The R in rpg

I've only encountered it (the term "rollplaying") in published works a couple of times, and each time it was clear there was an agenda of some kind. Other than by virtue of that term being used, I mean. :)

Three publishers spring to mind, that have been notorious for that kind of thing. I'm sure there are others. No, I'm not about to name them. And besides, one - at least - seems to have "grown up", as it were. The other two, I have completely avoided ever since.

While I am very much in favour of playing characters to the hilt (be they PCs or NPCs) - so yes, "method acting" (more or less) might be considered a good thing, in our groups - this by no means implies that rolling is bad, that mechanics are evil or unnecessary, or that being an effective combatant is any kind of crime. In fact, we like dice, mechanics are very important, and having a capable character never hurts... hm, never hurts the PCs, anyway. ;)

And, most importantly, there's room for any number of playstyles. Sometimes, they can even coexist! :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Take, for example, if you want to play a medical doctor. How can you truly play a medical doctor if you don't know things like terminology and procedure? That's where rollplay comes in.
Task resolution, such as success or failure in using a skill may require one or more rolls of the dice, yes.
Not everybody is a good rollplayer. And because of that, if there comes a situation in which some diplomacy is needed, then there needs to be a roll for it.
A player still needs to be able to articulate how the skill is being applied, however. "I'll use my Diplomacy skill" is insufficient in the same way that saying, "I'll roll to hit with my sword" is insufficient in most roleplaying games with which I'm familiar. For example, in Flashing Blades, a player must choose one long action or two regular actions each combat round, such as a riposte and thrust combination, or a lunge, or a duck and slash, or parrying and stepping back; in 1e AD&D, a player may choose to charge, close to attack, set a weapon to receive a charge, withdraw, flee, overbear, or maneuver. All of this happens before we get to the actual resolution of the task by rolling the dice.

At my table a Diplomacy roll is made after the player describes what the character is saying and doing to change the attitude of the non-player character; hopefully this is done in character, but it works in third-person as well, such as, "I'll explain to baron de Bauchery that we're willing to keep his abduction of Princess Pinkflower a secret if he'll provide us with information on the Cardinal's whereabouts." It's not a 'Get Out of Describing What My Character Does Free' card.
Even more so if it's a plot point that needs it to succeed in order to progress the story.
That seems like really poor adventure or encounter design right there.
 

Are you having fun rollplaying? Are you having fun roleplaying? Is your way of having fun making it less fun for other people?

There is only one of those statements that people can/should object to.
 

Neither do I believe that it's an either/either. Everybody plays differently and tries to get different things out of the game.

There's just this.. human characteristic or whatever you want to call it, that so many seem to have.. that when we really like something and obsess over it, or we have a preffered way of doing things.. that we expect others to see it the same way. Liking something on it's own isnt enough, you need to actually feel superior while liking it.

And that's not very positive but understandable when it comes to things like religion, politics, morality or things like that. But frivole, entertainment topics.. like what console do you game on? which bands do you like? Which D&D edition do you prefer, and how do you play it?
I find it both funny & sad at the same time these things get argued in the same way how religion or politics might be taken.. maybe it's an identity thing?

But I digress, the nice thing about D&D and other RPG's is that you can *both* do the' dice rolling board game part' and the 'pretending to be an elf slaying orcs' part at the same time. If it's all about role playing, you might as well do improv theatre, and if it's all about gaming, you can play warhammer. And even if one does prefer one thing over the other, if you like doing what you do, who cares as long as your fun doesnt counter other people's fun.

And wheter or not the R in RPG stands roll or role, the P and G stand for PLAYING GAME! Keep that in mind and it's fun, dont obsess over the method because 'Roll/Role Protocol Serious-bussiness' is just sad.
 

There is only one of those statements that people can/should object to.

Yes.

mY way is the only correst way and we should play my way or there should be no games period.


Because I am sooperior.

Moo.

Beware the cow mootiny! Humans are to be mootilated!

Amazing things can be accomplished when all cows unite under one banner!

So much beautiful moosic to be made!
 

Are you having fun rollplaying? Are you having fun roleplaying? Is your way of having fun making it less fun for other people?

Even though "it's all good", the ends of the spectrum CAN clash. Usually, I see it from the proto-wargamers, who may have a "Who put their Oscar bid in my Action Flick?" mentality when encountering those who fancy themselves Olivier, Jr.

I suspect, though, that this is because "Master Thespians" seem to be far outnumbered by "Last Action Heroes."
 



You know Dana Lyon's tune, "Cows with Guns", yes? If not, I suggest you look it up.

Nope, never saw it before, just watched though. It's pretty funny.

I was actually thinking of the old Farside comics that poked fun with cows.
 


Remove ads

Top