D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

Well, not really. In very gamist play, the idea of role assumption isn't a priority at all. Early D&D, for example, was strongly characterized by this. Heck, the idea of role assumption was strongly pooh poohed for a long time by a pretty vocal segment of gamers.

I've certainly played with players who have zero interest in role assumption. Even to this day. Heck that was the primary reason for the dissolution of a group I was involved in some years ago. Half the group had basically zero interest in role assumption.

So the presumption of role assumption (heh) is not as universal as one might think. And, more pertinently, the degree of role assumption in RPG's varies very strongly between various players and systems. Some systems strongly incentivize role assumption - granting xp or other character rewards for acting "in character". D&D was a little bit late to that party with the addition of Hero/Action points, but, again, things like BIFTS and other "meta-currency" rewards for role assumption has gained a lot of traction over the years that was largely absent from earlier play.

It doesn't matter if it's a priority, we are all still make believing that we are something else, like children do. The different styles may have different approaches and goals when it comes to play, but we all get there via pretend characters of some sort.

I think where you may be misstepping here, is in what "role" means. Roleplay just means taking on a role to play. Even the most gamist person playing D&D is still taking on the role of fighter, cleric, ranger, etc. for his play. He just isn't focusing on the personality, backstory, character growth, etc. that other styles will focus on. He's playing the role differently, but he's still pretending to be that role.

 

[pemerton]

Well, you have indicated a belief that when Vince Baker said "don't prep plots; prep situations" he actually meant "don't prep plots or situations," due to what has looked like quite a big misunderstanding in understanding the GM's roll in PbtA games, so...

There is no "the GM's role in PbtA games". The role of the MC in Apocalypse World is pretty clear from the rulebook, and it involves prepping threats and fronts (after the first session). There is no reference to prepping situations. Maybe you're thinking of Dogs in the Vineyard?

Was the exit there all the time, or did the players/PCs have to roll for it?

This question doesn't make any sense. It equates an event at the table (making a roll) with a state of affairs in the fiction (the existence of an exit).

You may as well ask, of a group using the DMG Appendix A random dungeon generation, "Was the corridor/door/room/whatever there all the time, or did you have to roll for it?" Like, yes?

 

[Maxperson]

Apologies, but "Let's pretend" would be a better choice as the mode isn't intended to be limited to childhood or heroes. To paraphrase

"Let's Pretend” is a Simmy play structure strategy where a character player is encouraged to develop a character they find entertaining to occupy as a thespian role. During the game they have opportunities to exercise the role in various fictional circumstances. The role is affirmed by the way the SIS reacts to the role.​

​

@Maxperson does that work for you? I saw someone suggest it upthread and it seems quite neutral.

The point of the paragraph is that children take on the role of people/professions that they admire and want to be when they grow up. That's an admirable quality that kids have.

When applied to RPGs, it simply means we are taking on the roles that we want to play/be. I want to be Cormac the Barbarian. You want to be Rizgar the Magnifico, Wizard extraordinaire. Or else maybe I'm more gamist and I just want a fighter to slash stuff and get loot, because fighters getting loot to be able to slash bigger creatures is cool.

That's why Playing Childhood Heroes seems better to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, since we all actually KNOW what's meant here, the actual verbiage is less important than simply getting on with the discussion. I'm groovy with calling it Throat Warbler Mangrove if that works.

I do appreciate that you do, but I doubt that some of the others here will give up their disparaging terminology.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't matter if it's a priority, we are all still make believing that we are something else, like children do. The different styles may have different approaches and goals when it comes to play, but we all get there via pretend characters of some sort.

I think where you may be misstepping here, is in what "role" means. Roleplay just means taking on a role to play. Even the most gamist person playing D&D is still taking on the role of fighter, cleric, ranger, etc. for his play. He just isn't focusing on the personality, backstory, character growth, etc. that other styles will focus on. He's playing the role differently, but he's still pretending to be that role.

That's like saying I take on the role of the shoe in Monopoly. In very gamist play, being a fighter or a cleric or whatever, doesn't really change anything. They are just tools for resolving things in the game. It's essentially purely pawn stance where your character is just that - a token in a game that you are using to play the game. There's no actual role assumption. I'm sure you've played with players like that.

On the far side, you've got players who are all about deep immersion and staying "in character" as much as possible. And there is a pretty wide spectrum of play in between.

And then there is play where the players have control over the setting and plot directly. The pass the story stick type games where you effectively don't have a DM at all but rather the entire group collectively is collaboratively taking on the traditional DM role. Claims that role assumption is essential to RPG's isn't really backed up by the rather large number of games where that's not actually true or it's not true all the time.

