The R in rpg

[JacktheRabbit]

I guess I've been fairly (un)lucky. I've seen both extremes fairly often.

Me, I like both equally. I like amateur thespian hour, and I like the tactical end of things as well. It's one of the main reasons I like D&D - it scratches both itches in a way that a lot of other systems that I've tried haven't. They either go too far one way or the other for my tastes.

Then again, one of the best played (at least most entertaining) characters I've seen was a 6 Int 6 Wis 20 Str (or higher) orc barbarian. He was a blast. Giving him an intelligent weapon was the best thing I could have done. The player had a huge blast with the character.

I wish I had actually met a few amateur thespian players at a table. They would be a change of pace and might actually be entertaining to watch for a bit.

 

[Hussar]

Possibly DocM. Although, if you want your game to drag into a major snore fest, watch what happens when one player INSISTS on role playing, real time, every ... single... conversation with every single NPC.

Four hours to go shopping for a crossbow is NOT my idea of fun.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Possibly DocM. Although, if you want your game to drag into a major snore fest, watch what happens when one player INSISTS on role playing, real time, every ... single... conversation with every single NPC.

Four hours to go shopping for a crossbow is NOT my idea of fun.

Definitely sounds like a poor example of "fun". Not to mention a poor example of "thespian", in that context. Sounds decidedly more like "self-indulgent", "oblivious" and/or "egotist".

I'd say that it's also an example not of more roleplaying, but rather, poor roleplaying. Or substitute "amateur theatre" for "roleplaying" there. In fact, if a gamer's done any theatre, chances are they would know better than to waste "stage time" (so to speak) in such a pointless, boring way.

Er. Well, I'd certainly hope so.

In other words, I'm of the opinion that it tends to help roleplaying (yes, in my actual experience, not in theory-land) rather than hinder it. The genuine article, I mean, amateur or no.

Used to be one of my favourite quotes to bring up around here (because it amused me to, mostly ), and even now, who and where it's from (E. Gary Gygax, AD&D 1e PHB, page 7) will possibly surprise a few out there: "Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by (...)"

Not that (I think... ) he was suggesting that every player and DM go join a theatre group. (Nor suggesting they don't, fwiw.) Anyway, nonetheless, it casts a particular view of the "amateur thespian" approach in an interesting light, particularly when that view comes from certain quarters.

But no, I don't mean you, Hussar. Just went on a bit of a tangent, is all.

 

[DumbPaladin]

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'd learn to live with Roleplay-Everything Guy, because an excess of a good thing is always a preferable problem to an excess of Captain Killcrazy.

I've also never run across that guy ... and have had the displeasure of having to deal with Killcrazy.

To answer the original question: I prefer roleplay.

Rollplay is not that enjoyable, and they made a different game for it, called Yahtzee.

 

[Hussar]

Aus Snow - totally agree. Anything, taken to an extreme starts getting to be a whole lot of "not fun".

DumbPaladin - until you've had the pleasure of sitting at a table with a player (or worse a DM) who insists that every single conversation, no matter how mundane, how trivial, must be fully played out, word for word, in character, trust me, it's about as fun as watching paint dry.

Heck, Captain Killkrazy can be a blast in the right game. Kick in the door, slaughter and loot? He's fine. In the high rp, court intrigue game? Not so much.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DumbPaladin - until you've had the pleasure of sitting at a table with a player (or worse a DM) who insists that every single conversation, no matter how mundane, how trivial, must be fully played out, word for word, in character, trust me, it's about as fun as watching paint dry.

Yep- unless your amateur actor really is an amateur actor, too much time gets consumed by one player as he or she describes the woodwork he wants on his masterwork crossbow...and the haggling over it's price. Ditto the discussion with the tavern wench about how he wants his kraken-steak cooked and seasoned, etc.

Essentially, the guy going overboard on the role-play side monopolizes the game; it becomes a dialogue between him and the DM.

 

[Celebrim]

Yep- unless your amateur actor really is an amateur actor, too much time gets consumed by one player as he or she describes the woodwork he wants on his masterwork crossbow...and the haggling over it's price. Ditto the discussion with the tavern wench about how he wants his kraken-steak cooked and seasoned, etc.

Essentially, the guy going overboard on the role-play side monopolizes the game; it becomes a dialogue between him and the DM.

I can tell from this comment that you've rarely played with a decent role-player.

Myth #1: Good role-players are interested in tedious details.: Good role-players are interested in making good stories. A bad roleplayer might draw out a scene about purchasing the wood for his masterwork crossbow even though noone else in the group cares about the stupid crossbow. A good roleplayer is always thinking about essentially how the novelization of his play would read. If you would find a scene about haggling over the price of rare wood for his masterwork crossbow boring, chances are the good role-player dismisses the scene as not worth the time. A good role-player is economical with his scenes and dialogue in the same way that a good writer is economical with his words. Mistaking verbosity with depth is mistake novice role-players make, much like novice writers often do.

Myth #2: Roleplayers are self-centered.: There is this myth that role-players are these selfish gits that are only interested in their own goals and own amusement. In truth, the main motivation of most roleplayers is to be entertaining to the rest of the group. Roleplayers are trying to be part of a show. For a role-player, the play is the thing. At a dysfunctional level this can turn into 'look at me' 'crazies' who are disrupting every scene with some sort of wacky in character behavior. This is sometimes ego driven, but just as often its boredom driven. The story isn't doing it for the player, and they are hoping to create something more interesting. However, the truly skilled role-player sees his job primarily as being fun, and he's going to modify his style of play to whatever the group seems to see as fun.

