Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5296196" data-attributes="member: 58197">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 &quot;roleplaying hooks.&quot; 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 &quot;healed.&quot; 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 &quot;fluff&quot; and I prefer to think of as &quot;flavor&quot;--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 &quot;sand-in-the-eyes&quot; argument; it's clever once, but if it worked every time people would carry bags of sand instead of swords).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5296196, member: 58197"] 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 [i]inviting[/i] 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. [i]Space[/i] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification