Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6202912" data-attributes="member: 27160">My apologies - looking over your post again it's clear to me I took from it more than you intended or wrote. I now see what you were getting at - thanks for explaining it again.Does making the system "convincing the DM" really make players "step outside the system"? I don't think so - I think it just gets them to concentrate on the system - which is persuading the GM.I think, to identify a system that "supports roleplaying" one needs to do two things:1) Identify what exactly one means by "roleplaying", and2) Consider what system elements would support that.The first of these is probably the most tricky. My own answer - and there is no need it should be yours, necessarily - is as follows:1) Roleplaying is the process of making decisions in the place of the character. The description you give of the actions that result from the decision might (or might not) have some colour description added to them - but that's not really the core of roleplaying - the core is making the decision in someone else's shoes.2) Given (1), I find the system that best supports what I'm calling "roleplaying" (yes, those are quotes around "my idea" - I really don't think there's a grammatical problem with that) is one that (a) predicates success probabilities largely on the character's capabilities, not the players' and (b) allows some clear stakes and resources that can be spent on behalf of the character to improve or decrease the chances of success.As already noted, FATE seems to do this very well. I think Burning Wheel would probably do so, as well, but I haven't had a chance to play it, yet. PrimeTime Adventures does, also, and I think Pendragon does in a fairly light and "traditional" way. HeroQuest is another "lite" version of this sort of thing, too.I think one reason I get a little touchy around this topic - and I see that others do, too - is that the questions/assertions about "roleplaying" seem not infrequently to be used as a kind of cipher. What the coded message means is "I want to have a system where success is determined by persuading the GM I succeed, because I'm confident I can persuade my GM to let me have my way". I have come across this "system" in use from time to time, and I find it to be a deceptive and dysfunctional version of gamism that I don't like at all. Of course, this gives the potential for friction with (1) those who actually like this form of play - who I would ask to be plain in their preferences and politely disagree with - and (2) those who are trying to get a handle on this "roleplaying" business without meaning to get tripped up by such unfortunate double-meanings as I outline here - with whom I sympathise, but I still suggest that they need to be very clear about their thoughts and meanings in this area.In other words, to discuss this topic I think one needs to (a) reflect deeply on ones own motivations, and (b) be as honest and clear as possible about what you're trying to find/achieve.</blockquote>

Verification