Gold Roger
First Post
Nlogue said:
See, that's my problem. For me splitting a RPG into it's element and distinguishing which are roleplaying is purely semantic for me.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
"Roleplaying": Thank you, Mr. Baur
- Thread starter buzz
- Start date
See, that's my problem. For me splitting a RPG into it's element and distinguishing which are roleplaying is purely semantic for me.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
Quickleaf said:
Nifty ideas. What I do when I GM... if a player makes suboptimal tactical choices during combat that are within style and tone of character they get a 10-15% XP bonus for the session. Pretty soon they outlevel thier comrades that don't and making that suboptimal choice in combat doesn't put them at a disadvantage.
That is one of the ways I do adhoc XP awards for roleplaying.
Ok, so what I try to do here isn't say "you guys are wrong.." - just want to make that clear, and reiterate that indeed it is largely a matter of interpretation. So all I hope to do here is break down why there are those who see distinctions and what those of us who do see a separation think. Please feel free to disagree, and know that this isn't an "attack" on others' gaming philosophies, merely an explanation of my own to answer the queries:
Hussar wrote:
Hussar, those of us who draw a distinction do so because ultimately we feel that what makes the game "roleplaying" instead of just "Tactical Fantasy gaming" (which is exactly what Chainmail, D&D's precursor, was) is the primary focus on "playing a role." Lots of games employ simple character names along with dice and strategy, yet they aren't referred to as "RPGs." If there wasn't a distinction, in views like ours, "Dreamblade" and "Axis & Allies" would be RPG's as well.
If it's an artificial distinction, why would WOTC and gaming companies make it in marketing different lines of products, many with similar dice and strategy elements which are not called "roleplaying" games?
Thus, the distinction isn't artificial per se when someone asks "I've heard about fantasy roleplaying... how is it different from just playing my table-top LOTR boardgame?" If the answer is merely "the rules are more complex and comprehensive," that doesn't really say to someone on the outside who'll still ask "yeah, but what's roleplaying?"
Which leads to answer the following:
Gold Roger wrote:
That's the crux... the argument of the article at hand originally and by many here is that as long as any one element of the rules employed in a book for an RPG are being focused on, then the game is "roleplaying." Essentially, if the expression of a feat or tactic represents a character in play during combat, that is as much roleplaying as focusing on "character style" or traits, either through "play acting" by the player at the table or more theatrical descriptions of a character's action.
Those that disagree say it is the presence of a separate and unique focus on "roleplaying," whether it be by immersion in a character or simply asking "what would this character do considering his/her background, temperment, intelligence, alignment, etc." that distinguishes the roleplaying game from other games. At conventions, there are separate areas/rooms for RPGA, D&D from wargaming or tactical minis. Why if there's not a distinction? One thing I've noted is that inevitably there are those who complain that the winners of convention RPG tournaments are always the "character immersion" roleplayers, and that this is a sign of elitism. Granted to some it is... but it also merely reflects that the organizers, RPGA etc., see a distinction and focus awards and points to that element over the tactical play.
I'll give one final example to illustrate:
A character encounters a swordsman in a market.
The swordsman pulls a large scimitar blade, and employs ambidexterity to rapidly switch it back and forth between hands, making elaborate motions as he prepares to attack.
The character switches from the whip in hand and pulls a gun. He shoots the swordsman, scoring a critical hit and killing his opponent.
I think this is a fair mechanical description of the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. But it in no way creates what was unique about Indiana Jones - the rolling of the eyes, the shrug, the "ah the hell with this" attitude as he simply shot the laughing swordsman who obviously (through laughter, glee) thought he was a badass.
Do we remember the details from the sword fights in "The Princess Bride?" No, we remember "Hallo... my name is Inigo Montoya... you killed my father... Prepare to die!"
In the end it is the characterizations that separate these moments from mere representation of skills or feats.... and so those who claim the distinction always come back to the idea that WHO a character is is more important than WHAT the character does, in combat, in negotiation, etc.
So all this is just an explanation to clarify one point of view on the matter. Again, it's not meant to be an attack or a claim of superiority - there are plenty who do take an elitist attitude towards their philosophy - "mine is the TRUE D&D, etc." - I am not one of them. I don't think my philosophy is "right" or "true," just my point of view. I have as much fun with a spirited game of Axis & Allies as I do with my RPGs.
And I love to play Simpsons monopoly.
So take this as merely an attempt to define why there are those who make these distinctions, not to change minds here, but merely so when we sit at a table with (inevitably) someone from the different school we have an understanding of where they are coming from.
