The R in rpg

[Sunseeker]

I'm a better roll-player than a role-player because I have a head for math and numbers are easy for me. That and I have very little background in acting.

That said, I wouldn't enjoy a game that's 100% roll-play. I think it would be boring. I do try to role-play, my GF is good at it, and she tries to help me, and I help her with the numbers.

 

[Haltherrion]

It's a bit of both for us. Most of my group seems to find a satisfying evening one with some interesting fights and some meaningful roleplaying (meaning, while roleplaying just to be in character is fun, my group tends to prefer roleplaying in the service of advancing a goal- convincing someone to help, interaction with an NPC that reveals informations, opportunities, etc.)

From an "incidence" point of view, we might be fairly 50/50 on combat versus RP incidents in a sessions but since combat tends to be fairly time consuming, we probably spend 60-75% of our time on combat. Depends on the night but it is rare for RP to take more than 50% of the session-time.

 

[Orius]

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.

Kind of like this situation:

DM of the Rings X:Our Growing Family - Twenty Sided

The other problem is that roll players, who often are munchkins, can unbalance the game more and can make the game less fun for more people.

They skimp on social skills and feats then just sit their silent in every social situation, then combat comes and their min maxxed toon overshadows less optimized more rounded characters who feel useless as the lvl 6 half Orc barbarian with 23 strength easily crushes all opposition, or worse, the DM compensates for the half Orc and you find that your non optimized toon can barely hit in combat.

The balance of course is to create non combat situations that penalize the min maxxer for his 6 int, 7 wis, and 9 chr. But this is hard to do because the roll player just hides in the corner making very one else take on the social challenges. Even worse I have met several roll players who get downright hostile when a DM targets the glaring non-combat weaknesses of their character.

Not everyone who's into powergaming is necessarily a munchkin though, and that's where the whole "roll-playing vs. roleplaying" argument gets annoying. Munchkin is the player that's trying to "win", but we all know that term has been badly used in the past to disparage play styles people don't like. Those who trot it out can come off as elitist and it annoys other players, unless the whole group is into that. Personally, I think creating a highly gimped character hoping for RPing xp bonuses is just as cheesy as char-oping to the max. Often though, some of these "munchkin" characters end up being one-trick ponies, so there's nothing wrong with the DM introducing a threat that the character can't effective handle, but which isn't necessarily lethal for the other characters.

The real munchkins are the one those that do complain about the DM putting in non-combat situations for the other players to enjoy. Munchkin is often about being immature, and a sure sign of that is expecting the DM to cater only to you all the time. Munchkin is not "you're playing in a way I don't like".

Anyway, the "roll-playing vs. role-playing" argument to me seemed to have hit a bit peak in the '90s. Maybe it's because I just don't play the sort of RPGs the "real roleplayers" gravitate towards or I've just been spending a lot of time here instead of a more eclectic community like RPG.net, but I don't see as many people arguing about it these days.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Don't get me wrong: the guy who wants to RP every single second of every last transaction in the game can be every bit as much of a problem as Captain Killcrazy...he's just rarer, IME.

I told you: Captain Killcrazy is just a character I pretend to be; the wargaming elements are his entire personality.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rare enough that I have never met one.

Only met 2 in 33 years myself...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

People tend to organize ourselves as tribes based on shared characteristics, but I think most of these discussions are less about taking sides or staking out territory than in identifying and sharing interests.

I like reading opinions from people who like different things than I do because it broadens my horizons. That doesn't mean I'm going to start liking what they like just because they like it, though; sometimes it reminds me why I don't like what they like, actually.One of the best reasons to share one's personal preferences and learn from others is to find ways to prevent one person's fun from running counter to another person's fun.

Mock all you want, but fun is serious business. Play is very important, for our mental, emotional, and physical (in the case of sports, frex) development and for creating and maintaining social networks.

