Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What system elements promote and hinder roleplaying (inspired by "does 4e hinder ")
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4718872" data-attributes="member: 80487"><p>One problem is that people mean different things by the term.</p><p></p><p>To me, rolling dice (or any other game-mechanical activity) is not role-playing. That does not mean it cannot <em>inform</em> role-playing, as (for instance) reference to Traits and Passions does in <strong>King Arthur Pendragon</strong>. However, manipulation of game mechanics is not the act of role-playing itself -- and the temptation to rely on it as a substitute can be detrimental.</p><p></p><p>What role-playing means to me can perhaps be adequately expressed with reference to two complementary aspects.</p><p></p><p>One is dealing with the imagined world from the character's perspective. Whatever takes one "out of the shoes" of the character lessens that aspect. To show a player a map of the whole dungeon when all Fang the Fearless knows is what his torch lights is contrary. To say when he proceeds further that he meets [insert stat block], or even just a name such as "bugbear" when Fang doesn't recognize it, is contrary; a physical description of the creature is what's appropriate. To have the player say vaguely, "I search for traps," and then get told by the GM (after a dice roll) what actions the character takes is contrary.</p><p></p><p>The more game mechanics become self-referential, disassociated from (or blatantly opposed to) attempts to depict the world, the more they become a distraction from engaging the world as if one were in it. More time spent dealing even with very "realistic" rules sets likewise means less time to deal with their referents.</p><p></p><p><em>Pretending</em> not to know something because the character does not can be distracting from this aspect, which is primarily about imagining <em>oneself</em> in the situation. Nonetheless, it is likely to be necessary to some degree. I think the GM should avoid creating temptations for himself to tell players, "Your character can't think of that." If the <em>players</em> already know all about Monster X, for instance, they might not appreciate being forced to choose poor strategies on the basis of their <em>characters'</em> ignorance. Creative descriptions can help a bit, and new monsters can help a lot.</p><p></p><p>The second aspect is expressing the character's personality and <em>character</em>. Is Fang really fearless, or does he have arachnophobia? What does he believe and value? What relationships are important to him? What are his interests and tastes? Is he talkative or laconic? Trustworthy or unscrupulous? There is a world within a person, and exploring just a bit of it can make a character vivid.</p><p></p><p>This is accomplished largely by making decisions on the basis of such character traits. That can be hard if it conflicts with a notion of what a scenario is about. "You must rescue the Crown Prince of Prunkwald!" But Fang <em>loathes</em> Prunkwald and is not about to lift a finger even for the privilege of killing the Prince instead of letting Baron Von Dunkeldink do it. Then again, the Fearless One is quite impetuous in battle, disdaining "cowardly stratagems" and considering a death worthy of a ballad better than inglorious survival. That's not so great if others consider his reckless pursuit of glory as wrecking a game about careful tactics. In another game, the strategist who seeks to <em>avoid</em> needless fights might be the problem. "Why can't you play a warrior the <em>right</em> way?"</p><p></p><p>In general, I think the need is not for more rules to "support" role-playing but for the rules not to <em>get in the way</em> of it. Game-mechanical "rewards" are less a solution than the demand for such rewards as an incentive is a problem. "No Experience Points, no role-playing" does not seem to me an attitude conducive to more role-playing!</p><p></p><p>The matter of fights taking a long time to resolve, and of complex "character building" and "managing" focused on combat mechanics, seems to me something that can reduce the <em>breathing room</em> for role-playing. The RPG evolved from the war-game, and can easily devolve right back. Again, crunching numbers and rolling dice are <em>not</em> (by my definition) role-playing activities. They are, however, the main focus of most combat-resolution game systems -- and the trend at least in D&D has been to add more of them.</p><p></p><p>More generally, rules-heaviness has tended toward giving the answer of NO. No, you can't do that; no, you can't <em>be</em> that. Why not? Because that would break this balance, violate that "niche," etc., in the elaborate structure of game mechanics that takes precedence. There's an economy of game resources limiting options. To expand the options calls for more rules, which must thereafter also be taken into account. Some folks point to the introduction of the Thief class as the start down this slippery slope.</p><p></p><p>The bottom line is that the fundamental purpose of rules is just the opposite of "providing flexibility." Their function always is to <em>limit</em> possibilities.</p><p></p><p>That's not necessarily a bad thing; limiting options is how one defines a game. Working within more complex rules can add more interest to <em>game</em>-playing. It just is not so conducive to <em>role</em>-playing.