 

[Maxperson]

That's like saying I take on the role of the shoe in Monopoly. In very gamist play, being a fighter or a cleric or whatever, doesn't really change anything. They are just tools for resolving things in the game. It's essentially purely pawn stance where your character is just that - a token in a game that you are using to play the game. There's no actual role assumption. I'm sure you've played with players like that.

On the far side, you've got players who are all about deep immersion and staying "in character" as much as possible. And there is a pretty wide spectrum of play in between.

And then there is play where the players have control over the setting and plot directly. The pass the story stick type games where you effectively don't have a DM at all but rather the entire group collectively is collaboratively taking on the traditional DM role. Claims that role assumption is essential to RPG's isn't really backed up by the rather large number of games where that's not actually true or it's not true all the time.

If Monopoly were a RPG, sure. Then being the shoe would mean something much more than the board game version. Monopoly is far more limited than an RPG, though. In an RPG even the most gamist player still encounters traps, NPCs to talk to, etc. They are doing much more than rolling dice, moving squares and maybe buying or maybe paying rent.

In gamist play, being a fighter, cleric or whatever changes everything. Each role has very different abilities, strengths, weaknesses and ideal treasure.

I do agree that on the far side of roleplay you have deep immersionist players who want to inhabit their characters. And others who want to explore their character's personalities and find out who they are. They are ALL roleplaying, though, even the gamists. All of them are pretending to be something that they are not to some degree.

 

[clearstream]

It doesn't matter if it's a priority, we are all still make believing that we are something else, like children do. The different styles may have different approaches and goals when it comes to play, but we all get there via pretend characters of some sort.

Tuovinen mentions thespians. To me it is abundantly apparent that it's not limited to children's make believe. Nor heroes (an emphasis that is unnecessarily limiting.)

"Pretend characters" as you wrote, absolutely.

 

[Hussar]

In gamist play, being a fighter, cleric or whatever changes everything. Each role has very different abilities, strengths, weaknesses and ideal treasure.

There are all sorts of board games where that's true. Asymetrical board games have been around for years. Good grief, Heroquest has been around since '89. GW has made an entire empire out of that sort of thing.

I would hardly call them role playing games though. What people call Thespian play, or whatnot isn't actually required to play RPG's. And, again, I'd point out there are a shopping list of games where the players are allowed roles within the game that aren't assuming any sort of personality in the game world. Any meta-currency mechanics ignores any sort of role assumption.

Yes, the game changes if you play a fighter or a cleric. But, Father Generic and Fy Tor go into the dungeon, kill stuff and go back to town, all without a single word of anything approaching role assumption or pretending to inhabit the character's head is hardly a new concept in RPG's. That's the way the game was originally played for a LONG time.

 

[MrBeens304]

There are all sorts of board games where that's true. Asymetrical board games have been around for years. Good grief, Heroquest has been around since '89. GW has made an entire empire out of that sort of thing.

I would hardly call them role playing games though. What people call Thespian play, or whatnot isn't actually required to play RPG's. And, again, I'd point out there are a shopping list of games where the players are allowed roles within the game that aren't assuming any sort of personality in the game world. Any meta-currency mechanics ignores any sort of role assumption.

Yes, the game changes if you play a fighter or a cleric. But, Father Generic and Fy Tor go into the dungeon, kill stuff and go back to town, all without a single word of anything approaching role assumption or pretending to inhabit the character's head is hardly a new concept in RPG's. That's the way the game was originally played for a LONG time.

I don't really understand your point of view.
On one hand you are saying that "gamist" type games are "I would hardly call them role playing games though", but also "Father Generic and Fy Tor go into the dungeon, kill stuff and go back to town, all without a single word of anything approaching role assumption or pretending to inhabit the character's head is hardly a new concept in RPG's" - so they are RPGs?

 

[pemerton]

I don't really understand your point of view.
On one hand you are saying that "gamist" type games are "I would hardly call them role playing games though", but also "Father Generic and Fy Tor go into the dungeon, kill stuff and go back to town, all without a single word of anything approaching role assumption or pretending to inhabit the character's head is hardly a new concept in RPG's" - so they are RPGs?

The boardgames (eg HeroQuest) are not RPGs. But RPGs have had pawn stance since their inception.

I don't know how @Hussar sees the difference between a dungeon-crawl boardgame and a pawn-stance RPG. But to me it seems clear: in the latter, the players have fictional position, and the shared fiction matters to resolution.

Where as in a board game there is no fictional position, and all resolution is purely mechanical.

EDIT: In the primordial RPG, what makes fictional position and its role in resolution possible is the referee. This is the heritage of a type of wargaming.