Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying

[LostSoul]

That's about as meaningful as needing to know whether an enemy did a ranged, melee, close attack, or what defense they went against in 4E, or whether they used a spell-like or supernatural ability in 3e. Information you need to know to figure out what defenses apply, whether you can do any immediate abilities, etc... but ultimately some people will skimp or elaborate the details as they wish.

The difference with Palladium is that attacks aren't codified in different categories with keywords like they are in 4E. That means which mechanics apply (Can I parry? With what objects?) requires a judgement call from the DM. That requires the DM to justify it, or else the game is going to break down. Justifying the attack requires a description.

None of that is necessary in 4E. The power does what it says, nothing less, nothing more, and the fictional elements have no influence over how the powers work.

Another game that requires players to describe their actions is Dogs in the Vineyard. "I Raise with a 14." You don't know how to respond to that unless there's a description attached. Should I Take the Blow or Block/Dodge? You need to know if he's shooting, stabbing, or talking. You need the description to determine what to do next.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you are engaging with something you believe is fictional as if it is real, then you are acting. If this is improvisational, as it usually is, then it's roleplaying. RPing is also supposed to be limited to human ability according to the term's original conception, but the definition of such (or even whether human ability is finite / definable) is highly debated.

Role playing does not require you to pretend to be someone other than your own self-identified personality. In fact, for the first 50 years or so of RP fictional character portrayal was understood to not be role playing. It is largely understood now that any acting a.k.a. lying of any sort includes the performance of a fictional persona.

 

[Insight]

I'm not sure what you're responding to - who other than you is talking about systems preventing roleplaying?

The main question in the thread doesn't seem to be systems preventing roleplay, but whether some systems give active support to and encourage you to roleplay.

People in this thread claim that certain systems (D&D 4E for example) discourage or diminish roleplaying by their very design. That is exactly the same argument as saying that a system is intentionally trying to prevent roleplaying, isn't it?

 

[Treebore]

Anyone interested in examples of RPG's that effect role play, and I'll only mention two that are in print, check out "Legend of the 5 Rings" and "Aces and Eights". Those are systems that effect role play, a lot!

I am sure I could mention more, in print or not, if I thought about it some more.

 

[Umbran]

People in this thread claim that certain systems (D&D 4E for example) discourage or diminish roleplaying by their very design. That is exactly the same argument as saying that a system is intentionally trying to prevent roleplaying, isn't it?

No, it most certainly is not.

The really big clincher there is the phrase "intentionally trying". No intent or effort is required - once any system becomes complicated enough, unintended consequences are a fact of life. It may just be a property the system has in practice, even though the designers didn't specifically want it to behave that way.

 

[pemerton]

If anybody in this discussion hasn't read Ron Edward's essay on "System Does Matter", I think they need to.
<snip>

if the system spends most of its time talking about combat, and most of the character sheet is about combat, and all of your skills are either combat-related or entirely mechanical, then it's not a very roleplaying-oriented game by virtue of the fact that its focus is on the mechanical side of the game.

I'm familiar with a lot of Ron Edwards' ideas. I stronlgy agree that system matters. I strongly disagree that this has anything to do with the focus of a game on combat or mechanics.

To give an example - a 4e D&D character sheet has a lot of mechanical information about skill bonuses. The easiest way to get roleplaying to emerge out of 4e play is via a skill challenge (because, as the rules in the PHB say, you as a player must "describe your actions and make checks"). And a skill challenge is a mechanically structured encounter that is resolved by attention to the mechanical information about skill bonuses.

If you look at a numer of games that are generally well-regarded as roleplaying vehicles - eg HeroQuest, The Burning Wheel, The Dying Earth - you will see that they are mechanically fairly crunchy. But those mechanics - like the skill and skill challenge mechanics in 4e - are also designed to lead to the players engaging with the ingame situation (which is what seems to be generally meant by roleplaying).

I think that systems that require players to describe their actions - because the description of the action is needed for another player to make their decision in response - support roleplaying better than those that don't.

