools it tends to make us see things in characteristic ways. If I imagine that [I]I[/I] am seeing what the character sees, I will habitually interpret the scene as [I]I[/I] would interpret the scene, not as the character might. By separating myself from the character a little, I can consciously choose to skew things a little to represent how I imagine the character interprets the scene. Skill systems can be particularly useful, here, as there may well be things in the scene that are "obvious" to me, but not obvious at all to the character (and, to be clear, might easily be either correct [B]or incorrect[/B]). Similarly, there may well be things that are opaque to me, but quite obvious to the character (even though I might know them; for example, having heard the players talk prior to approaching an NPC, I might know perfectly well what their aims are in the encounter, even though I would not have done had I not been privy to the prior discussion; meanwhile, the NPC might or might not "see" what the PCs are after - either correctly or incorrectly - based on their own interpersonal skills and world model). Basically, interpersonal interactions are a complex set of processes that we are only just beginning to understand through science. The book I referred to is a nice little introduction to one aspect of this. Having played "the DM and the player interact yet again and take the (predictable) outcome of their interaction as a cipher for what happens between the characters in the game" for many years, I'm sick of it and would much rather explore the terrain of how these interactions might be represented in ways similar to those in which we model combat in RPGs. I want to get the players engaging with the game world on an intellectual level, not an emotional one (although that may follow, if the situations are framed well and appropriately) from the point of view of their character. I guess it's like the difference between sentiment and sentimentality; the interactions the folks I game with and I get through our own models and assumptions have sort of become cliché to me; I want something more, and achieving that needs form and structure to help me reach it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next
Top