How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?

[Ovinomancer]

Huh? Do your play bridge or 500? The partners aren't in competition - they are cooperating in the bidding, and in 500 are cooperating in the play.

The fact that they're cooperating doesn't change the fact that questions of player skill, and how to handle it in a social context, come up. And it's not as simple as just allowing the more timid player some spotlight time. I've played with partners who want me to steer the bidding for our partnership, because they (i) want the pleasure of winning, and (ii) want to learn how to play the game, and therefore are happy to have a model.

In the RPG context, the analogue is that of letting the skilled wargamer make suggestions about spell load-out; or about combat tactics. That happens from time-to-time in RPGing, and has nothing to do with whether or not the game is competitive.

There's this word, right in the middle there, that completely deflates your attempt to call bridge a non-competitive game. I bolded it for you.

Why is it up to the GM and not up to the other players? Or up to the less skilled player to make some sort of move?

The GM has a a certain role in the way the game unfolds, but isn't a chaperone. The GM can frame situations that speak to the concerns of the less-skilled player, but if that player doesn't follow up (because s/he doesn't know how to, or is to scared to) then the focus is fairly quickly going to swing back onto a player who is ready to engage the game. And that has nothing to do with competition.

(Of course you can avoid the above dynamic by avoiding player impact on the shape and direction of the game, and just having the GM tell the players stories about their PCs. But personally I don't like that style of RPGing.)

Again, you're putting forth your competitive mindset story-first gamestyle and then trying to state that the play at your table is the way it should be. YOU play competitively, but the game doesn't require that. To make the point, the GM can frame situations to highlight certain players -- to call and play on the flaws and traits they built into their characters, and spread out the spotlight. Tell me that's not explicitly what the gamebook tells GMs to do -- frame situations that put players into crisis by using their stated traits and bonds (I don't recall the precise terminology). At that point, it is up to the GM to spread the love around the table and allow all players to have equal chances to play. You might get the spotlight this week, Bob the wallflower next.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I have one player at my table who takes charge, comes up with plans, tends to let the other players know when they forgot something they shouldn't have and its affecting the outcome of the game. Aka the opposite player in the group who has the memory of the guy from Momento and always forget that class feature X is critical for this situation and if he forgets it the party will probably be hosed. He's been playing D&D since the 70's and while he does make an effort to role-play he's got a good head for D&D'isms and often will take over the spotlight simply because he puts in the effort to maximize spell load outs, gear, etc. He's good at it and I'm fine with it, and actually reward it. Other players can rise and and get some of the spotlight but they tend not to, or come up with idiotic plans.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have one player at my table who takes charge, comes up with plans, tends to let the other players know when they forgot something they shouldn't have and its affecting the outcome of the game. Aka the opposite player in the group who has the memory of the guy from Momento and always forget that class feature X is critical for this situation and if he forgets it the party will probably be hosed. He's been playing D&D since the 70's and while he does make an effort to role-play he's got a good head for D&D'isms and often will take over the spotlight simply because he puts in the effort to maximize spell load outs, gear, etc. He's good at it and I'm fine with it, and actually reward it. Other players can rise and and get some of the spotlight but they tend not to, or come up with idiotic plans.

One of the best games I ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans.

 

[Desdichado]

One of the best games I ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans.

I'd go so far as to say that almost every good game I've ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans, and the more idiotic the plans were, the better the game was. It was a very reliable correlation.

Flexor's playstyle is also competitive (in a very different way than that advocated by pemerton) but both are equally alien to me. I'd venture to say I doubt I'd enjoy either very much. And they'd probably not enjoy me being in their games either, because I wouldn't take them seriously enough; I'd be the one screwing up all their "muh playing since the 70s" experience with some weird gonzo play that turns the whole campaign into what they'd no doubt think is a dumpster fire.

One guy once told me that our group was kind of schizophrenic; half of us wanted to play The Lord of the Rings; the other half wanted to play Epic Movie. But he was wrong. He was actually the only one who wanted to play Lord of the Rings. The rest of us were all Abrahams, Zucker and Zucker at the Renn Faire.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

One of the best games I ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans.

Sure, I've had great games where everything went wrong, and I've had games were one or two placers making stupid mistakes pretty much killed the night for everyone. "Hey I loved playing this PC but you forgetting you can use Kung-Fu grip here got us all killed, thanks Bill, thanks a lot." Though that is less bad planning than bad gaming. Players do stupid stuff all the time, one player is prone to doing things like using a stream of blood flowing over a cliff as a type of slip and slide. But thankfully some of the players keep that in check.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd go so far as to say that almost every good game I've ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans, and the more idiotic the plans were, the better the game was. It was a very reliable correlation.

There's only one type of plan that's better than an idiotic plan, and that's no plan at all.

