Role-playing Theory

[Grimhelm]

Once again, I can't predict the future. If you are a thief, thief skills may be used. It's just common sense. Just roll up a character. If you use your skills, great. If you don't, great! The point isn't to max out your character. Every adventure is different. If you want me to tell you what skills to take for every upcoming adventure, I can't do that. You do not have the luxury of future knowledge. Once again. Just roll up a character and see what happens. And yes, you can play a barbarian with a horde of followers. BUT. It has to make sense why they are following you around. If you can't come up with a plausible reason, it seems silly to be wandering around with your own personal horde!

 

[thormagni]

I am also scared that the level of violence I will bring to the game could upset Mark's lovingly crafted game. It has in the past... I don't want to do that to him again, either. I don't want to be the one to ruin a perfectly good game - again.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here IM. Do you mean that you only like to play in this style of play? Or that you only like to play characters whose personality is like this? Or that a barbarian would be like this if you played him?

I mean, we get into fights in Arenaia, sure. And my character is actually a scout/swashbuckler, so more of a thief/rogue type than a fighter. And my character is really the only standup fighter in the group. So having a serious fighter-type who could kick some serious butt would be nice. But you aren't saying that every adventure would be your character making a beeline to kill the bad guy is as soon as he is identified are you?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

As soon as I see an enemy and identify him as such, my job is to crush that enemy at the earliest opportunity and do all that I can to bring about that opportunity.

As Howard wrote, "Civilised men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

Insult a barbarian, and the insulter is likely to have his skull split. Be an enemy to a barbarian - well, it is better not to be the enemy of a barbarian.

My goal on any given adventure is pretty much to kill whatever stands between me and my goal - and hopefully my goal is an enemy that needs killing as well. I intend to carve a bloody swath toward whatever objective the party has. What else do you plan on doing to the enemy if not utterly destroy him?

Mark said the premise of the game was Mystery & Combat. That is me. I am there to resolve the mystery and carve anyone keeping me and the party from resolving the mystery.

If you aren't comfortable with me playing, then I won't. That is my usual mode of play. I try not to be stupid about it, but if I have a chance... Give me a mage, and I will arm him with a horse and a crossbow and I will trample the enemy and charge that horse through glass windows to get at the foe. Give me a knight, and he will suit up and kill anyone between him and his quest.

Some of my favourite movies are Die Hard, Conan the Barbarian, just about any Clint Eastwood movie, Kill Bill, and so on.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Once again, I can't predict the future. If you are a thief, thief skills may be used. It's just common sense. Just roll up a character. If you use your skills, great. If you don't, great! The point isn't to max out your character. Every adventure is different. If you want me to tell you what skills to take for every upcoming adventure, I can't do that. You do not have the luxury of future knowledge. Once again. Just roll up a character and see what happens.

I don't think you are understanding me. I am getting the idea that skills are nerfed, and I don't want to put points into a skill you won't allow use of. For example, if my character puts points into Diplomacy and Gather Information, can he use those skills or will that be a waste of skill points? I am not asking about future knowledge - I am asking about your gaming style. I know in the past you have not been fond of skills.

Also, I am wanting a little bit of background into the world so I can tailor him a bit - instead of just being a generic barbarian, he should be a barbarian belonging to your world. For example, should he be Nordic, Visigothic, Arabic, Celtic, Mongolean, Hunnish, American Indian, Aztec, or Zulu in flavour?

 

[thormagni]

If you aren't comfortable with me playing, then I won't. That is my usual mode of play. I try not to be stupid about it, but if I have a chance... Give me a mage, and I will arm him with a horse and a crossbow and I will trample the enemy and charge that horse through glass windows to get at the foe. Give me a knight, and he will suit up and kill anyone between him and his quest.

First, I would love to have you playing in Arenaia. I can think of nothing better for this gaming group than to have everybody together again, even if it is irregularly. I have never played with you and Grimhelm together before but it sound like those games used to be an awful lot of fun. You guys have both run games that I have really enjoyed, you guys both seem to be excellent role-players and you have a long history of playing together, so even though I came to it late, this "divorce" is uncomfortable.

