D&D 5E Come out and put yourself on the Gygax scale!

[Libramarian]

I would say I prioritize gameplay over roleplay, but I'm not so focused on the mechanics. I like rules-light gameplay, i.e. the phase prior to mechanical resolution where the players are interpreting the situation and understanding the problem. My RPG anathema would be mechanics that obviate any creative work by the players in this phase by "challenging the character rather than the player", e.g. perception checks, diplomacy checks, etc. I think this aspect of RPG play is generally underappreciated and for the most part arises by accident rather than intentional design.

 

[pemerton]

I can think of no better terms than those formulated by Ron Edwards in the early years of the last decade at indie-rpgs.com for the different priorities, or creative agendas, that different players bring to the table. They are Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. "Story" on your scale seems to correspond to Narrativism

Actually, most ENworld posters who refer to "story" are what Edwards would classify as a form of simulationism - but not "purist for system" simulationism (eg RQ, Classic Traveller, Rolemaster) but something closer to "high concept" simulationism.

The reason that Edwards classifies this as a species of simulationism is because it involves the players exploring a pre-estabished setting and series of situations, already worked out by the GM. It therefore doesn't have the "story now" character of narrativism. "Story now" play is a relative minority among ENworld posters, based on my experience and exchanges over the years.

 

[Bitbrain]

G4.

 

[Maxperson]

However you decide what your character thinks, what actions your character attempts, and what your character says is how you role-play your character. There's really no way you can decide more, no matter how you come to the decision.

Roleplaying is not the decision. Roleplaying is all the stuff that makes up the decision. If there is an orc and you decide to kill it because you want to swing and get exp for your fighter, that's roleplaying. If I want to kill the orc because my fighter is overcome by his hatred of orcs due to them killing my parents during a raid on my village, that's more roleplaying. We came to the same decision, but there was more roleplay involved with my decision.

Roleplaying is also in the descriptions. If you say, "My character tries to convince the lord to lend us aid.", you are roleplaying. If my PC says, "My lord, my party has aided you several times over the last year without asking for anything in return. We saved your daughter at great peril. We drove away bandits that were preying on your merchants. Right now we are in dire straights and need to borrow the Chalice of Warning for just one week.", that involves a lot more roleplaying.

Roleplaying is not all or nothing. You are engaging in a False Dichotomy.

 

[OB1]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] & [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] While I think you are both having an interesting side conversation, I did want to make something clear regarding the gygax scale. It's not a measure of how much you role-play or how much you game-play, it's a measure of how much you personally are attracted to those aspects of the game, however you define those terms, not how someone else does.

That said, I do think I'm better off with my original Story/Mechanic scale than role-play/game-play that I later suggested and think the below question helps better illuminate that there is not a zero sum between the two elements.

How attracted are you to the Elements of Story and Mechanics in an RPG?

G0 - 100% Story/ 0% Mechanics
G1 - 100% Story/ 33% Mechanics
G2 - 100% Story/ 66% Mechanics
G3 - 100% Story/ 100% Mechanics
G4 - 66% Story/ 100% Mechanics
G5 - 33% Story/ 100% Mechanics
G6 - 0% Story/ 100% Mechancis

 

[TerraDave]

G0-G1: Collective story telling, LARPING, some WoD and indi-gaming
G2-G3: Most RPGing, with a move from G3 back to G2 in recent years
G4-G5: Hobby board gaming, with classic eurogaming more G5 and old and new thematic games more G4
G6: Chess, checkers, card games, other abstract games.

 

[Hriston]

Actually, most ENworld posters who refer to "story" are what Edwards would classify as a form of simulationism - but not "purist for system" simulationism (eg RQ, Classic Traveller, Rolemaster) but something closer to "high concept" simulationism.

The reason that Edwards classifies this as a species of simulationism is because it involves the players exploring a pre-estabished setting and series of situations, already worked out by the GM. It therefore doesn't have the "story now" character of narrativism. "Story now" play is a relative minority among ENworld posters, based on my experience and exchanges over the years.

This was why I felt compelled to write "seems to correspond to" in my post because I suspected that by 'story', collaborative creation of a story wasn't really meant, but rather discovery and exploration of the DM's story, in the sense you might find when playing through an AP, for example, which is decidedly Simulationist in the sense that you're simulating a story created by someone else. I suppose I let the tenuous connection between 'story' and Narrativism stand in my post because I would have liked for those who identify themselves as gravitating towards story to define for themselves what they mean by that.

 

[Hriston]

Roleplaying is not the decision.

