Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying

[Dausuul]

I see some people blaming the system, instead of the player.

Damn straight I am.

Since I find fixing systems is usually easier, more effective, and less hassle than fixing people, when I have a problem I look at the system first to see if something in the mechanics is fostering it. People respond to incentives; I have observed player behavior change drastically when moving from one system to another with a different incentive structure.

A few players just suck. But those are a decided minority. Some players have genuine conflicts in terms of what they want out of the game... but it's not as common as you'd think. It's usually worth looking at the system you're using to see if tweaking it would solve the issue, or at least reduce the effort required to solve it.

 

[Ariosto]

But even given your example, I'd prefer to hear a player say, "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel," rather than "I attack. I got a 23."

Is "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel" functionally different from "I attack"?

If not, then it's not what I call role-playing.

It's what I call narration, and in most of my experience the DM does that without being accused of "role-playing" the players' characters.

With the change of the very same talk from the function of role-playing to the function of narration, I have seen only ever more of the DM doing it.

In my very first 4e game, I described prodding the floor ahead with my spear-butt to check for pressure plates and trip wires. I got puzzled looks until a friend said, "That's his old-school way of saying he wants to make a Perception roll."

When I mentioned that here, I got blasted for being so foolish and wasting time.

Apparently, it has become very much to the point, especially among 4e enthusiasts, that it doesn't matter what a character supposedly is doing because the probabilities and results do not change.

My experience in RPGA, with several DMs, was uniformly that the player reported a factor and roll, and then the DM described character actions that in old D&D the player would have described before dice were tossed (or the case otherwise adjudicated).

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Is "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel" functionally different from "I attack"?

If not, then it's not what I call role-playing.

It's what I call narration, and in most of my experience the DM does that without being accused of "role-playing" the players' characters.

I didn't say whether it was "narration", "role-playing", or "Franklin Roosevelt, Necromantic Plumber for Hire." I just said I prefer it.

In my very first 4e game, I described prodding the floor ahead with my spear-butt to check for pressure plates and trip wires. I got puzzled looks until a friend said, "That's his old-school way of saying he wants to make a Perception roll."

When I mentioned that here, I got blasted for being so foolish and wasting time.

That sucks. I'd rather have my players do what you do. Haters gonna hate, players gonna play.

My experience in RPGA, with several DMs, was uniformly that the player reported a factor and roll, and then the DM described character actions that in old D&D the player would have described before dice were tossed (or the case otherwise adjudicated).

Yeah, I don't like that very much either. I think that kind of DMing discourages Franklin Roosevelt, Necromantic Plumber for Hire. Do you think the system they were playing encouraged the DMs to run the game that way? From your description, it sounds like a playstyle decision independent of system.

 

[Ariosto]

Do you think the system they were playing encouraged the DMs to run the game that way? From your description, it sounds like a playstyle decision independent of system.

I see a pretty clear synergy between what the adopters were already doing and what the new game was designed to facilitate. That, from what I have seen, was pretty much how it went with 2e and 3e as well.

 

[Odhanan]

Is "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel" functionally different from "I attack"?

If not, then it's not what I call role-playing.

It's what I call narration

Depends. If describing the action further than "I attack" goes along with an actual immersion of the player into the character as he describes *his* moves and expressions, then it is role playing. If the description is done from a bird's eye view, considering the character as a separate construct than the player, then it is de facto not role playing to me, but story telling.

The deciding factor here is whether you are immersed in your character and react to stimuli as though you were your character through the filter of the game, its vocal, social, and mechanical elements. It's not an on/off sort of thing, but a matter of degree, and describing your action in further detail than "I attack" usually is, in my experience, a symptom of a greater immersion on the part of the player rather than a lesser one.

 

[Ariosto]

If describing the action further than "I attack" goes along with an actual immersion of the player into the character as he describes *his* moves and expressions, then it is role playing.

Suit yourself. I'm not seeing there what we normally mean by "RPG", though. I'm seeing the stories I used to make up with my friends about our games of Black Box or Gin Rummy. From beginning to end, it is the rules of the abstract game that apply -- not the rules of the story.

Anyhow, the practical consideration is that the Wushu approach -- whatever its other merits or flaws -- gives an incentive for saying something more. So does the approach in which what one says makes a difference because in the imagined world it would make a difference.

 

[LostSoul]

Ariosto does a great job of explaining my thoughts on this whole matter. (Can someone rep him for me?) I also agree with pemerton, my critique of 4E is too unforgiving.