But what I really don't understand IM is this: You have run some absolutely excellent games involving convoluted plots, twists and countertwists and opponents we just couldn't take head-on. So I know you like RUNNING that style of game. But I don't understand why you would want to PLAY in a style that would make that type of game impossible to run. I am getting the picture that you are saying while everyone else is unravelling the plot and gathering evidence, you are just going to start killing stuff. And if you catch sight of the "bad guy" you are going to head straight in to kill him.

Here is the picture I am getting. You are a vampire hunter. A wealthy count with impeccable manners welcomes you to his creepy castle in Transylvania. "Velcome to my home travellers," the Count says. "Here are the rules ov my house..." Rather than take the count's hand, Van Helsing whips out a wooden spike shooting cannon and blasts Dracula in the chest and begins exulting about "killing my enemies and taking their women."

Or in a superhero game, Superman just deciding that the best thing to do would be to burn Luthor to a crisp. I mean, it WOULD be the best thing for everyone involved if Luthor suddenly died, wouldn't it? He is the big bad guy and he has caused lots of trouble.

 

[Grimhelm]

Okay

Vince, the only skills I can think of that got erased from my rule book were ones pertaining to role playing. Diplomacy. Sense motive as a role playing aid, not as a combative aid. Bluff as a role playing aid, not as a combat aid. Bluff is still great for rogues as a combat method. Gather information is not a skill in my book. I forget if there are others.

My reasoning behind this has mainly to do with the fact that I have supreme confidence in my gaming group's abilities. I do understand the arguments in favor of the skills I mentioned, but I simply prefer a different style. For amateur players, these skills are more valuable. And, yes, I will compensate at times if I have to. If a duke is lying his ass off to you, and I know personally that he isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp, I will say something like this: "There is an uneasiness about the duke as he speaks. He fumbles with his hands..." Or some such, essentially giving away the lie without asking everyone to make a sense motive check.

I hope you can live with this.

John, to answer your questions and Vince's style of play... He is no fool. He is simply a battering ram. As long as he is prepared to accept the consequences of battering at an inappropriate moment, then I don't care how he plays. It will be nice to have a new dynamic in the group. I am assuming that his barbarian isn't going to chop the heads off of city guards just becuase they are in the way of the guy who just stole his coin bag. If he did, he would be imprisoned and put to death.

Vince, to answer your question about Arenaia.

The group started off in a place called Oromoeshan, the largest trading city in the world. Think of Istanbul/Constantinople with a distinctly Mediterranean feel to it. Elves in my world are very rare and wood like- staying truer to a more "spirit of the forest" persona. There are no other known races. King Nennin rules in Oromoeshan. He is a good ruler and promotes diversity etc. The other largest city in the area is Mer, a more Nordic civilization with a strong theocracy based on a religion that might be part early christianity/pagan. This is the religion of Ghazal. The religion of Ghazal is strongly opposed to the use of arcane magic and in olden days had Templar knights who went out and killed mages. The world is wide open. There are no major countries so to speak. City-states are the major centers of government and military, though in places this influence stretches quite far.

There is a barbarian chieftain in the north named Brutangus the Terrible, a ravager and raper and in general murderous rogue who has been pillaging all up and down the northeast coasts.

There are many deserts. There is a land that mirrors ancient totemistic cultures named Saphisapa.

Does this help?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Thormagni,

If it was obvious to the character the count was the bad guy, then yes, I'd stake him immediately. If it was just obvious to me, but there is no evidence for the character yet, then no. This is where the thrill of the hunt kicks in. To me, the hunt is the start of combat. Initiative has not been rolled, but combat starts as soon as I start looking for a fight.

Evidence is gathered, then the killing begins once we know who the bad guy is - presuming he deserves killing. Sometimes just running him out of town suffices ("killing" sometimes just means "defeating"). Then again, I also have a theory - "Never leave an enemy behind." They just come back.

On the other hand, one of my characters would not have let Saruman live in LotR (the novel) to become Sharkey later. My characters would be more like Sam in LotR - I would have argued killing Gollum.

