Roleplaying - Is there a right or a wrong way as far as you are concerned?

[kiznit]

This.

With the very important caveat that what might be seen as "invested in having fun, paying attention to whether other people are having fun or not" at one table may well be seen as "being a dick" at another table, and vice versa.

Hence the "paying attention to whether other people are having fun or not" part.

Maybe I could have clarified it as "making sure you're not ruining the fun of others".

 

[xipetotec]

There are as many different styles of playing RPGs as there are stars in the sky. They range from a group of people sitting down to socialize and tell jokes under the premise of playing a game to those who are so far into the game that they dress as their characters and speak only as they would for as long as the game is in session. As a DM, do you insist on a specific type of play and do you rule the play session with an iron fist if your group deviates from it?

I've been exposed to quite a few different groups through the years. Most tend to be freeflowing, there to have fun and enjoy themselves, and don't mind an occasional tangent or joke as long as it doesn't consume the game time. However, I did have the experience to briefly play in a group that not only took roleplay seriously (speak only when your character speaks and then as he or she would) but would only tackle serious, mature themes in thier games (i.e. no cheesy Monty Python jokes or quotes). If they were there to investigate a murder, for example, the DM would go to great lengths to describe the horror, carnage, and fear of the scenario. If you weren't sufficiently horrorstruck in his eyes, then you weren't immersing yourself into the character and game sufficiently.

Needless to say, I didn't stay in that group very long.

So what have been your experiences and, in your opinion, is one way superior to another?

yikes, that sounds like he was forcing you to be "interested" in his game.

I for one allow it to be pretty free-flowing. Granted, there has to be some reigning in once in a while when people aren't paying attention anymore, but when the rules are like being in school and everyone is scared to even say anythng, I think it's not a "game" anymore...

 

[Cor_Malek]

Right way: Be invested in having fun, paying attention to whether other people are having fun or not.

Wrong way: Being a selfish dick.

QFT.

However, I have an additional thing I consider as bad. It doesn't bother me when others do it, but I try my best to avoid it, so I guess it's shows how I feel about it:
- being a one trick pony. 528 thieves that differ only by name, 328 dwarven clone warriors, that kind of thing.

Been there, done that, decided to stop. Which is also why I get really annoyed when I have a character I've invested in - die in first sessions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hence the "paying attention to whether other people are having fun or not" part.

Maybe I could have clarified it as "making sure you're not ruining the fun of others".

Not arguing with the general principle, just noting that what might constitute as X at one table might be Y at another.

IOW, context is important.

I would also note that long-term fun sometimes comes at the cost of short-term fun, and vice-versa. For example, discovering that you have been duped might not be fun in the short term, but can lead to greater fun when you gain sweet revenge. Being unwilling to risk lows can limit the highs one can experience.

Finally, as should be obvious, sometimes in a group activity one must accept that some things are simply not going to be fun for you. But you suck it up and have as much fun as you can with them, because they are fun for others. They, in turn, suck some things up because they are fun for you.

Anyway, that is intended as an expansion of the general principle, not an argument against it.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

The right way:

Approach the game with the intent to both have a good time and contribute to the effort of making this happen for all involved.

The wrong way:

Not doing it the right way.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I've got a new way:

Don't try to understand them. Just rope and throw and brand them. Soon we'll be living high and wide.

My heart's calculating my true love will be waiting.

Waiting at the end of my drive.

 

[Mercurius]

Right way: Playing my edition of choice.
Wrong way: Playing your edition of choice if it is different from mine.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Right Way To Play - The way I play

Wrong Way To Play - Any other way





What?




Olaf the Stout

 

[Raven Crowking]

Right way: Playing my edition of choice.
Wrong way: Playing your edition of choice if it is different from mine.

Right Way To Play - The way I play

Wrong Way To Play - Any other way

I think it comes down to this all too often. I would advocate approaching a group with the full knowledge that peoples' tastes are going to differ from yours in appreciable ways. The goal is to be accepting of the needs and desires of other people and, whenever reasonably possible, accommodating them. And for those people to do the same in return.

However, I am not sure that this is actually what the OP is about, which seems more to be "How do you approach the role-playing aspect of the game?" rather than "What is the right way to approach the game?"

I could be wrong, though.


RC

 

[Janx]

what the OP is about, which seems more to be "How do you approach the role-playing aspect of the game?" rather than "What is the right way to approach the game?"

I could be wrong, though.


RC

I assume he meant the former. And with that, my ideas are:

It is good roleplaying to play your character in a way that invites other players to participate. It is bad roleplaying to play your character in a way blocks other PCs.

In terms of Improv Theatre, if you ever watch Who's Line is it Anyway, you'll notice that in all the silliness, the actors always try to get into the scene, and that whatever character is in the Lead, accepts whatever twist the other actor added.

To do otherwise is called blocking. This stops the scene from moving forward, and eliminates that actor from the scene. Not a nice or fun thing to do.

to put in RPG terms, let's say your PC has some personal matter he's handling in between dungeon crawls. He could just slink off and make the DM fork the party for him. Or, he could ask a fellow party member to accompany him, perhaps as backup or lookout. Now he's involved somebody else, making it more of a group scene.

In the same way, I consider it bad form for one player to split off from the party in the middle of the game, just to do something (like look for more treasure). What he's doing is exploiting a GM's nature to respond to player inquiry and action. He's also leaving the rest of the party when they were at a lull.

Another form of bad roleplay is to create party turmoil with statements like "That's not what my character would do" or "I'm only playing my character".

In the A-Team, BA may be afraid of flying, mostly for the purpose of creating amusing scenes to get him on the plane. But ultimately, he ends up on the plane, and he doesn't crash the campaign by killing the rest of the party when he wakes up. A bad roleplayer will use BA's fear as an excuse to not go on the quest or to start revenge killing the other players.

Yet another example of bad roleplaying is the classic Dwarf vs. Elf complex. One player will chooose a dwarf and in the campaign world backstory, determine that dwarves and elves are bitter enemies. They will then rain no end of trouble on the elf character in the party. This once again crashes the campaign as PCs start dying.

A more correct way to play this is as initial mistrust and verbal bigotry, which through many sessions turns into trust and camaradery. Well, not evey group has to end up with the dwarf and elf as bestest friends, but the gist is, they don't tear up the party over some roleplaying trait. they sling a few verbal barbs at each other, and still begrudgingly get to the work of killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Fears and biases should flavor the scene, not cause it to crash into a meaningless mess of a game.

At the end of the night, I think most players, regardless of campaign style want to have achieved lofty goals, fought challenging enemies, and found cool stuff. Having yet another session end wiith needing to make new PCs because of player infighting or rivalry gets old pretty quick.