</p><p></p><p>So, there are trade-offs; there's a best balance to find, the point differing from player to player.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4718872, member: 80487"] One problem is that people mean different things by the term. To me, rolling dice (or any other game-mechanical activity) is not role-playing. That does not mean it cannot [I]inform[/I] role-playing, as (for instance) reference to Traits and Passions does in [B]King Arthur Pendragon[/B]. However, manipulation of game mechanics is not the act of role-playing itself -- and the temptation to rely on it as a substitute can be detrimental. What role-playing means to me can perhaps be adequately expressed with reference to two complementary aspects. One is dealing with the imagined world from the character's perspective. Whatever takes one "out of the shoes" of the character lessens that aspect. To show a player a map of the whole dungeon when all Fang the Fearless knows is what his torch lights is contrary. To say when he proceeds further that he meets [insert stat block], or even just a name such as "bugbear" when Fang doesn't recognize it, is contrary; a physical description of the creature is what's appropriate. To have the player say vaguely, "I search for traps," and then get told by the GM (after a dice roll) what actions the character takes is contrary. The more game mechanics become self-referential, disassociated from (or blatantly opposed to) attempts to depict the world, the more they become a distraction from engaging the world as if one were in it. More time spent dealing even with very "realistic" rules sets likewise means less time to deal with their referents. [I]Pretending[/I] not to know something because the character does not can be distracting from this aspect, which is primarily about imagining [I]oneself[/I] in the situation. Nonetheless, it is likely to be necessary to some degree. I think the GM should avoid creating temptations for himself to tell players, "Your character can't think of that." If the [I]players[/I] already know all about Monster X, for instance, they might not appreciate being forced to choose poor strategies on the basis of their [I]characters'[/I] ignorance. Creative descriptions can help a bit, and new monsters can help a lot. The second aspect is expressing the character's personality and [I]character[/I]. Is Fang really fearless, or does he have arachnophobia? What does he believe and value? What relationships are important to him? What are his interests and tastes? Is he talkative or laconic? Trustworthy or unscrupulous? There is a world within a person, and exploring just a bit of it can make a character vivid. This is accomplished largely by making decisions on the basis of such character traits. That can be hard if it conflicts with a notion of what a scenario is about. "You must rescue the Crown Prince of Prunkwald!" But Fang [I]loathes[/I] Prunkwald and is not about to lift a finger even for the privilege of killing the Prince instead of letting Baron Von Dunkeldink do it. Then again, the Fearless One is quite impetuous in battle, disdaining "cowardly stratagems" and considering a death worthy of a ballad better than inglorious survival. That's not so great if others consider his reckless pursuit of glory as wrecking a game about careful tactics. In another game, the strategist who seeks to [I]avoid[/I] needless fights might be the problem. "Why can't you play a warrior the [I]right[/I] way?" In general, I think the need is not for more rules to "support" role-playing but for the rules not to [I]get in the way[/I] of it. Game-mechanical "rewards" are less a solution than the demand for such rewards as an incentive is a problem. "No Experience Points, no role-playing" does not seem to me an attitude conducive to more role-playing! The matter of fights taking a long time to resolve, and of complex "character building" and "managing" focused on combat mechanics, seems to me something that can reduce the [I]breathing room[/I] for role-playing. The RPG evolved from the war-game, and can easily devolve right back. Again, crunching numbers and rolling dice are [I]not[/I] (by my definition) role-playing activities. They are, however, the main focus of most combat-resolution game systems -- and the trend at least in D&D has been to add more of them. More generally, rules-heaviness has tended toward giving the answer of NO. No, you can't do that; no, you can't [I]be[/I] that. Why not? Because that would break this balance, violate that "niche," etc., in the elaborate structure of game mechanics that takes precedence. There's an economy of game resources limiting options. To expand the options calls for more rules, which must thereafter also be taken into account. Some folks point to the introduction of the Thief class as the start down this slippery slope. The bottom line is that the fundamental purpose of rules is just the opposite of "providing flexibility." Their function always is to [I]limit[/I] possibilities. That's not necessarily a bad thing; limiting options is how one defines a game. Working within more complex rules can add more interest to [I]game[/I]-playing. It just is not so conducive to [I]role[/I]-playing. So, there are trade-offs; there's a best balance to find, the point differing from player to player. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What system elements promote and hinder roleplaying (inspired by "does 4e hinder ")
Top