My style of play actually necessitates my style of GMing. If I presented the villian in an obvious light where the players could easily access him immediately, the games would be ungodly short (which is what started happening with teleport spells in DnD). I presume everyone is out to get the bad guy. However, a lot of players surprise me by negotiating with the bad guy, turning him into an ally, or whatever else.

To sum up - the best part of killing the badguy is the Hunt. When Grimhelm said the game had mystery and clue-finding - I see "Hunt." If he just presented foe after foe in a straight line to the badguy that is not nearly as fun as Hunting the bad guy down, proving my superiority, and THEN killing him.

When the hunt is over - I will kill the bad guy or die trying. That is my point. I will do it with dogged persistance - that is part of the battering ram aspect of the character.

My characters are loud and vibrant, despising the ordinary and the dull. They never forget a kindness and repay it handsomely. They never forgive injuries, either, and can wait years for vengeance. The word ‘vengeance’ are vital here. My characters do not try to get 'even' – they conquer and destroy utterly those who betray or hurt him – they get cold revenge. When they see a weakness in an opponent they move in quickly for the kill.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Vince, the only skills I can think of that got erased from my rule book were ones pertaining to role playing. Diplomacy. Sense motive as a role playing aid, not as a combative aid. Bluff as a role playing aid, not as a combat aid. Bluff is still great for rogues as a combat method. Gather information is not a skill in my book. I forget if there are others.

Does this help?

Yes, that is what I was looking for. I didn't want to put ranks in skills that will not used. If you don't mind looking in the rule-book, I would like a list of forbidden skills so I don't waste points on them - or take feats that boost them. I usually give Barbarians ranks in Intimidate in order to cow them during combat. Is that allowed?

So basically anyone who lies to us will not be an adept liar. I can live with that. Hopefully he is not nervous because he is telling us the truth but is afraid he is telling someone who will talk to someone else (or that someone is listening) and get him killed.

Don't all skills pertain to role playing? Roleplaying is just making character appropriate choices - so choosing to use Survival in order to track someone instead of using an available spell is roleplaying, to my mind. Choosing combat instead of trying to convert the badguy into an ally (or vice versa) is roleplaying if it is appropriate for the character. So I really don't understand the distinction between role-playing and combat, as combat is role-playing for me. Or do we all have to be amateur actors - and any skill that reduces the need for acting is out? If I have a Perform (sing) skill, do I have to sing? If not, then why can't I have a Diplomacy or Gather Information skill in order to have character better at doing that than I am?

What if I want my barbarian to be smooth with women, finding them easy to bed (like Conan or James Bond)? I don't have the advantage Pierce Brosnan has of someone giving me slick dialogue. How can I emulate that in an acting environment with no script?

Mer sounds familiar...

 

[Grimhelm]

Yes, that is what I was looking for. I didn't want to put ranks in skills that will not used. If you don't mind looking in the rule-book, I would like a list of forbidden skills so I don't waste points on them - or take feats that boost them. I usually give Barbarians ranks in Intimidate in order to cow them during combat. Is that allowed?

So basically anyone who lies to us will not be an adept liar. I can live with that. Hopefully he is not nervous because he is telling us the truth but is afraid he is telling someone who will talk to someone else (or that someone is listening) and get him killed.

***No. Not true. They may lie to you and get away with it. It will be up to you to decipher the clues I give you. What you do with them and the conclusions you reach are your own.

Don't all skill pertain to role playing? Roleplaying is just making character appropriate choices - so choosing to use Survival in order to track someone instead of using an available spell is roleplaying, to my mind.

***I would argue that your definition of role playing is misguided and not really truthful. Take your character Joriku, for instance. Everyone liked Joriku for his character. And Joriku made no choices or decisions in the game save what punch to use. His combat did not define him. It was the way you role played him. You breathed life into him with your role playing skill. Your clinging to the notion of role playing as simple choice-making is not adequate. It is only part of what makes up a personality. If it was merely choices, we would all be playing computer role-playing games and making combat decisions in this manner. When we sat down to play in Inzeladun, we would all just sit there like automatons and roll our dice at every encounter. But we don't do this. We play the game for other reasons. We play to become someone else for a little while.