For the Forge-inspired, Vincent Baker did a number of posts about this issue on his blog "anyway". Here's a one of the posts in his series: anyway: Adequacy, Cause and Effect

That series of blog posts was the inspiration for my 4E hack. Well, those plus these ones about "currency": anyway: Things on Character Sheets (2)

edity: One of the reasons I think I'll pick up the Essentials and include it into my game as standard material is because I think it will deal with this issue. When your basic attack is modified by your position in the gameworld - and that seems to be the case with the Thief powers - I think you will see players paying more attention to the gameworld.

editfulness: One of the big features of RPGs for me is that I can picture the scene in my head. That's one of the reasons I always liked Palladium Fantasy; the mechanics of the game really brought "what's going on" into clear focus. I think it's because Palladium Fantasy not only drills down into giving each sword swing and parry a mechanical effect, but because the decision to apply those mechanics are driven by the fictional elements of the game world.

 

[Imaginary Number]

In my very first 4e game, I described prodding the floor ahead with my spear-butt to check for pressure plates and trip wires. I got puzzled looks until a friend said, "That's his old-school way of saying he wants to make a Perception roll."

When I mentioned that here, I got blasted for being so foolish and wasting time.

Apparently, it has become very much to the point, especially among 4e enthusiasts, that it doesn't matter what a character supposedly is doing because the probabilities and results do not change.

My experience in RPGA, with several DMs, was uniformly that the player reported a factor and roll, and then the DM described character actions that in old D&D the player would have described before dice were tossed (or the case otherwise adjudicated).

I'm a bit conflicted by this. On the one hand, I generally agree with the proposition that it doesn't matter what a character supposedly is doing because the probabilities and results do not change. One of the flaws of "old D&D" is that different DMs often had radically different views on what a player had to do or say to entitle them to a bonus or even a roll to find traps, secret doors, etc.: in certain circles, if a player didn't use the correct Magic Language to narrate what they were doing or how they were searching, the player wouldn't find anything. The trend in subsequent iterations of D&D to eliminate bonuses or other DM-specific entitlements from particular Magic Language and to assume in the mechanics, for example, that everyone who is searching is doing it appropriately, is in my view a good thing.

On the other hand, I would never assume as a result that I should take over player narration of whatever action they're trying to accomplish. My job as the DM is to translate whatever the player says they're doing into something the system can resolve mechanically and to be even-handed about it. I want my players to describe what they want to do in whatever level of detail they're happy with. So when my roleplayers describe in exquisite detail how they're searching a hidden altar for secret panels, I'll give them a Perception check; I'll also give the identical check for my combat-oriented players who say simply that they're searching the hidden altar. Although I want to encourage my roleplayers to roleplay in appropriate circumstances, I also don't want to give anyone an undue advantage simply because they give me a more detail-oriented description of their actions.

 

[pemerton]

I'd prefer to hear a player say, "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel," rather than "I attack. I got a 23."

I must confess I'm quite happy with the latter. There is enough going on in combat as it is (either in Rolemaster or 4e, the two games I have GMed a lot in recent years) that I don't especially need the extra verbiage.

Is "I parry his attack and jab him in the chin with my sword-pommel" functionally different from "I attack"?

If not, then it's not what I call role-playing.

It's what I call narration, and in most of my experience the DM does that without being accused of "role-playing" the players' characters.

Agreed with both your assertions. I don't see it as roleplaying. And as a GM, if that sort of narration is needed and the player doesn't supply it then I will happily step in.

The roleplaying in combat, for me, is the stuff that both (i) functionally matters and (ii) requires engaging with the gameworld. (The first without the second is just mechanically guided play.) Like I said upthread, in 4e I think this is mostly to do with movement and position.

Apparently, it has become very much to the point, especially among 4e enthusiasts, that it doesn't matter what a character supposedly is doing because the probabilities and results do not change.

I see a pretty clear synergy between what the adopters were already doing and what the new game was designed to facilitate.

I think that you are right to identify this as an issue for 4e. I try to handle it in a few ways, including by making modifiers to the roll based on the roleplaying, and also by trying to do important stuff via skill challenges, where the roleplaying makes a difference to the way the resolution of the encounter unfolds.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't really feel "roleplaying in combat" is all that crucial for this. Is it for doing the stuff between combats!

Like having a talk during your "extended rest" and playing out the "hey, you look trustworthy enough? Wanna go adventuring with us? Never mind the dead guy hanging over our shoulder, we will bury him here, you can get his +3 Flaming Longsword if you want."

The "human interaction" roleplaying, not the "action narration" roleplaying.