Writing a manual for roleplay

[Starglim]

Partway through this thread, you talked about your ideas for your product (as opposed to what you don't like about WotC's product). If I may, I'll skip over the rest and address what I found worthwhile.

We never told we want to be a paladin. We told that , we wanted to manage a character who didnt know much about his past but feeled that he was a good person and trying to help people in every condition. Someone who started to see things unreal since he was half mad and even schizophrene and he had no clue about it.

These things made me to play this game not throwing dices.

Good for you! I agree. A book that can help to achieve this would be a useful book.

What i am planning is.

It will start with a told scene like coming from novels. I want to describe a nonfamous hero from start what he experienced with events and with encounters.

Are you a successful fiction writer? If you are, please go write a novel about a setting made for fiction and don't take up space in my roleplaying supplement. Fiction in a RPG product is usually an annoying waste of paper. In the rare case that it's interesting and well-written, it's still low in information density for gaming purposes, as I've said elsewhere.

I want to put real combinations. A man looking strict at sight, but giving crucial importance to families and willing for goodness, although he is not a good person at all. is what i want as a start.

Complex motivations, beyond single keyword alignment or allegiance, are good. Game material to support them would be excellent.

What a character looks like at first sight is only interesting for a moment. I hope your work will concentrate on what he does and how he develops over time.

There will be flaw-merit system but not like before. Merits for a contract with DM. Dm puts an entangle front of a character by offering a nice bonus to him about something. But dm doesnt tell what it is to the character.

This sounds very interesting. You might want to look into how Spycraft does it.

Story elements ,it will be the strongest point of the manual.

Don't know what that means. Can you expand on what you mean by story elements?

 

[WalterKovacs]

Just to clear up a misconception ... when did anyone say there would be a DMG 2, 3 or more? There would be multiple PHBs (showing more races and classes) and MMs (showing more monsters).

I've played tons of RPGs ... Mechwarrior, D&D [2nd through 4th editions], Vampire, d20 Modern, Serenity, Mutants & Masterminds.

Roleplaying isn't something that needs to be or should be "part of the system", as the level of immersion is going to depend entirely on the group/DM in question.

In some of the games I've played in, I've come up with elaborate backstories for the character and given that to the DM so they can incorporate it into the game. Even when it doesn't come up in game ... it's something that I keep in mind for how my character acts. In other games, it's as simple as "I'm a free spirited roguish type". Even without an elaborate backstory ... a character can still have moment to moment motivations.

Even further ... the motivation of wanting to win a fight or do something cool can be good enough. When in the middle of a big Mech fight, as part of the Mechwarrior RPG, I am playing not just my character, but a group of other mechs, some under his command, others might even be outside of that command structure. That's still acting and roleplaying though ... certain characters have a "personality" that will make them more or less reckless, but ultimately, the group are soldiers in a mercenary company that are looking to win ... so they are roleplayed as such. When wargamming, you are acting as a group who have motivations, and goals. Even in Chess, the motivation is to protect the King and take the opponent's King. It's much more abstract than a wargame ... and as you go into deeper roleplaying, the motivations of a character are deeper than just "kill monsters and take their stuff" ... however their goals during a fight is probably to win/not die/keep their friends alive/etc ... out of combat, and even in it, they may have more motivations, but it's still roleplaying even when it's "in combat".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just to clear up a misconception ... when did anyone say there would be a DMG 2, 3 or more? There would be multiple PHBs (showing more races and classes) and MMs (showing more monsters).

I've played tons of RPGs ... Mechwarrior, D&D [2nd through 4th editions], Vampire, d20 Modern, Serenity, Mutants & Masterminds.

Roleplaying isn't something that needs to be or should be "part of the system", as the level of immersion is going to depend entirely on the group/DM in question.

In some of the games I've played in, I've come up with elaborate backstories for the character and given that to the DM so they can incorporate it into the game. Even when it doesn't come up in game ... it's something that I keep in mind for how my character acts. In other games, it's as simple as "I'm a free spirited roguish type". Even without an elaborate backstory ... a character can still have moment to moment motivations.

