"Roleplaying": Thank you, Mr. Baur

[seskis281]

It may surprise you to know that I generally prefer a level of rules detail similar to your tastes.

Actually in the end it doesn't surprise me at all. All this really is is a spirited debate on what different people consider the term "roleplaying" to mean.

In the end, for me, it means when someone who's not a gamer asks me "what does it mean to roleplay?" - I can say:

"To me it means creating individual characters with personalities, quirks, a sense of history, who interact with other characters in a group as their characters, adventuring in some form of fantasy, sci-fi, or other world or setting."

Could be classic medieval, could be superhero, could be sci-fi, could even be an extraordinary part of our own world (I think of a James Bond game), and whether someone likes a lot of rules or very few to create these games doesn't really bother me. I also really don't mind if anyone disagrees with my interpretation here... it is, after all, a matter of opinion and doesn't really have much to do with the price of tea in China, let alone whether or not we all have a good time at the gaming table.

Last night I ran a brand new group through the start of a C&C campaign. We ended up having just one combat in 2 1/2 hours of play - about 8 minutes to deal with a couple of Giant rats in the hay cellar of a barn. I had fully intended that the group would move on to a keep and cave complex where lots of nasty critters hang out, but they chose to spend the first session fleshing out their character's interactions with each other and playing off the NPCs at a small homestead I had intended to just be a stopping point on the way to the adventure. I loved it, they loved it, and so all is good for us.

That doesn't mean that others wouldn't find this sort of game "boring." I've seen reference to what people call "the juicy parts" of the game. I think that's pretty subjective as well - for some that means getting to the battles with big nasty types, defeating them with cool skills and feats, and reaping the rewards and treasures. For others its the solving of mysteries and puzzles as part of larger story arc. For some its merely the fun in interacting with their characters, the "play-acting" often derided... for us "the juice" is as much about getting to the encounter as it is about the encounter itself.

So take it all with a grain of salt, remember that my opinions are just my opinions, and don't get too bothered by those of us who might voice the phrase "yes... but that's not what I think roleplaying's really about.."

Unless of course you really do view this kind of forum as "just a place to get the argument on..."

Cheers.

John

 

[Quickleaf]

It sounds to me you, like many D&D players, have been conditioned to associate failure as "un-fun" because the DM was adversarial and not quick on his/her feet.
...I'm happy to post more on this if you'd like.

I'd be interested in seeing a thread on this. Sounds like an interesting idea but I'm mostly at a loss for how to execute on its potential.I'd be interested in seeing a thread on this. Sounds like an interesting idea but I'm mostly at a loss for how to execute on its potential.

There's a lot involved - attitudinal shifts based upon 3 kinds of trust (contractual, communication, and competence*), making total success/failure rare (instead use a gradient scale), and roll every failure into escalating action.
For a great discussion read this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19806.0
For some ideas about grading success/failure you could look at Fudge, HeroQuest, or countless RPGs. Here's my take: http://true20.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54.

*This is based on communication theory of Dennis and Michelle Reina in the book Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace.
Contractual Trust: When this kind of trust is present, people do what they say they will, establish clear boundaries, appropriately delegate tasks, and are consistent in word and action. It's clear what the social contract is, and everyone endeavors to uphold it.
Communication Trust: When this kind of trust is present, people disclose the truth, admit their mistakes, give honest feedback, and maintain appropriate confidentiality. Communication flows openly and easily, even when criticism is voiced.
Competence Trust: When this kind of trust is present, people respect their teammates' abilities and niche, include their teammates in projects, help others to learn new skills, and are confident in their own abilities (and seek to improve them). Everyone rests assured that their teammates are doing their best.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't see how someone can risk their character when they as a player know it's the bad choice to make.

Because I don't give a damn whether or not my characters succeed. I don't care about it, because I'm not them and my fun doesn't depend on their success or failure. What I do care about is whether or not what happens to them in the course of the game is interesting, and the best way I know how to make their lives interesting is to play them as true to their personality, goals, and experiences as possible!