Choosing combat instead of trying to convert the badguy into an ally (or vice versa) is roleplaying if it is appropriate for the character. So I really don't understand the distinction between role-playing and combat, as combat is role-playing for me. Or do we all have to be amateur actors - and any skill that reduces the need for acting is out? If I have a Perform (sing) skill, do I have to sing? If not, then why can't I have a Diplomacy or Gather Information skill in order to have character better at doing that than I am?

***You are an amateur actor, Vince. I don't understand why you are so vehemently opposed to this take on what you do. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Sha'a, Joriku, Ahgy, Elah, Thigru--- all these characters stood out for one reason--- You acted them out. Yes, combat is role playing too. Gather information skills are for hacks. If you don't know how to ask questions, then you're an idiot. If the DM remains tight lipped about every secret and gives the characters no clues, then he is an idiot, for the adventure will go nowhere. I certainly don't remember ever rolling gather information checks when Grimhelm or Shazaar went fact-finding.

What if I want my barbarian to be smooth with women, finding them easy to bed (like Conan or James Bond)? I don't have the advantage Pierce Brosnan has of someone giving me slick dialogue. How can I emulate that in an acting environment with no script?

***It's called improvisation! You have done it in half the games I remember. Tregillish Mul was a womanizer. Joriku was constantly trying to bed Phoebe. The first character you played with Roland was a womanizer and successful at it. What's your point?!?!? If you want your character to be a certain way, then it is my assumption that you are capable of playing him this way or you wouldn't have chosen this method. I mean, come on! We don't pick personality traits for our character that are completely foreign to us. We pick traits that we possess, but have never had an avenue for expression. Thigru was your need to get out dark feelings. Treg was your need to get out womanizing. Komaaks was your need to get out aggression. You didn't pick these traits for them because you were incapable of playing them. You picked them precisely because there was a part of you that insisted to be expressed in this way. It is no different for any other player who sits down to play. We cannot deny our own need for expression and we can't deny that we pick traits for our characters for very tangible reasons--- our own need to attempt these traits, not fudge them with a die roll.

Mer sounds familiar...

***It is a name I have used before.

 

[thormagni]

John, to answer your questions and Vince's style of play... He is no fool. He is simply a battering ram. As long as he is prepared to accept the consequences of battering at an inappropriate moment, then I don't care how he plays. It will be nice to have a new dynamic in the group. I am assuming that his barbarian isn't going to chop the heads off of city guards just becuase they are in the way of the guy who just stole his coin bag. If he did, he would be imprisoned and put to death.

I don't know if everybody has seen the former TV series "Firefly" or the movie based on it "Serenity" but there is a character in it called Jayne (who is a guy, btw.) Jayne is nominally a good guy in that he is a member of the ship's crew, but his answer to anything is generally "kill it." For example, in an early episode of the series they are going to negotiate with a fence named Patience, who shot the ship's captain in a previous adventure. But now they need Patience to fence some goods. Jayne's question is "Why don't we shoot her first?" Similarly, when another fence, Badger, refuses to pay them, Jayne wants to start shooting and take the money. This, despite the fact that they are heavily outnumbered and the bad guys have the drop on him. He is always willing to go after the "bad guy" guns blazing, despite the odds against them, despite the chances of success.

Obviously, Jayne would last about two minutes alone. But he is an awfully handy guy to have in a fight. So the trick for the captain is to rein Jayne in until the time when he is needed.

I see parallels between the way Jayne is written and the way IM says he likes to play characters. Assuming I am not incorrect, my question for IM is, do your characters allow themselves to be reined in?

Because had they killed Patience, they wouldn't have gotten paid and they wouldn't have had money to operate the ship. Or if they killed Badger, they wouldn't have gotten later jobs that led to later plots and future paydays. Badger was temporarily an enemy and worthy of killing, but he later became almost a friend. Jayne wanted to kill River (a young woman hunted by the Alliance) because she was a threat to them, although later she proved invaluable in saving their lives in the movie.

As you say, leaving Gollum alive seemed like a bad idea, but had Gandalf or Frodo let Sam kill Smeagol, the book would have ended very differently.