John
Hussar wrote:
Hussar, those of us who draw a distinction do so because ultimately we feel that what makes the game "roleplaying" instead of just "Tactical Fantasy gaming" (which is exactly what Chainmail, D&D's precursor, was) is the primary focus on "playing a role." Lots of games employ simple character names along with dice and strategy, yet they aren't referred to as "RPGs." If there wasn't a distinction, in views like ours, "Dreamblade" and "Axis & Allies" would be RPG's as well.
If it's an artificial distinction, why would WOTC and gaming companies make it in marketing different lines of products, many with similar dice and strategy elements which are not called "roleplaying" games?
Thus, the distinction isn't artificial per se when someone asks "I've heard about fantasy roleplaying... how is it different from just playing my table-top LOTR boardgame?" If the answer is merely "the rules are more complex and comprehensive," that doesn't really say to someone on the outside who'll still ask "yeah, but what's roleplaying?"
Which leads to answer the following:
Gold Roger wrote:
That's the crux... the argument of the article at hand originally and by many here is that as long as any one element of the rules employed in a book for an RPG are being focused on, then the game is "roleplaying." Essentially, if the expression of a feat or tactic represents a character in play during combat, that is as much roleplaying as focusing on "character style" or traits, either through "play acting" by the player at the table or more theatrical descriptions of a character's action.
Those that disagree say it is the presence of a separate and unique focus on "roleplaying," whether it be by immersion in a character or simply asking "what would this character do considering his/her background, temperment, intelligence, alignment, etc." that distinguishes the roleplaying game from other games. At conventions, there are separate areas/rooms for RPGA, D&D from wargaming or tactical minis. Why if there's not a distinction? One thing I've noted is that inevitably there are those who complain that the winners of convention RPG tournaments are always the "character immersion" roleplayers, and that this is a sign of elitism. Granted to some it is... but it also merely reflects that the organizers, RPGA etc., see a distinction and focus awards and points to that element over the tactical play.
I'll give one final example to illustrate:
A character encounters a swordsman in a market.
The swordsman pulls a large scimitar blade, and employs ambidexterity to rapidly switch it back and forth between hands, making elaborate motions as he prepares to attack.
The character switches from the whip in hand and pulls a gun. He shoots the swordsman, scoring a critical hit and killing his opponent.
I think this is a fair mechanical description of the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. But it in no way creates what was unique about Indiana Jones - the rolling of the eyes, the shrug, the "ah the hell with this" attitude as he simply shot the laughing swordsman who obviously (through laughter, glee) thought he was a badass.
Do we remember the details from the sword fights in "The Princess Bride?" No, we remember "Hallo... my name is Inigo Montoya... you killed my father... Prepare to die!"
In the end it is the characterizations that separate these moments from mere representation of skills or feats.... and so those who claim the distinction always come back to the idea that WHO a character is is more important than WHAT the character does, in combat, in negotiation, etc.
So all this is just an explanation to clarify one point of view on the matter. Again, it's not meant to be an attack or a claim of superiority - there are plenty who do take an elitist attitude towards their philosophy - "mine is the TRUE D&D, etc." - I am not one of them. I don't think my philosophy is "right" or "true," just my point of view. I have as much fun with a spirited game of Axis & Allies as I do with my RPGs.
And I love to play Simpsons monopoly.
So take this as merely an attempt to define why there are those who make these distinctions, not to change minds here, but merely so when we sit at a table with (inevitably) someone from the different school we have an understanding of where they are coming from.
John
Glyfair
Explorer
I'll note that it's not too late to sign up for Wolfgang's patronage adventure and incidentally get the next few installments of his WotC column in advance (as long with other insider looks at his design process) at the Open Design project. He just posted his deadline for signing up for it:Nlogue said:
Nlogue said:
I am not Hussar, but I'll give it a go anyway:
Dice and strategy -- plus any other 'metagaming' element -- are the physics by whicvh the world the PCs live in works. Taking them into account when making decisions is part of 'taking on the role' of a character that lives in that world. Whether it is 'realistic' or even plausible that moving 5 feet would have a huge impact on the outcome of a battle is irrelevent: it matters because the game says it matters and so it filters down through the players into their characters and becomes part of said character. The meta-game elements inform the role-play elements at every stage, and that is how it should be. No individual player can get so deeply immersed in their characters as to truly be a battle hardened, fortune and glory seeking adventurer. Allowing yourself to make role-play choices based on meta-game concepts enables you to approximate it.