Flexor's playstyle is also competitive (in a very different way than that advocated by pemerton) but both are equally alien to me. I'd venture to say I doubt I'd enjoy either very much. And they'd probably not enjoy me being in their games either, because I wouldn't take them seriously enough; I'd be the one screwing up all their "muh playing since the 70s" experience with some weird gonzo play that turns the whole campaign into what they'd no doubt think is a dumpster fire.

I somehow think you'd fit in quite well in these parts, bucko.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, yes, yes but the GAME is a competitive one. I think this is your disconnect with the conversation that the rest of us are apparently having; you can't divorce the concept of "game" from some endeavor where you try to "win."

But there are both competitive and cooperative (not merely team) games. In team game you have some players cooperating to win in a competition against another team(s). In a cooperative game, everyone playing is trying to win, in essence, playing against the game.

RPGs are cooperative games as far as the players are concerned, though the DM's approach can make them more competitive or team-like, in that the DM can be more like a player, or more like a referee, or more like an opposing team.

What you are calling "roleplaying" I would call simply "Playing the game"

Well, it is a Role-Playing Game. RP in that context is playing the game, prettymuch tautologically. That can be contrasted to roleplaying in other contexts, like therapy or fetish scenes.

But attempting to tease the RP out of RPG is like teasing out the Game - what you're left with isn't an RPG anymore.

- even if it means doing things that would be out of character for your PC in order for the group to succeed at their current quest/goal/mission.
Ideally you do both at the same time, but sometimes you have to choose to focus on one over the other.

One of the points pemerton made was that if the best way to help the group succeed was to do something wildly out of character for the PC - the dumb barbarian playing masterful politics - it's a problem with the game, not the emphasis of the player.

 

[Caliban]

Well, it is a Role-Playing Game. RP in that context is playing the game, prettymuch tautologically. That can be contrasted to roleplaying in other contexts, like therapy or fetish scenes.

But attempting to tease the RP out of RPG is like teasing out the Game - what you're left with isn't an RPG anymore.

I can pretty confidently say that some people play D&D, but don't really "roleplay" - they treat it more as a tactical combat game and are just passing time in between combats. They just want roll dice, kill things, and increment a few numbers on their character sheet. Or solve whatever puzzle or challenge is facing the party with the minimum of social interaction.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get annoying when they don't want anyone else to roleplay either and act annoyed and impatient at how the game is dragging with everyone talking instead getting on with it.

Most people are not like this, but I've played with a few of them. They are a little more common in an Organized Play environment due to how regimented everything is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can pretty confidently say that some people play D&D, but don't really "roleplay" - they treat it more as a tactical combat game and are just passing time in between combats. They don't "roleplay" - they just want roll dice, kill things,

That's playing a role. The role of a remorseless killer, but a role, none the less. ;P

and increment a few numbers on their character sheet. Or solve whatever puzzle or challenge is facing the party with the minimum of social interaction.

Seriously, though, RP isn't social interaction. Social interaction is just one thing that the system may or may not resolve that well. If you're using the abilities of your character and doing things 'in character' for it, you're certainly RPing, even if that in-character thing you're doing is hitting things with a big stick and that's something the resolution mechanics handle explicitly with dice & numbers.

I think the line you're drawing isn't between RP and G, but between resolution systems that are comparatively simple, dice-mediated, and toted up with simple math, and resolutions that are punted to the skill of the player (not the character) and the judgement of the DM rather than the mechanics. Calling the latter RP is misleading, it's more like breaking character since the player is no longer utilizing the abilities of the character.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get annoying when they don't want anyone else to roleplay either and act annoyed and impatient at how the game is dragging with everyone talking instead getting on with it.

Most people are not like this, but I've played with a few of them. They are a little more common in an Organized Play environment due to how regimented everything is.

Sounds more like a pillar & style preference. The player who likes fast-paced combat and simple, clear goals with a minimum of planning vs those who prefer detailed interaction in the social pillar, with more nuanced goals and exhaustive planning. All are still roleplaying, just in potentially-infuriating-to-the-other ways.

 

[Caliban]

That's playing a role. The role of a remorseless killer, but a role, none the less. ;P Seriously, though, RP isn't social interaction. Social interaction is just one thing that the system may or may not resolve that well. If you're using the abilities of your character and doing things 'in character' for it, you're certainly RPing, even if that in-character thing you're doing is hitting things with a big stick and that's something the resolution mechanics handle explicitly with dice & numbers.

I think the line you're drawing isn't between RP and G, but between resolution systems that are comparatively simple, dice-mediated, and toted up with simple math, and resolutions that are punted to the skill of the player (not the character) and the judgement of the DM rather than the mechanics. Calling the latter RP is misleading, it's more like breaking character since the player is no longer utilizing the abilities of the character.

Sounds more like a pillar & style preference. The player who likes fast-paced combat and simple, clear goals with a minimum of planning vs those who prefer detailed interaction in the social pillar, with more nuanced goals and exhaustive planning. All are still roleplaying, just in potentially-infuriating-to-the-other ways.

Nope.