Roll-playing, is it utterly condemnatory?

[Westwind]

So the problem is obviously the mix of players. However, power-gamers are predisposed to take over the game - while role-players are not. It's not that one is better than the other - they can both be fun to play. The problem is that a single power-gamer can ruin the fun for a group of role-players, while the opposite is not true.

This isn't entirely accurate. I found myself in a group of roll-players who were quite happy with how their campaign was going. When my character started saying things like "Why would we do that?" or "Wow--being polymorphed into a catperson must have changed your life a lot!" (Answer: Err, not really) and ignoring poorly constructed blackmail (re: railroading) it dragged the game on for the rest of the players--much dice stacking ensued. Would I rather play in a role-playing group? You bet, but in this kind of situation my efforts at role-playing ruined the session for the other players and I needed to adjust my style of play for that campagin.

 

[Zappo]

You can roleplay an effective character who is interesting and believable, yes.

You can also take it to the extreme and emphasize one to the expense of the other when you make your decisions solely based on one or the other.

That's pretty much what orthogonal means. You can have one, or both, or none, there's no relation unless one believes there is.

If I come away from a game having told a story as rich and compelling as FFVI or FFVII, I would feel I have accomplished something.

Oh, yeah. The problem in bringing that kind of stories to the table is that FFs tend to be more like a book than a videogame: characters are under complete control of the author, while RPG PCs aren't.

 

[rushlight]

This isn't entirely accurate. I found myself in a group of roll-players who were quite happy with how their campaign was going. When my character started saying things like "Why would we do that?" or "Wow--being polymorphed into a catperson must have changed your life a lot!" (Answer: Err, not really) and ignoring poorly constructed blackmail (re: railroading) it dragged the game on for the rest of the players--much dice stacking ensued. Would I rather play in a role-playing group? You bet, but in this kind of situation my efforts at role-playing ruined the session for the other players and I needed to adjust my style of play for that campagin.

While it's true your character probabaly caused the other players some annoyance, it didn't totally invalidate an entire aspect of the game for them.

Just because you were a little more talky doesn't keep them from also being talky, or smashing things. However, if you introduce a character who clearly and totally outshines the others in combat (like a character who has focused totally on combat to the exclusion of other skills - logical skills a real person would have) then you've negated combat for the other, more balanced characters.

It's like water and vinegar. If you add a bit of vinegar to someone's water, they will certainly notice. But if you add a bit of water to someone's vinegar, they would never know...

 

[milotha]

As we always say "You can always role play a min maxed character." So, yes building an optimized character doesn't prevent you from role playing.

Creating optimized characters is fine, but it does however foster:

1) If one person is creating optimized characters, and the others aren't, then this creates a power imbalance at the table. I've seen the other players get frustratrated and drop their current characters to bring in new optimized characters.

2) Cookie cutter feel to characters. Why bother creating anything other than the optimized set of skills, feats, stats, and items. Pretty soon all the members of class X feel the same, and this can be rather boring.

3) A view that there is a correct way to design a character of class X, and if you aren't doing this then you are a poor player.

4) The view that these optimizations are true no matter the GM and the campaign setting, leading to player-GM oneupsmanship.

 

[rushlight]

In any event, I tend to lay blame for the current trends at the feet of WOTC. They have consistently published books that have highlighted took box approach to the game, without balancing it with the RP aspects of the game, instead, they decide to leave that to the GMs.

I have said nearly those exact words before! I do loath the fact that all we get from published materials is more "crunch" and no "flavor". This of course is a business decision - and I can see why.

It does seem however, that those of us who knew an earlier, more story-focused gaming environment will soon become like the mighty dinosaurs. We are becoming extinct with every new book that focuses on rules, instead of ideas. The new books will focus only on newer, better, more effective rules.

It's actually quite sad.

 

[Arnwyn]

The current gaming trends take a lot from anime

Okaaaay...

where combat strategy and kewl abilities are more important than social interaction.

I have no idea what you're talking about. A does not follow B, I'm afraid. (Are you just spouting buzz words for fun?)

I do agree with the rest of your premise, though.

 

[Belen]

Okaaaay...

I have no idea what you're talking about. A does not follow B, I'm afraid. (Are you just spouting buzz words for fun?)

I do agree with the rest of your premise, though.

I said anime and video games. The look and feel reminds me of anime, or Final Fantasy, as people have mentioned earlier in the thread. I enjoy anime, but have no watched as much as others.

Of course, I would be perfectly happy if 3e felt more like Lodoss War and less like Final Fantasy, but that's just me.