That's about as meaningful as needing to know whether an enemy did a ranged, melee, close attack, or what defense they went against in 4E, or whether they used a spell-like or supernatural ability in 3e.

The difference with Palladium is that attacks aren't codified in different categories with keywords like they are in 4E. That means which mechanics apply (Can I parry? With what objects?) requires a judgement call from the DM. That requires the DM to justify it, or else the game is going to break down. Justifying the attack requires a description.

None of that is necessary in 4E. The power does what it says, nothing less, nothing more, and the fictional elements have no influence over how the powers work.

This is an interesting discussion. I agree with LostSoul that, if you want roleplaying, you need mechanics that lead players to engage the ingame situation. I disagree with LostSoul that 4e combat lacks such mechanics, however. The attack and defence keywords don't require engaging the ingame situation, but the movement, line of sight and line of effect mechanics do, and (at least in my experience) these come up in multiple turns of every round of every combat.

That's part of why I regard the DMG's advice on terrain as crucial to the game. It's not just about spicing up the tactical situation. It's about creating combats that will require the players to engage with the gameworld.

 

[Adso]

I could imagine doing focus group studies with different rules sets and measuring their time spent roleplaying. But yeah, I doubt that anyone has ever done that. I'd at least like to hear SRM's arguments, say, if "evidence" is not the right word.

As to the topic at hand, in the extreme cases, I think it's clear that system affects roleplay. Not too many people roleplay the yellow pawn in Sorry! But plenty of people roleplay their mini in D&D. So in the extremes, I think it's clear, the system affects the roleplay.

You know, I would love to do focus groups. Seems no one ever wants to float the bill for that.

If you watch kids, you notice they will roleplay even with the most abstract pieces until some adult tells them to cut it out. Yesterday I played a game of Forbidden Island (a fun and faster paced version of Pandemic, BTW) with a group of students from my Game Theory and Mechanics class. They totally roleplayed during the game. One student, Ari even provided dramatic music from his phone each time we found a treasure, and is working on a story based on our success getting off the island. Nerd!

People roleplay naturally as longs as they are comfortable with their group.

All mechanics in roleplaying games can potentially provide material for roleplaying. I lose hit points; there is a chance to roleplay. I miss with a spell; there is a chance for roleplaying. I lose sanity; I have a chance for roleplaying. Conversely, each one of these is also mechanical in nature and can be dealt with entirely on that level as well. You lose 40 hit points; I rolled a 1; how much sanity do I lose again?

I’ve seen people play Vampire without a lick of roleplaying, and I’ve seen many roleplay heavy D&D games (including 4e). I'm sure there are heavily immersive roleplayers who play Rolemaster. Like any sort of entertainment genre, each audience (and by audience in an RPG I mean your current group) is going to gravitate toward there likes and dislikes. While I find that groups that focus on roleplaying over mechanics tend to gravitate to more rules lite systems, that's usually because they don’t want to spend their brain power on optimization and calculation. Even with a mechanical heavy system, as a group becomes more accustomed to its ebb and flow (or its math), they will roleplay more.

If you are a roleplayer amongst a group of mechanic monkeys, you will have less opportunity to roleplay no matter what system you play. And when you do, you feel uncomfortable, because everyone looks at you like you’re crazy.

I actually had this experience when, while playing the final of the D&D Championship, my warforged runepriest called Orcus a coward for hiding behind his lackeys and demanded that he face the judgment of Moradin. My teammates looked at me like I was crazy; there was a championship to win—no time for roleplaying. They were probably right, but it was fun to talk smack to the Prince of Undeath.

If you like to roleplay, and you have people to roleplay with, you will do it no matter what system you use.

Even Monopoly.

I think that’s the thrust of my argument. My evidence? Nothing quantitative, just lots of observations, games played, and talks with all sorts of gamers. I think they call that qualitative research.

 

[jmucchiello]

Saying that system matters is true, to a point. Overall, the group's willingness to RP is probably 80% of what causes RP to happen. The system may be the other 20%, and 20% matters, but RP can happen with or without the system's help. It doesn't matter how RP-heavy the system is if the players won't engage in RP.

