Semi-Rant: Maturity and dumbing down a game

[Hussar]

I HEART Crothian and Barsoomcore.

Really, what's the difference between a munchkin and a roleplayer? A munchkin will only do something if its to his benefit. A roleplayer will do something because the role expects it. I'd MUCH rather play with roleplayers than munchkins thanks. And, under no circumstances do I want to piddle about trying to adjudicate if someone's haiku is worth a +1 or a +2 in the middle of combat.

Roleplaying is its own reward. It comes with experience in the game. Others have learned this to be true and more will discover it every day. It takes time, but most people get there eventually. Having amateur thespians badgering us every time does not help. Nor does making roleplay a mechanic.

 

[MerricB]

I like to give bonuses to Bluff or Diplomacy checks based on exceptional roleplaying, but I prefer it to be purely at my option and not required by the rules.

I also occasionally give XP awards for particularly great actions in combat, etc.

Cheers!

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Sometimes a lack of description and mechanical action does get boring.

One of the things I do to solve it is to just keep up with the description. Even an 'I attack' can be spiced up by the DM adding a little "So you batter at his defenses, but he manages to keep his shield between the two of you."

Another important thing is to avoid countering. If a player tries something cool, don't resolve the action in a way that makes them look or feel bad. IF they come in with a neat two handed sword swing and fail, go for the power and strength of the blow, not the fact that it wiffed or that the opponent is great.

Also, don't expect oo much from everyone. Some people just don't have description in them. Take what they do, run with it, and help them feel cool.

 

[fafhrd]

Roleplaying is its own reward. It comes with experience in the game. Others have learned this to be true and more will discover it every day. It takes time, but most people get there eventually. Having amateur thespians badgering us every time does not help. Nor does making roleplay a mechanic.

No doubt, that's the case in your experience. Histrionics aside, it sounds like you have an enjoyable group. The OP, though, stated that he/she found that there was a net loss of roleplay due to the "lowest common denominator" effect. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the PHB 4.0 should contain such a rule, but as a house rule it may just work, and saying offhand that it simply "does not help" might be a bit premature.

 

[LostSoul]

The mechanical fighting bits are slow enough as it is, without dragging them out all through the night while Thespeus the Amateur figures out how to rhyme "bastard sword" in iambic pentameter. A little goes a long way.

I know you're exaggerating here, but I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with the type of role-playing that Dremmen likes. If he and his group enjoy that kind of play, that's great. He knows exactly what he likes and the type of people he wants to play with.

[Not saying that you, Hussar, disagree with this; just wanted to point this out.]

The only problem I have with his rant is that it seems, to me, that he is saying that his way is better than other ways. We all think that - "How could you ever play like a munchkin/powergamer/deep roleplayer/actor!" It can be hard to see the other side.

But barsoomcore is right - we all like different things, and the point is to enjoy ourselves.

 

[LostSoul]

People who role play and like to role play don't need to be bribed to role play.

Yeah, but: when you get both social reinforcement ("Dude, that's cool, you should get a +2!") and mechanical benefits for doing so ("I need to hit this guy, so I should come up with something cool!"), the benefit from role-playing is much greater!

[So, while it is bribing, it gives you more rewards for the type of play that you want. What could be wrong with that?]

You don't need a rule like this to role-play - Gary taught us that - but a rule like this will bring it out. Just like a rule that gives you a reward for killing things will lead to more killing things and more efficient ways of killing things.

Now it may be a lame rule, because it relies on the group to validate it, and people have to stop and think "Is that cool or not?". That's probably because I came up with it on the fly. But you can see the point behind it, no?

 

[The Shaman]

The only rule is: If you're having fun, you're doing it right.

All else is nothing but taste.

I want to agree with this, I really do...

*sigh*

While I respect that many gamers want to avoid making value-judgements regarding play-styles, I believe that some gaming experiences are qualitatively better than others.

I think that this may be more than a function of taste, that there are intrinsic attributes that make an adventure more elegant, a setting more engrossing, a character more sophisticated, than another.

