Let The Players Manage Themselves Part 3, waitaminute...

[howandwhy99]

Perhaps for you.
Many different people play RPGs many different ways. No particular way is "right" or "wrong". If it works for that group, then great, more power to them, whether I agree with that manner of playstyle or not.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

This has nothing to do with good or bad, fun or unfun, my playstyle/your playstyle RPGs or acting games. The difference between acting and role-playing exists beyond what happens in the RPG hobby and acting communities. Internal misunderstandings, confused theories, and ill-defined terminologies don't change the realities in the greater world. Saying something ridiculous like "I told my kids a bedtime RPG before they went to sleep" or "D&D is a fun form of literature" is only going to get one laughed at in normal society.

Saying there is no wrong way to play RPGs is obviously wrong. There are fun and unfun ways to play RPGs. Believing one can define what is "fun" is what I believe you're trying to convey. That it is possible to play an RPG, play an acting game, or not play either is just a matter of reality. Playing one and calling it another or saying anything one does qualifies as playing an RPG will only get you confused looks by those who aren't already confused. Saying you are playing an RPG when you're not or asking for RPGs to have qualities they do not is a confusion between right and wrong. That's what I was helping the OP with. Does that clear things up for you?

 

[Serendipity]

This has nothing to do with good or bad, fun or unfun, my playstyle/your playstyle RPGs or acting games. The difference between acting and role-playing exists beyond what happens in the RPG hobby and acting communities. Internal misunderstandings, confused theories, and ill-defined terminologies don't change the realities in the greater world. Saying something ridiculous like "I told my kids a bedtime RPG before they went to sleep" or "D&D is a fun form of literature" is only going to get one laughed at in normal society.

Saying there is no wrong way to play RPGs is obviously wrong. There are fun and unfun ways to play RPGs. Believing one can define what is "fun" is what I believe you're trying to convey. That it is possible to play an RPG, play an acting game, or not play either is just a matter of reality. Playing one and calling it another or saying anything one does qualifies as playing an RPG will only get you confused looks by those who aren't already confused. Saying you are playing an RPG when you're not or asking for RPGs to have qualities they do not is a confusion between right and wrong. That's what I was helping the OP with. Does that clear things up for you?

In the greater world? Laughed at in normal society? Seriously, what are you talking about? And how is it relevant?

Yes it clears up that you think there's a one true way to play RPGs. That's fine. I don't feel that way. Nor am I going to.
So long as the OP (or anyone else for that matter) and their group are having fun, I don't care if they're rubbing blue mud in their hair and calling it gaming.
Will I personally consider that role playing? No. But that's academic.
Really tired of this whole notion of BadWrongFun that seems to have creeped onto the boards of late.

 

[howandwhy99]

In the greater world? Laughed at in normal society? Seriously, what are you talking about? And how is it relevant?

Yes it clears up that you think there's a one true way to play RPGs. That's fine. I don't feel that way. Nor am I going to.
So long as the OP (or anyone else for that matter) and their group are having fun, I don't care if they're rubbing blue mud in their hair and calling it gaming.
Will I personally consider that role playing? No. But that's academic.
Really tired of this whole notion of BadWrongFun that seems to have creeped onto the boards of late.

Again, I am not calling anyone's preferences badwrongfun. They are simply asking for something that RPGs cannot deliver. Doing those things in an acting game can be enjoyable. Neither am I saying there is only one way to play RPGs. I am saying that role-playing is understood as being different than acting and often more clearly outside of the RPG hobby at the moment than within. This looks like one of those moments of confusion. You may not care about being confused, reality outside the hobby, or the common consensus of terms, but it actually does help when people have problems. Like when someone rubs mud in their hair, calls it soup, and cries when the mud manufacturer say its' mud is not fit for consumption.

 

[The_Gneech]

If acting isn't "playing a role," then what in San Hill is it?

You don't have to be Mr. Shakespearean to play a role-playing game, certainly, and you don't even have to use your character's exact words when trying to negotiate with some NPC.

However, it doesn't follow from that statement, that you're somehow NOT playing an RPG if you do choose to do those things, or happen to prefer games in which those things are the norm.

Good grief!

-The Gneech

 

[Imaro]

Save My Game: Let Players Manage Themselves, Part 3

For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point -

You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere).

I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as directors of their own characters, the production of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game "unfun".

The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create "mini-instances of fun". Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun.


Cheers~

I think you're confused as to what D&D is. It's a role-playing game. From your response, it sounds like what you want to play is an acting game. A theatre acting game to be specific. There are many fun and enjoyable acting games out there, but you're not going to get those experiences from a role-playing game. Disagreeing with a professional RPG designer for not describing their product as something the product isn't will only bring you heartache. Role-playing is functionally different than acting. You simply cannot tell stories while role-playing. It's an impossibility.

Uhm, let's see...

1.build worlds (the DM often does this.)

2.complex personalities (I know players & DM's who've accomplished this in D&D with the character they are representing)

3.morality-based decision making (Uhm, yeah whether you're in a hero campaign or a villian campaign, isn't this a given?)

4.villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason (Really? This has never been in any of your D&D campaigns? It sure has been in mine.)

5. The realism of our own world (Okay, you might have a point here, but I'd ask for clarification on what exactly the OP means before conceding).


Now, let me ask you this, since you're so certain of what isn't an rpg...what is an rpg? IYHO of course...

 

[Irda Ranger]

1. What types of game do you run?

Player-chosen plot-driven sandbox.

