Impact of mechanics on roleplay

[Halivar]

Forked from: I was "booed" for even showing the 4e Core books

We had the following exchange in the middle of a completely unrelated thread:

Just out of curiosity, do you guys find that 4th edition helps or hinders role-playing or are things pretty much the same in your games?

My roleplay is divorced from the mechanics. When I roleplay, I portray my character concept, not my character sheet.

Same, except for the fact that my character sheet is a guide for my character's strengths and limitations. If I have a low Charisma score, I'm not acting like a social powerhouse.

I do this, but only to some extent. I'll give an example:

I once played a pretty esoteric sci-fi system, and I had a pretty simple character concept: I wanted to be a gambling, mech-piloting ladie's man. The problem? Being a mech-pilot, according to the rules, made it impossible for me to be proficient in the "gambling" and "seduction" skills. But I stuck with my character concept. Every where we stopped, I would pop into the local casino and try to take the house, and picking up every lady I saw. The result, of course, is that my character was always out of money, and got slapped in the face a lot. Did I consider this an unsuccessful incarnation of my character concept? Not at all. I was adamant about my character concept, and consistent. Even though I was, from a mechanical perspective, the least capable in gambling and seduction, the group always chose me to front for the group in games of chance and schmoozing encounters simply because I had roleplayed my character consistently enough that they group saw my character, and not my character sheet. All I needed was a couple epic, yet freak chance successes in those skills to solidify my character concept in the minds of my group-mates. From my perspective, the roleplay was a rousing success.

Essentially, I refuse, as a roleplayer, to allow the mechanics to dictate my roleplay, even if we rigidly follow the RAW. I come up with a concept, and I construct my character using the RAW to as closely incarnate my character concept as I possibly can, because I like my roleplay and my character sheet to be as consistent as they can be. Nevertheless, it is my initial concept, and not my sheet, that determines my roleplay. If there is a disparity between my sheet and my concept, my concept will always win out.

What do you think? How important are the mechanics of the game to your roleplay?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We can fully ignore them. And sometimes systems leave us with no choice.

But I think it's nice if the mechanics support it. Your example of a mech pilot unable to learn seduction or gambling is an example for a mechanical flaw of the game.

I don't like playing a high charisma character and no getting anything out of it, and I don't like people playing a low charisma character and not suffering the drawback. It is typically unfair in many games, since you need to buy off both Charisma and, say, your Intelligence score.

Still, many aspects of role-playing are not based on mechanics, and they don't need to. Character motivations are not statistics on your character sheet. If you want to care greatly about the well-being of your family and your home village, you don't need a mechanic representing it.
If you want your character to fall in love with an NPC, you can do so without rolling a "fall in love" chance.
If you want your character to be a greedy bastard, you don't need a "Greed" attribute telling us how greedy he is

There can be good reasons for creating mechanics for these, and some games can even benefit from it. But they are not required.

 

[The Little Raven]

What do you think? How important are the mechanics of the game to your roleplay?

To me, very important. The limitations of the character's mechanics help me determine the limitations of the character's personality. I picked up the mindset from being into theater when I was younger... if I'm playing Romeo, I'm not going to act like a carefree jokester (since that's Mercutio); I'm going to abide by the limitations set by the role I have chosen. My concept is important to me, but I can mold it to fit my character's mechanics without violating the limitations that are set by those mechanics.

If I choose to play a carouser and womanizer, and end up with a Charisma of 4, I'm not going to be a good one... I'll be more like that cheesy guy spitting pickup lines at every woman that crosses my path and moving to the next one without pause when I get rejected.

If I choose to play a tough guy and thug, and end up with a Strength of 4, I'm not going to be a physical bully... I'll be that small guy who has a total Napoleon complex because he isn't as big and strong as he feels he should be.

 

[Crosswind]

I have never played in a game with a DM who was not willing to bend/break the rules if they were so inflexible as to rule out a character concept that I wanted to play.

-Cross

 

[Mallus]

The more a system allows me to model the character I have in my head the better. Which is why I love M&M2e... it let me create Joseirus, the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling with nary a compromise needed between my initial concept and the batsh*t execution.

In that regard 4e is... pretty okay. By making Skills more like broad categories, increasing their importance, and upping the number of Feats received, the system seems to offer as much, if not more, mechanical support for RP than 3e.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Mechanics matter, but 4E mechanics are very flexible.

One house rule is that I don't use Class Skill lists; this is specifically to open up the character concepts available to each class (and to avoid the Don Juan-mech pilot problem mentioned above). "Ranger" then becomes a profession available to anyone with the right Skills, while Ranger the class is just a collection of fighting techniques.

One of the reasons I like 4E is because the very loose linkage between fluff and crunch allow the rewrite of fluff to suit the character. Here's some re-concepted Dragonborn mechanics: Firbolg (4E Race)

I've also done something similar for a Halfling Warlock PC I've rolled up. He uses the Star Pact rules but all the fluff has been rewritten as a Tarot-card flipping gypsy witch. He uses astrology, but no explicit pact with anything and there's none of the Far Realm fluff, just plenty of knucklebones. And as reconcepting goes, that's nothing.

 

[brehobit]

A lot really.

Firstly, I find that "high mechanics" systems harm roleplaying. That's why games like "over the edge" or "toon" exist. You can do more with a lighter system. I know people who can do good roleplaying in mechanics-heavy systems. But I'm not one. Swapping between right/left brain kills me.

Secondly, there are character ideas that can be _so_ non optimal that you can't play them in a game. I'm going to be playing in a house-rules over-the-edge-like game soon. But being an archer is _so_ penalized, I just don't see how I can make it work. And riding a non-standard mount is also nearly impossible. So my wolf riding archer halfling is pretty much doomed.

Finally, the system impacts what the character can do and that impacts the roleplaying. I've often played pacifists in RPGs. 2e, 3e, and Shandowrun. But 4e makes this _really_ hard. The siloing of powers means that I _will_ have these powers I'll never ever use. In other games I could swap them out for "utilities" if you will. But not in 4e. (btw, I _really_ enjoy 4e and over the edge but both have rule issues that can impact roleplaying/character ideas in odd ways), as do most games...

 

[El Mahdi]

When I create a character, I come up with the concept first. If a systems mechanics won't support the concept, then I either need to change the mechanics, or just not use that system. For example: I absolutely love the Star*Drive campaign setting, and the character concepts that come to mind when I read the setting material (original Alternity system setting material). However, I just didn't feel the Alternity system mechanics, or even the D20 Modern/Future mechanics, completely worked for me, so I adapted the Star Wars D20 mechanics (and then the SAGA mechanics) for character creation (specifically classes).

So, most important to me is the character concept, but I still want mechanics that explain how and what the character can do. I want both to work in concert.

 

[ExploderWizard]

While mechanics can never keep a roleplayer down, I find it generally easier to play and think like the character when not looking at a character sheet filled with oodles of everything I CAN do and how well.

It kind of helps in reacting to situations like an adventurer instead of a gamer playing an adventurer and that where a lot of the fun is, at least for me.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

This problematic interaction between mechanics and character is why I've decided I prefer to build my character first and then figure out who they are. No more of this "come up with a concept so you'll know what to build" that keeps sticking me with mechanically unsatisfying characters.