It seems like some people feel the need to diminish gaming as a hobby, to dismiss play as something frivolous. I don't really understand why.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not mocking. I do believe play is a positive and important thing. Being passionate about something is good, but I do feel that people sometimes just seem need to see things in perspective (again). Fanboyism is something you see when this happens.

And when I make a joke about "roll/role protocol serious-bussiness", I dont mean that disparagingly to RPG's or the people who play them.
What I mean.. well, here's an observation of mine, YMMV, but often I see some people focus too much on the how and not enough on the why.
Focusing on the what and forgetting about the who.

What I mean is I see people being very focused on doing things in some mythical 'right way' or too focused on the RAW or 'the right playstyle' or if things are 'correct in the setting' and lose sight why they are actually playing, namely: having an entertaining experience with friends.

Focusing too much on what system and edition, while IMO it's more important who you are playing with and a matter of attitude.

Unless we're talking some kind of tournament or such, rules and methods are a tool, not the goal. When people ask 'are we doing this correctly?' instead of 'does doing this actively support our enjoyment?', you're approaching things in the wrong way.
All YMMV and IMHO offoarse, but this is what I ment with 'protocol serious-bussiness' vs 'playing game'

 

[Flobby]

Ranch?

 

[The Shaman]

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not mocking. I do believe play is a positive and important thing.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Being passionate about something is good, but I do feel that people sometimes just seem need to see things in perspective (again). . . . And when I make a joke about "roll/role protocol serious-bussiness", I dont mean that disparagingly to RPG's or the people who play them. What I mean.. well, here's an observation of mine, YMMV, but often I see some people focus too much on the how and not enough on the why. Focusing on the what and forgetting about the who.

What I mean is I see people being very focused on doing things in some mythical 'right way' or too focused on the RAW or 'the right playstyle' or if things are 'correct in the setting' and lose sight why they are actually playing, namely: having an entertaining experience with friends.

I can't argue that considerations of 'how' and 'what' don't get taken to extremes, but I think most of the discussion of 'how' and 'what' is to add more 'why' for the 'who.'

While there is little in the way of an objective "right way," there can be a 'better way' which varies from gamer to gamer. Understanding the 'better way' for gamers playing together may make for a more enjoyable game for all. It can also help to minimize the occurance of gamers who are just wrong for one another, who can't find ways to reconcile different, conflicting expectations, so they're not wasting one another's time.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I can't argue that considerations of 'how' and 'what' don't get taken to extremes, but I think most of the discussion of 'how' and 'what' is to add more 'why' for the 'who.'

While there is little in the way of an objective "right way," there can be a 'better way' which varies from gamer to gamer. Understanding the 'better way' for gamers playing together may make for a more enjoyable game for all. It can also help to minimize the occurance of gamers who are just wrong for one another, who can't find ways to reconcile different, conflicting expectations, so they're not wasting one another's time.

Yes, I also believe that to be true, that the how and what are taken in mind for the why. It's not an either / either choice, but I do believe it's possible and quite easily so to forget why those methods are import, and start following it for it's own sake.
I've heard so many examples of everyone leaving the table with a sour taste in their mouth because something had to be done a certain way, maybe following rules just a little too blindly or be worried too much on some 'peer pressure' philosopy of playstyle, putting the cart in front of the horse.
Some might say that's just bad / inexperienced DM'ing, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make

 

[The Shaman]

Yes, I also believe that to be true, that the how and what are taken in mind for the why. It's not an either / either choice, but I do believe it's possible and quite easily so to forget why those methods are import, and start following it for it's own sake.

And then you end up with something like The Forge.

I've heard so many examples of everyone leaving the table with a sour taste in their mouth because something had to be done a certain way, maybe following rules just a little too blindly or be worried too much on some 'peer pressure' philosopy of playstyle, putting the cart in front of the horse.

Can you provide an example, off the top of your head? I'm trying to get a better handle on what you mean here.

Some might say that's just bad / inexperienced DM'ing, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make

There are inexperienced referees, and a few bad ones, too. While reminding them that the game should be fun is one approach to making them better at sitting behind the screen, how do we help them improve?