The players will choose a theme or long term goal (such as overthrowing the Erl King or defending the City of Prester), and then I plop them in a city or place and start introducing them to campaign elements - NPCs, places, rumors, etc. They orient themselves within the world and then choose a direction. I plan very little in advance and use lots of random generators, but tailor the results of that randomness to fit the chosen theme/over-arching plot chosen by the players. Very little monster XP. Mostly quest/goal XP.

For all this to work the campaign world has to be "real". The players have to understand where the PCs are in it, how they fit, and how they can interact with it. Combat is an interaction, but it's not enough. Politics, economics, law, food, roads, religious observance, etc. etc. are all necessary.

That's why when someone says "you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere)" I shake my fist and shout "Yes I am! It's got magic and monsters, but it actually exists to us."

It's as real as Midkemia and Middle Earth, at any rate.

2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?

Once we're done and look back it should look like a good novel. But from the beginning no one knows where it will all lead or end - least of all me! We're all "writing the novel" together, but for it to be believable we have to believe in the world; it has to "makes sense." If the game is just a collection of random combats there's no story. The player experience should be a good mix of satisfied curiosity and pride in accomplishment.

3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?

I started a list of changes to 4E I would need to make. The first changes were to be in the XP rewards. Much less XP for monsters. Fighting monsters is not the goal. More XP for completing quests / accomplishing goals.

But then I started looking at the class powers (especially the magic) and thinking that I had no idea how these translated into out-of-combat abilities. I just couldn't picture most of them at all. And this created this really bizarre feeling that the combat "version" of the PC was completely divorced from the "reality" of the campaign setting. It was like it existed in its own little micro-reality, and "just don't think about it" was the order of the day.

So that didn't work for me. Add in the over-reliance on the boardgame aspects of combat and I've decided to try Rules Cyclopedia (which I've never played before - I was an AD&D 2E man before this).

 

[howandwhy99]

If acting isn't "playing a role," then what in San Hill is it?

You don't have to be Mr. Shakespearean to play a role-playing game, certainly, and you don't even have to use your character's exact words when trying to negotiate with some NPC.

However, it doesn't follow from that statement, that you're somehow NOT playing an RPG if you do choose to do those things, or happen to prefer games in which those things are the norm.

Good grief!

-The Gneech

Acting is playing a character to tell a story. As seen on TV, in movies, and in theatre. This is not to be confused with taking action. Like you or I do every moment of the day. A theatre actor, again, not an actor like you or I simply taking actions, is playing a role only in so much as the character is their role. Actors and actresses can be judged on their performances in portraying these characters. They are "doing it wrong" if they were, for instance, portraying a Einstein as stupid or George Burns as boring and unfunny. They simply aren't portraying the character well and are therefore acting poorly. That's the point of acting: to portray the character well. The character is the role.

In an RPG no one can say "you're playing your character wrong". It's one of the biggest faux pas in gaming. That's because you're playing the role. Role-playing is an educational game. If you were to role-play climbing Mt. Everest with your friends you would keep track of rations, equipment, hire Sherpas, plan your ascent track, deal with weather problems, and much more. A good role-playing scenario taken from real life like this could research just about any kind of element that happens when climbers attempt Mt. Everest in actuality. When you role-play it, it's a hypothetical, but you are still the one making the decisions, suffering the consequences, and, more important than anything else, are the one who actually achieves the success. I'll repeat that: role-play is where your accomplishments are real. That's because when you role-play, you are not the character you play. Even if his name is George Burns.

To reiterate the difference: Playing George Burns in a theatre game is to do everything you can to portray him. To role-play George Burns is to face everything he did in his life and see how well you fare.

EDIT: I understand that both kinds of games refer to "character". Try not to let this confuse you when RPG players say "RPGs are where you play your character". They may also be confused, but most gamers do play RPGs and enjoy role-playing, and role-playing their "character" is what they mean.

 

[pemerton]

So really the "right" way to handle the consequences of failure is really group specific and not something that needs to be addressed in the rules at all.

Well, by addressing it in some fashion or other the rules can offer better support for some or other style of play.

I agree with this in principle. That connection and attachment to a beloved character should be more than enough of a penalty for death.

<snip>

The trick is achieving that connection with a set of rules that does its best to sever it with mechanics that reinforce the concept of gamism over all.

In a metagame heavy system like 4e, the mechanics won't deliver connection to the character. Rather, the game assumes that you already have some sort of aesthetic or emotional stake in the character, and are using the mechanics to play that out in various ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A little bit of xp loss as real world "stakes" adds a little bit of extra excitement though.

I dunno, just having to sit out without being able to participate is a pretty solid "real-world" stake.

I mean, in a broad sense, it's not really possible to "loose" a game of D&D. Even if I die and never come back, I've got a backup character ready to go. No matter how many XP losses I have, the difference will be made up in time. I certainly fear having to whip up a new character more than I fear an XP penalty, because an XP penalty doesn't really do anything, in my experience, while making a new character takes me out of the fun that all my friends are having going on this exciting adventure together.

 

[Rechan]

Its not completely rules related though. I can get the same lack of attachment to a pre-generated character made up for a one-shot that I can with a 4E character created for campaign play. Thats the kind of detatchment that keeps story related consequences from meaning much.

And yet I could say the same about my views on any game system out there. Any time I am a player in any game, I don't care how many times I die, I don't see it as a problem. Why? Because I can make a new character, a New idea, try something different, be someone different.

Death is the opportunity to do something different.

It has jack to do with system. It's about having fun. And I'm going to have fun by getting to play more ideas I have.