Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5812633" data-attributes="member: 99817">I agree, but can't xp.I would xp for the clarity, even though I disagree strongly (so the rest of this post is a general response to all those who have voiced a similar opinion...)I think we share a common, well-understood word for 'playing a role' when doing so does not involve a 'game': it's called acting. I think 'game' is implicit in roleplaying, whether it's D&D or Cops and Robbers.I don't see 'playing a role' and 'engaging the system' as opposite ends of a spectrum. I see plenty of elements of system which integrate with, support and actively enhance 'playing the role'. Beliefs, Traits, Instincts and the Duel of Wits all from The Burning Wheel, extended contests in HeroWars, Keys in The Shadow of Yesterday, Moves in Apocalypse World - the examples go on and on. It's noticeable that such elements often explicitly detail the need to engage the fiction before the mechanics.Here's a sample from The Duel of Wits mechanics (Burning Wheel Gold, p393):When playing actions, you must speak your part. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no-one expects you to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (although a little embellishment is nice). (my bold) How much clearer could it be that the 'playing the role' and 'the system' are integrated?Here's Apocalypse World, p12:The rules for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice the character has to do something that counts as a move.... ...There are two ways they sometimes don't line up and it is your job as MC to deal with them. First is when a player says only that her character makes a move without having her character take any such action. For instance "I go aggro on him." Your answers should be "Cool. What do you do?" "I try to seduce him." "Cool, what do you do?" (author's bold. Note: going aggro and seduction are both 'social' moves).In both cases the texts explicitly call out the need for the character (not the player) to drive the mechanics. What's more, both systems force the player to stake something in order to play the game - if you want to roll you have to be willing not just to fail, but to lose.So, for example, in a Duel of Wits I want to persuade the Duke to lend me 30 soldiers. He wants my fiance. Am I willing to stake my fiance to get that army I need or not? How is that less revealing of my character than a five minute 'in character speech' of whatever expedient platitudes will get me GM approval? Compare and contrast with this: <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm" target="_blank">Diplomacy :: d20srd.org</a>It's just abstract mechanics (and bad ones at that, imo) with no mention of how diplomacy actually works at my table right now and, again, absolutely nothing at stake for the character. According to those rules my 7th level bard walks round surrounded by an almost irresistable 'zone of friendship' with speaking in character an optional extra.I'm sure I could dig up other, equally horrific, examples. Little wonder social mechanics have such a bad reputation and people seek to exclude them from definitions of 'roleplaying' - even though doing so is, in my opinion, doing a huge disservice to many fantastic games (and players).</blockquote>

Verification