1. I punch him
2. in the solar plexus
3. using the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to me through 100 generations,
4. while winking at the blushing girl serving tea.

This sounds like it encourages description. Is description really synonymous with/causal of/required for RP?

 

[Ariosto]

This is not a mere rhetorical question, but in earnest:

What does "roleplaying" mean in this context?

 

[Ariosto]

See, if the system spends most of its time talking about combat, and most of the character sheet is about combat, and all of your skills are either combat-related or entirely mechanical, then it's not a very roleplaying-oriented game by virtue of the fact that its focus is on the mechanical side of the game.

To me this at first suggests that, in this context, combat and role-playing are mutually exclusive. Role-playing is a strictly non-combat activity.

At the end, though, it appears to make a "mechanical sde" and role-playing mutually exclusive.

On the other hand, a game where your character sheet says nothing more than your character's name, his greatest fear, and his goal in life, there's absolutely no time "wasted" fighting endless hordes of mooks. You can actually roleplay something.

This suggests that having some amount of information on a character sheet is synonymous with "fighting endless hordes of mooks".

That is most definitely, as a matter of fact, not so. I know this from first-hand experience.

The general sentiment could still reflect what "roleplaying" means in the Dungeon Magazine context.

Using Sanity, or Horror/Fear/Madness or whatever doesn't necessarily lead to roleplaying. It's just another mechanical resource being deplenished by a mechanical threat. The player *may* want to portray the character's dwindling sanity, with mutterings or paranoid looks, but there really is no incentive to do so.

This suggests to me that a player making "mutterings or paranoid looks" is a manifestation of roleplaying, whereas a less theatrical treatment of the effects of insanity upon the character in the game is not. However, it could be that Klaus overlooked the actual effect of the Sanity rules in CoC.

Roleplaying is *not* what you do outside combat.

This appears to disagree with Verdande's post.

Roleplaying is *how* you do things, combat or otherwise. A player that yells a character's battle cry as he charges an opponent is roleplaying just as much as one who addresses the orc chieftain as "Your Bloody Highness".

This again suggests a "theatrical" meaning.

How do you gauge a player's speech pattern, or the quality of his backstory?

"The quality of his backstory" is here an element of role-playing.

Are those people roleplaying as much as the ones who describe their actions?

I take "describing actions" for granted as the way one plays an RPG. It is curious to me to think of "I attack. I got a 15." or "I'll use Diplomacy on him. I got a 22." as valid moves except as following and assuming circumstances already established.

To adapt a phrase, in D&D, "player proposes, referee disposes". From the player's side, it is a game of limited information. Only the referee is in a position to say whether an input is sufficient or even relevant, because only the referee knows the factors with which it interacts.

So, as I said, I simply assume it as a practical fundamental in playing the game.

What I see here suggests to me again the "theatrical" meaning of role-playing.

When I'm playing a warlord and use Inspiring Word, I often yell something in character at the PC being "healed." IW is a small but definite roleplaying hook.

Yelling at the table is discouraged in my group. Would it be -- by the applicable definition here -- role-playing simply to relate that the character yells certain words?

How about to relate, in one's own words, the gist of the communication?

See, there is a difference between "describing actions" and "putting on a performance".

Further, there is a difference between demanding a description because it is actually essential to the game -- as when, in old D&D, I must describe the offer I make to a being I am trying to recruit, or how I treat my henchmen afterward -- and demanding it as something tacked on, a sort of decorative frill.

The former is more related to a "role assumption" or "in those shoes" or "you are there" meaning of role-playing, in which the emphasis is on how one approaches the imagined world.

On the other hand, when I'm playing a cleric and use Lance of Faith, I treat it as an abstract tactical exercise, because I have no goddamn clue what Lance of Faith is supposed to be doing in the game world. Certainly it doesn't inspire me to roleplay anything.

How about a puzzled cleric?