Myth #3: Roleplayers primarily want to talk to the DM.: That's the one that really tells me you've never been a part of a role-playing group. As a DM, the main drawback of being in a heavy RP group is that you stop being the center of attention and rarely get a chance to talk. Roleplayers primarily want to RP with the other protagonists in the story, that is, the other players. Just as in a novel most of the dialogue occurs between the protagonists, so in a RP group, most of the conversation occurs between the players. Raistlin doesn't spend most of his time talking to random shopkeepers. Raistlin spends most of his time talking to Caramon and Tanis. When I DM a group that is inexperienced or leans toward hack and slash, the 'reward' per se is that I'm at least 50% and usually more of the total game play. The DM is most important when the game is focused on combat and other sorts of player to world interaction. When I DM a group that leans heavily toward RP, I trend toward being just first among equals and even a true peer in terms of the amount of time gameplay revolves around me. The 'reward' of DMing an RP heavy group is watching 'the show' because much or even most of the interaction is player to player.

Myth #4: Good RPers are poor rollplayers You didn't really mention this one, but its so common I feel like mentioning it. In my experience, quite the opposite is true. The best RPers I've met are also the best tacticians, and vica versa the best tacticians I've met are also some of the best RPers. One of the most annoyingly munchkin min-maxers I've ever met was also one of the most entertaining RPers when he put his mind to it. That's because to him, RPing was just the continuation of war by other means. When the tactical sitaution warranted it, he could be fabulously entertaining in character because that was just another way of winning and getting what he wanted. Likewise, many if not most RPers are creating stories and want to play characters that in some level the audience will deeply empathize with and root for. One of the most critical ways of doing that in a story is to give the character crowning moments of awesome that will define that character as cool. And in the game, the way you most often do that is by excellent tactics and system mastery which lets you pull off those cool tricks. Min-maxing was just another way of protagonizing the character and creating a fun and memorable story. Granted, the motivations are different - the RPer is playing a character with flaws because he thinks it makes the character more interesting and the Twink is playing the character with flaws because it gives him more points to spend on his schtick - and you can usually in play tell who is motivated by what, but the overall effects are often nearly the same and once the two groups are convinced the other side isn't going to wreck their fun the two can get along remarkably well. The Min-Maxers just want to make sure that they win (in the mind of the RPers, that the story has a 'happy ending'), and the RPers just want to make sure that they have a story (in the mind of the hack-and-slashers, that everyone gets moments to shine).

Sure, we can focus on how dysfunctional things can get if taken to extremes or if a player is neurotic about something, but that's not the only way things can work and the existance of extremes shouldn't be used to condemn an entire aspect of RPGs.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Heck, Captain Killkrazy can be a blast in the right game. Kick in the door, slaughter and loot? He's fine. In the high rp, court intrigue game? Not so much.

Except he wants to kick in every door, slaughter everyone, and loot everything. It gets a bit boring and only works longterm if the entire gaming group is made up of killcrazies.

Of course even killcrazies role-play. It's when they are back in the tavern after a day of slaughter and they "role-play" drinking and picking up the tavern wench.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can tell from this comment that you've rarely played with a decent role-player.

No you can't.

I've played with many gamers I'd call good or excellent role-players. The behavior I'm talking about is a rare aberration I've only seen twice in 33 years.

For example, when you take the standard party restocking for reentry into a particularly dangerous area and turning it into a whole session shopping trip as long as going to the mall on Black Friday. That is something that does not need to be reenacted as a real-time thing.

While that one person is haggling over each weapon repair, ammo restock, horse-grooming, lunch order, etc., in character, everyone else is trying to get their PCs restocked via interruptions in this guy's long-winded duologue with the DM. They're ready to go and this person hasn't yet stepped into the Alchemist's for his components. Which is going to involve haggling over price of each one, plus queries into superior or substitute components & their effects, etc., etc., etc.

He is not a good role-player, he is a monopolizer. His fun is coming at the expense of the rest of the group.

 

[Sunseeker]

DumbPaladin - until you've had the pleasure of sitting at a table with a player (or worse a DM) who insists that every single conversation, no matter how mundane, how trivial, must be fully played out, word for word, in character, trust me, it's about as fun as watching paint dry.

Heck, Captain Killkrazy can be a blast in the right game. Kick in the door, slaughter and loot? He's fine. In the high rp, court intrigue game? Not so much.

Exactly, given the right setting, everyone has a place. Games that are "all about" one thing or the other tend to forget that they are in fact, games that are to be enjoyed.

I'd learn to live with Roleplay-Everything Guy, because an excess of a good thing is always a preferable problem to an excess of Captain Killcrazy.

I've also never run across that guy ... and have had the displeasure of having to deal with Killcrazy.

To answer the original question: I prefer roleplay.

Rollplay is not that enjoyable, and they made a different game for it, called Yahtzee.

How about both? I had one game where the DM wanted everything to be in character. That meant that MR Killcrazy RPed being MR Killcrazy every moment of the game. It was horrid.

Everything is bad when there's too much of it. Perhaps for RP you simply have a higher tolerance for what it takes to be "too much".

While that one person is haggling over each weapon repair, ammo restock, horse-grooming, lunch order, etc., in character, everyone else is trying to get their PCs restocked via interruptions in this guy's long-winded duologue with the DM. They're ready to go and this person hasn't yet stepped into the Alchemist's for his components. Which is going to involve haggling over price of each one, plus queries into superior or substitute components & their effects, etc., etc., etc.

He is not a good role-player, he is a monopolizer. His fun is coming at the expense of the rest of the group.

What makes this worse is when the DM encourages this kind of behaviour, when the DM wants an "RP experience", where every player should inspect every detail, play every part out in full-character. Even people who ARE role-players simply want to move things along at some point.