Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying
- Thread starter Mustrum_Ridcully
- Start date
It gripes my soul to agree with Ron Edwards, but this is a case where I agree with Ron Edwards. (Sorta.)
Here's how I see it: The system supports roleplaying, or doesn't, by inviting the players and the GM to think about roleplaying during the course of working the mechanics. RP-supportive systems are rich in "roleplaying hooks." Take the 4E warlord's Inspiring Word. When I'm playing a warlord and use Inspiring Word, I often yell something in character at the PC being "healed." IW is a small but definite roleplaying hook.
On the other hand, when I'm playing a cleric and use Lance of Faith, I treat it as an abstract tactical exercise, because I have no goddamn clue what Lance of Faith is supposed to be doing in the game world. Certainly it doesn't inspire me to roleplay anything. Invitations to roleplay arise from what WotC dismissively calls "fluff" and I prefer to think of as "flavor"--the names and in-game descriptions of mechanical elements, which trigger associations in the minds of people working with those elements.
That's not all there is to it, of course. Space to roleplay is also an important consideration; the more attention the players must devote to working the system math, the less they have to spare for turning that math into an imaginary world.
Finally, a system which is flexible to roleplaying--in other words, clever use of RP can adjust the outcome--will obviously encourage it. However, such systems typically require an experienced GM to keep clever RP tricks from becoming exploitative (the old "sand-in-the-eyes" argument; it's clever once, but if it worked every time people would carry bags of sand instead of swords).
Klaus
First Post
LostSoul
Adventurer
What do you think?
I think that systems that require players to describe their actions - because the description of the action is needed for another player to make their decision in response - support roleplaying better than those that don't.Um... let's say I'm playing Palladium Fantasy. The DM says, "He attacks you." That's not good enough. Does he throw something at me, swing at me, kick me, or what? I need to know if I should Parry, Dodge, or Roll with the Punch.
keterys
First Post
That's about as meaningful as needing to know whether an enemy did a ranged, melee, close attack, or what defense they went against in 4E, or whether they used a spell-like or supernatural ability in 3e. Information you need to know to figure out what defenses apply, whether you can do any immediate abilities, etc... but ultimately some people will skimp or elaborate the details as they wish.
The scary thing is, people do the same thing in the systems that have less mechanics, or mechanics more oriented on story.
The linked Ron Edwards article just talks about game systems catering appropriately to their GNS goal. It's a little dated, but here's the thing - none of those three concepts is exclusively roleplaying. The simulationist can have a complete immersive break as the narrativist hyperfocuses on the plot and the gamist can really dig into elaborate description of his badass attack to get a string of circumstance bonuses to his roll.
System does matter for how much you're enjoying the game, and how well your DM or particular group works with it... but it doesn't have a tremendous effect on the level of roleplay beyond that assumption. Different groups have wildly different responses to different games, of course, so the system makes a big deal in that respect. Some players, for instance, don't get into characters in simple games cause they don't have enough fiddly bits to inspire them to think about the characters. Other players are overwhelmed by the level of detail, number of attacks, math involved in complex games and lose interest in the actual character beyond all the numbers. Some players are so goal oriented that they will never roleplay unless there is a mechanical benefit for doing so, but if there is might roleplay up a storm. Etc. Similarly, some DMs are inspired by the act of working through all of the options, tables, etc for a complex game, generating ideas through the work of dealing with the system. Other DMs get bogged down and never get past the minimal "Ugh, need to generate a level appropriate combat, which means looking in this book, then that one, cross referencing this...", so don't spend any time working on plot hooks, integrating with character stories, etc.
It's a pretty complex subject. Anyhow, SRM's got some interesting stuff there.
The scary thing is, people do the same thing in the systems that have less mechanics, or mechanics more oriented on story.
The linked Ron Edwards article just talks about game systems catering appropriately to their GNS goal. It's a little dated, but here's the thing - none of those three concepts is exclusively roleplaying. The simulationist can have a complete immersive break as the narrativist hyperfocuses on the plot and the gamist can really dig into elaborate description of his badass attack to get a string of circumstance bonuses to his roll.
System does matter for how much you're enjoying the game, and how well your DM or particular group works with it... but it doesn't have a tremendous effect on the level of roleplay beyond that assumption. Different groups have wildly different responses to different games, of course, so the system makes a big deal in that respect. Some players, for instance, don't get into characters in simple games cause they don't have enough fiddly bits to inspire them to think about the characters. Other players are overwhelmed by the level of detail, number of attacks, math involved in complex games and lose interest in the actual character beyond all the numbers. Some players are so goal oriented that they will never roleplay unless there is a mechanical benefit for doing so, but if there is might roleplay up a storm. Etc. Similarly, some DMs are inspired by the act of working through all of the options, tables, etc for a complex game, generating ideas through the work of dealing with the system. Other DMs get bogged down and never get past the minimal "Ugh, need to generate a level appropriate combat, which means looking in this book, then that one, cross referencing this...", so don't spend any time working on plot hooks, integrating with character stories, etc.
It's a pretty complex subject. Anyhow, SRM's got some interesting stuff there.
Insight
Adventurer
A lot of this is completely ridiculous.
There's nothing in any serious RPG system that prevents anyone from roleplaying. I'm defining roleplaying as "acting out your character's actions through description and actual speech" as opposed to "rolling dice and announcing the character's intentions and actions in game mechanics only". Just because 4E, for example, focuses on combat, that doesn't mean you can't roleplay. There's absolutely nothing in the rules telling you that all you can run are combat encounters. In fact, you could have an entire session of skill challenges or social encounters. Why couldn't you? Sure, the game mechanics focus on combat, but what prevents you from roleplaying during combat?
There's nothing in any serious RPG system that prevents anyone from roleplaying. I'm defining roleplaying as "acting out your character's actions through description and actual speech" as opposed to "rolling dice and announcing the character's intentions and actions in game mechanics only". Just because 4E, for example, focuses on combat, that doesn't mean you can't roleplay. There's absolutely nothing in the rules telling you that all you can run are combat encounters. In fact, you could have an entire session of skill challenges or social encounters. Why couldn't you? Sure, the game mechanics focus on combat, but what prevents you from roleplaying during combat?
Hella_Tellah
Explorer
Just as a datapoint in how a game can encourage roleplay with its mechanics, have a look at Wushu. You literally get better at doing something for describing it in greater detail, gaining a die for your dice pool for each detail:
However, even a group playing Wushu could discourage roleplaying by mocking a player's attempts at roleplaying or just saying "no" to her offers too often. The most fundamental rule for encouraging players to feel at ease and have fun is one that is found in many roleplaying games, but not nearly enough, in my opinion:
"Say yes, or roll the dice."
...with the emphasis on the first clause.
- I punch him
- in the solar plexus
- using the ancient five-knuckle technique passed down to me through 100 generations,
- while winking at the blushing girl serving tea.
However, even a group playing Wushu could discourage roleplaying by mocking a player's attempts at roleplaying or just saying "no" to her offers too often. The most fundamental rule for encouraging players to feel at ease and have fun is one that is found in many roleplaying games, but not nearly enough, in my opinion:
"Say yes, or roll the dice."
...with the emphasis on the first clause.
I think in being so dismissive right off the bat, you're crippling your point.
I'm not sure what you're responding to - who other than you is talking about systems preventing roleplaying?
The main question in the thread doesn't seem to be systems preventing roleplay, but whether some systems give active support to and encourage you to roleplay.
I must spread some more XP around, etc.
No system prevents roleplay. You can RP while playing chess if you really want to. But some systems are much more conducive to it than others.
Similar Threads