The PHB disagrees with you: "Roleplaying is... you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

Roleplaying is all the stuff that makes up the decision. If there is an orc and you decide to kill it because you want to swing and get exp for your fighter, that's roleplaying. If I want to kill the orc because my fighter is overcome by his hatred of orcs due to them killing my parents during a raid on my village, that's more roleplaying. We came to the same decision, but there was more roleplay involved with my decision.

No, there wasn't. There was a difference in stance. The first decision was made in author stance, in which a character's decisions and actions are determined according to the priorities of the player. The second decision was made in actor stance, in which a character's decisions and actions are determined using the knowledge and perceptions of the character. There's no more role-playing involved in making decisions is actor stance than there is in making decisions in author stance.

Roleplaying is also in the descriptions. If you say, "My character tries to convince the lord to lend us aid.", you are roleplaying. If my PC says, "My lord, my party has aided you several times over the last year without asking for anything in return. We saved your daughter at great peril. We drove away bandits that were preying on your merchants. Right now we are in dire straights and need to borrow the Chalice of Warning for just one week.", that involves a lot more roleplaying.

No, it doesn't. It involves "in-character" versus "out-of-character" roleplaying. Speaking in the first-person doesn't yield more role-play than speaking in the third-person.

Roleplaying is not all or nothing. You are engaging in a False Dichotomy.

No, I'm not. A dichotomy would involve two categories, role-playing and not role-playing. I don't think I've said anything about not role-playing because, in the context of actually playing an RPG, such a thing doesn't really exist. What it would look like is a player sitting at the table and saying, "I don't know what my character thinks, does, or says." At that point, you're just not playing the game!

But assuming the two categories are role-playing and not role-playing, how is that dichotomy false? What other category is there, or how is role-playing sometimes not role-playing?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The first decision was made in author stance, in which a character's decisions and actions are determined according to the priorities of the player. The second decision was made in actor stance, in which a character's decisions and actions are determined using the knowledge and perceptions of the character. There's no more role-playing involved in making decisions is actor stance than there is in making decisions in author stance.

Role-playing is the act of making decisions from the perspective of the character, based on who they are and what they understand of the world. You imagine yourself to be the character, evaluate the situation at hand, and imagine what the character would do in that situation. It is necessarily done in the first-person, because that's how the human brain works. (Whether you narrate the outcome of that process to the table in the first-person or the third-person is irrelevant to the process itself.)

Role-playing is contrasted with meta-gaming, which is (colloquially speaking) the act of making decisions from the perspective of the player at the table. The two actions are mutually exclusive. If you make decisions about how a character acts, based on information that the character does not have (such as the priorities of the player at the table), then you are a despicable meta-gamer who deserves to be bodily ejected from the table with extreme prejudice. There is no room within the hobby for meta-gamers.

 

[Maxperson]

The PHB disagrees with you: "Roleplaying is... you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

That agrees with me completely. I've been saying that playing the mechanics is roleplaying, but according to that PHB definition it isn't. Stating that you mechanically swing at an orc involves nothing about how the character thinks or talks. Telling the DM you make a diplomacy check to persuade the king involves nothing about how the character thinks or talks. It also says "thinks, acts and talks", and the decision is also only the acts portion. The "thinks and talks" is the added extras I put into the greater roleplaying example.

No, there wasn't. There was a difference in stance. The first decision was made in author stance, in which a character's decisions and actions are determined according to the priorities of the player. The second decision was made in actor stance, in which a character's decisions and actions are determined using the knowledge and perceptions of the character. There's no more role-playing involved in making decisions is actor stance than there is in making decisions in author stance.

You can call it actor stance if you want, but acting involves playing a role, so "actor stance" IS roleplaying.

No, it doesn't. It involves "in-character" versus "out-of-character" roleplaying. Speaking in the first-person doesn't yield more role-play than speaking in the third-person.

"Nuh uh!" isn't a sufficient counter argument.

No, I'm not. A dichotomy would involve two categories, role-playing and not role-playing. I don't think I've said anything about not role-playing because, in the context of actually playing an RPG, such a thing doesn't really exist. What it would look like is a player sitting at the table and saying, "I don't know what my character thinks, does, or says." At that point, you're just not playing the game!

That's all you have been saying. By claiming that all roleplaying is equal, you are making the claim that when it comes to roleplaying, there is only roleplaying and not roleplaying. That's the False Dichotomy. There is in fact, not roleplaying, and different degrees of roleplaying, comprising multiple facets and not just two.