 

[Henry]

Is that what his character would do? Would he really stop in the middle of a vicious melee (while being attacked by other people!) and figure, "hey, I could trip that mage and get an AoO - that's like a free hit!" and then run over and do it? Most likely not. Anyone who's done any swordplay in real life can tell you that your thought processes don't function like that in a real melee.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that people who in real life survive daily with their combat skirmish skills (mercenaries for instance, or historical swordsmen) and have survived the longest probably DO think tactically and dirtily, using every nasty trick in their book for advantages in staying alive. They don't think in terms of op attacks of course, but dirty tricks, optimum use of environment, and sneaky advantages would all mean living for another day.

I'll be taking the feat Weapon Focus: Ray. Is it effective? Probably not - it's only +1. It would be more effective to take a level of fighter, get the +1 and a feat.

Actually, it is more effective to just get the feat, though point blank shot would be optimum if we're just talking about it. A spell user doesn't want to dilute his effectiveness through multiclassing.

My goal is to play the role I've chosen - a mage who likes to shoot things.

Yet some would call a "blaster mage" munchkinizing - yet we know it's not.

...has the objective of "winning the game" i.e., being the most effective smasher / shooter there is. Sure, some probably add a veneer of personality ("My guy is the toughest guy around!") along with their desire to be the most effective smasher ever. But if you suggest that he take the Endurance feat instead of Power Attack to show his toughness, he'll act like you asked him to cut off a leg.

Surprisingly, I've never met anyone of that nature. Endurance has its own uses.

Also, I make the supposition that for some people, being effective IS the role-play in this situation; If they feel that they somehow aren't effective as they want to be in real life, to them, BEING the competent person who can vanquish all opposition is a role-play stretch from the person who either has money/job/relationship troubles, and wants to feel effective in a vicarious way.

I almost feel like I'm touting Mazlo's hierarchy here, but our roleplay desires are directly tied in to where we are in life; I believe that the more secure we feel in our personal lives, the wider range of roles we can explore in-game, because the "bleed-through" from our personal lives is smaller.

How many times have you wanted to play a "smash-em'up" game on the weekend compared to roleplay? Did you have a rather rough week that week, and want to let off steam? When teens roleplay, how much of a percentage just want to be the "tough guy?" So to someone who has a bit of stress and roleplay represents relief of that stress, perhaps the "tough dude" is the answer for them, and to suggest anything that doesn't contribute to "tough" is not what they ask for.

Dozar "The Elf from the nether regions seeking to destroy evil!"
Hazkak "The Dwarf child, eager to explore the world and bring glory to his family!"
Three-Finger Eddie "The sneakiest theif with a heart of gold you'll ever lose your coin to!"
and
Fighter "Let's see, 3 points of power attack for +6 damage because i'm using my sword 2-handed combined with my bonuses from..."

My group behaves differently in my experience; usually, all of us are in the same headspace at the same time when we want to roleplay or number-crunch. There's not as broad a disconnect as the one you've mentioned. We do have a young roleplayer, age 11, in our group, and he doesn't get "into character" often, but that's expected; as he grows and learns, assuming he still plays, his roleplaying needs and perspective will change too.

 

[Belen]

How many times have you wanted to play a "smash-em'up" game on the weekend compared to roleplay? Did you have a rather rough week that week, and want to let off steam? When teens roleplay, how much of a percentage just want to be the "tough guy?" So to someone who has a bit of stress and roleplay represents relief of that stress, perhaps the "tough dude" is the answer for them, and to suggest anything that doesn't contribute to "tough" is not what they ask for.

See...I have Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance and other such video games for this reason alone.

 

[Psion]

That's pretty much what orthogonal means. You can have one, or both, or none, there's no relation unless one believes there is.

Which is why I disagreed that they are orthogonal. I do not beleive that you can go to extremes of one and not affect the other. There is, however, a fairly happy middle ground that can be had with less extreme players.

Oh, yeah. The problem in bringing that kind of stories to the table is that FFs tend to be more like a book than a videogame: characters are under complete control of the author, while RPG PCs aren't.

Which is why I phrased my response the way I did. Yes, I realize those games are a little scripted. Yet nobody seems to mind striving to be like certain novels, neh? I would call those consequences of the media, and what I am saying is that if I have a game whose actions (depth of the backstory, character involvement, etc.) resembles, in retrospect (not in execution, as the media makes that difference) those FF volumes, I think I would be quite happy with the outcome.