When I first started playing RPGs, I ran my share of orc-and-pie adventures, and a good time was had by all. I created a dungeon that was a series of linked rooms of different sizes on a sheet of graph paper, filled with traps, monsters, and treasure (based mostly on whatever minis happened to be lying around) - the adventure began with the player characters descending the steps into the first room.

When I purchased the Blackmoor supplement a couple of months later, I was fascinated by the Temple of the Frog - this was the first dungeon I encountered that considered where and how the inhabitants lived, that reflected the utility of the different rooms, that placed treasures and monsters traps with respect to the purpose and function of the environment. After that my dungeons stopped being collections of rooms and corridors and instead began to reflect an intelligent design, a raison d'etre. I also began to experiment with different settings, like wilderness adventures - the Wilderlands of High Fantasy provided an excellent tool for my efforts.

A couple of years later I bought the Giants series of modules, and I was introduced to the idea of a metaplot connecting different adventures. Instead of a series of set pieces, my intelligent design extended not only to the environment and the inhabitants of the adventure setting, but to a larger campaign spanning time and space. The level of sophistication grew again.

So isn't this still just a matter of taste changing over time? How is this qualitatively 'better'?

Today "dungeons" that reflect the purpose and use of past and/or present inhabitants and metaplots that link adventures into campaigns are part of the standard vernacular of gaming. In my opinion, by identifying the elements of the standard vernacular we can also identify the attributes by which reflect generally accepted standards of quality.

With that in mind, what are the standard vernacular elements of roleplaying? One of them might be fitting personality and backstory to character mechanics - another could be making decisions based on the character's motivations and grasp of events, rather than acting on player knowledge or metagaming. Again, these are qualitative attributes that are reinforced by both formal and informal systems through which we consciously or subconsciously make value-judgements about roleplaying.

So what's my point? Fun is good - I had madbadfun with my "Ten foot by ten foot room, one orc, one pie" dungeons when I was twelve years old - but I don't think that same encounter and that same dungeon are qualitatively the equal of the adventures and settings that I write today, and I believe most gamers would feel the same way.

I can accept fun as a bottom line, but I believe that the qualitative attributes of good roleplaying go beyond mere taste. I think it's a mistake to dismiss Dremmen's argument on that basis.

 

[The Shaman]

See, to me, I want to get throught the mechanical fighting bits as quickly as possible so I can get back to role playing.

So roleplaying stops when initiative is rolled? Interesting.

The mechanical fighting bits are slow enough as it is without dragging them out all through the night while Thespeus the Amateur figures out how to rhyme "bastard sword" in iambic pentameter. A little goes a long way.

Your mocking aside, Dremmen's attempts at evocative combat description took me a matter of seconds to read out-loud, and players who have their rhetorical wits sufficiently about them to extemporize a cinquain on setting a spear to receive a charge are more than welcome to play in my games!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

People who role play and like to role play don't need to be bribed to role play.

You say that like bribery is a bad thing. If I'm not satisfied with the roleplaying at my table, I'll happily bribe my players. It works too, people really do change their behavior to get rewarded. This makes the game more fun for me: I'm getting to play how I like. I hope it makes the game more fun for them too, in that once they try some of the things Il encourage they'll find they like it and continue. Generally, it does.

 

[Purzel]

@ Dremmen

Read the Theory Discussions on "The Forge" (yeah, this will take a couple of weeks)
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/
Read "Robin's Law to Good Gamemastering" (Steve Jackson Games)

Now tell us, what "true roleplaying" really is.

See, pal, there is no "true roleplaying". Even your 20 years of experience is not an objective fact, it's purely your own subjective perception of the hobby.

Lots of people have been discussing gaming styles since 1995 at the rise of the internet. They've put together about 10,000 years of gaming experience.

Oh, since you seem to be a narrativist, why don't you try and read this article?
http://ptgptb.org/0026/narrativists.html
Even your favorite gaming style can really go totally wrong and be a pain in the ass.

So, what i want to say is: i think your theory about gaming style and maturity is wrong.