Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4718872" data-attributes="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 inform role-playing, as (for instance) reference to Traits and Passions does in King Arthur Pendragon. 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.Pretending not to know something because the character does not can be distracting from this aspect, which is primarily about imagining oneself 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 players already know all about Monster X, for instance, they might not appreciate being forced to choose poor strategies on the basis of their characters' ignorance. Creative descriptions can help a bit, and new monsters can help a lot.The second aspect is expressing the character's personality and character. 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 loathes 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 avoid needless fights might be the problem. "Why can't you play a warrior the right way?"In general, I think the need is not for more rules to "support" role-playing but for the rules not to get in the way 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 breathing room for role-playing. The RPG evolved from the war-game, and can easily devolve right back. Again, crunching numbers and rolling dice are not (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 be 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 limit 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 game-playing. It just is not so conducive to role-playing.So, there are trade-offs; there's a best balance to find, the point differing from player to player.</blockquote>

Verification