Some people seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and assume that any ecounter in which mechanics come into play is suddenly not a role-playing encounter. The most common example is social interactions in which skills come into play. A lot of OneTrueWayers think Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate kill roleplaying. I disagree: thyey enable it, because a player now has a perspective into the world, via the mechanics -- to judge how their character might handle a situation (being an experienced adventurer and all).
Equally important is to not draw a distinction between or assume a level of superiority between 3rd person narratyion and 1st person play in regards to what is or isn't role-playing. While it is certainly possible to treat a PC as a playing piece -- and many do it, grognards and n00bs alike -- talking about one's character, rather than through him, doesn't immediately mean that is what's happening. There's no difference ebtween Bob saying, "When Wrothgar sees Lord Bhad, the man who razed his village, he flies into a rage and attacks, ignoring his bodyguards," and Bob saying " 'Lord Bhad! You razed my village, prepare to die!' I charge Lord Bhad."
Nope - no difference. These are both roleplaying IMHO, but if the following was the case:
DM: You see the man who razed your village.
Bob: Ok. I attack. I use charge.
Wouldn't this lose something from either of what you described above? I think the expression of rage and revenge here is the important part, not the application of a skill in charging. Without it, what makes Wrothgar different and unique from the other players even in this one moment of combat?
Third person or 1st person roleplaying is another purely individual concept. As one who has advocated distinctions here (see above), I can say I've rarely used 1st person or "voices" - I'm not good at that, but I use a lot of the "When Wrothgar sees Lord Bhad, the man who razed his village, he flies into a rage and attacks, ignoring his bodyguards," type of play.
To me, as long as some form of reference is always going on to the uniqueness and personality of the character, then its certainly roleplaying.
seskis281 said:
But that is a question about a player and whether that individual player has a willingness to role-play. Baur's article wasn't about that -- it was about whether any particular encounter can be considered a 'role-playing ecounter' as opposed to another kind.
I am not of the opinion that no matter what a player does while he's playing an RPG is automatically "roleplaying". Some players just don't roleplay and don't want to. I just think that you can't draw any general distinctions based on things like types of encounters, player immersion or meta-gaming.
Nlogue
First Post
Reynard,
I agree with your insightful comments. The rules definately inform the cosmology of the "world" we create when we play. I like your example and agree that thinking about your character is still roleplaying for one major reason - the focus is on the character, regardless of whether or no its 1st or 3rd person, the role is being "played" so to speak.
In this example the part when I would say someone is no longer "roleplaying" is when they see said Lord who razed their 5 INT, 6 WIS barbarian's village and instead of rushing through his bodyguards to cut the Lord down they double move around them to avoid the attacks of opportunity, set themselves up to flank with the rogue first.
But, yeah, I see no reason to draw a distinction as to when you are roleplaying, as long as your emphasis is on the role you are playing and not on "winning" the game through perfect strategy...unless of course that IS intrinsic to your character's ethos (he is an 18 INT master strategist who prides himself on keeping his cool and out maneuvering his opposition).
I agree with your insightful comments. The rules definately inform the cosmology of the "world" we create when we play. I like your example and agree that thinking about your character is still roleplaying for one major reason - the focus is on the character, regardless of whether or no its 1st or 3rd person, the role is being "played" so to speak.
In this example the part when I would say someone is no longer "roleplaying" is when they see said Lord who razed their 5 INT, 6 WIS barbarian's village and instead of rushing through his bodyguards to cut the Lord down they double move around them to avoid the attacks of opportunity, set themselves up to flank with the rogue first.
But, yeah, I see no reason to draw a distinction as to when you are roleplaying, as long as your emphasis is on the role you are playing and not on "winning" the game through perfect strategy...unless of course that IS intrinsic to your character's ethos (he is an 18 INT master strategist who prides himself on keeping his cool and out maneuvering his opposition).
Nlogue said:
Whether or not the player in this situation is no longer role-playing, role-playing poorly or something else is entirely based upon the situation and the specific people involved that I don't think it makes a good example. I mean, 5 Int and 6 Wis is still 'smarter than an animal' and an experienced warrior is going to know the value of flanking and not getting stuck with pointy things repetedly despite how dumb he might be. It is more of a matter of consistency: if the dumb barbarian has always rusheds forward without thinking, and the current situation is rreally no different than those in the past, the player might have crossed some invisible 'meta-gaming' line that may or may not be an issue in a particular group. Then again, the situation is actually important to both the player and the character and maybe even Dumb Barbarian realizes that getting waxed by AoOs before being able to get revenge for the destruction of his village is a waste.
Like I said, it is too person and siuation specific and I don't think it can be held up as an example of 'no longer roleplaying'.
Similar Threads