Even further ... the motivation of wanting to win a fight or do something cool can be good enough. When in the middle of a big Mech fight, as part of the Mechwarrior RPG, I am playing not just my character, but a group of other mechs, some under his command, others might even be outside of that command structure. That's still acting and roleplaying though ... certain characters have a "personality" that will make them more or less reckless, but ultimately, the group are soldiers in a mercenary company that are looking to win ... so they are roleplayed as such. When wargamming, you are acting as a group who have motivations, and goals. Even in Chess, the motivation is to protect the King and take the opponent's King. It's much more abstract than a wargame ... and as you go into deeper roleplaying, the motivations of a character are deeper than just "kill monsters and take their stuff" ... however their goals during a fight is probably to win/not die/keep their friends alive/etc ... out of combat, and even in it, they may have more motivations, but it's still roleplaying even when it's "in combat".

Hmm. Can I give my King in a Chess game a "personality"? Can I make a cowardly king or an aggressive king? I think this is not a way to play Chess that makes "sense" in the context of the game goals.

I think that is the difference to an RPG - even if the rules don't have stuff like "coward" behavior or "agressive" behavior hard-coded into your characters, you are still expected to add something like that to your character, even if playing the game as a mere wargame or board game would sometimes be more effective. In a way, RPGs differ not in rules to such games, but in a certain attitude to towards them..

 

[bagger245]

In previous editions, did we ever have discussions about whether D&D had very little
roleplaying elements in it? This edition seems to spark alot though.
I roleplay alot in D&D but when I play 4th ed, why is it that I focus so much into
tactical battle and power concerns and neglect roleplaying? Is there something worng
with me? I go back to playing older editions and I am fine though.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Hmm. Can I give my King in a Chess game a "personality"? Can I make a cowardly king or an aggressive king? I think this is not a way to play Chess that makes "sense" in the context of the game goals.

I think that is the difference to an RPG - even if the rules don't have stuff like "coward" behavior or "agressive" behavior hard-coded into your characters, you are still expected to add something like that to your character, even if playing the game as a mere wargame or board game would sometimes be more effective. In a way, RPGs differ not in rules to such games, but in a certain attitude to towards them..

It's possible to play defensively or aggressively in chess.

Regardless, when you have a character that has a life beyond the current battle, where what occurs in one battle will have an impact after the battle, you are no longer playing a simple wargame.

Chess has no "memory". However, because your character has a life that takes place between battles/skirmishes/etc ... they have a personality, and they will act a certain way in those fights. Their goals are longer term than "win this fight". If you die to win the fight ... you have to believe your friends will spring to res you, or really believe in what you are fighting for, etc, etc, etc.

As such, even without any "special rule book" ... 4e is a roleplaying game. Your character isn't an interchangeable piece in a wargame anymore than say ... my mechwarrior stops being a character when we go into the wargame "part" of the game. The fact is, if my character dies, he's dead ... it doesn't matter if we win. If my mech is destroyed, it's gone, we have to replace it, or find a new one. The character impacts the wargame and the wargame impacts the character.

Ultimately a roleplaying game comes out of playing a role. It started off as a simple role ... playing "the king" or "the thief" or "fighting man" ... it's just instead of just a role, you know have an actual "character" with an identity and he does stuff in his off time when he's not being the king, or the theif, or the fighting man. It's the recurring role, that is impacted and changes over the course of the game, that becomes a character at the heart of a roleplaying game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's possible to play defensively or aggressively in chess.

But is it possible to have a coward king and an aggressive peasant?

Regardless, when you have a character that has a life beyond the current battle, where what occurs in one battle will have an impact after the battle, you are no longer playing a simple wargame.

Chess has no "memory". However, because your character has a life that takes place between battles/skirmishes/etc ... they have a personality, and they will act a certain way in those fights. Their goals are longer term than "win this fight". If you die to win the fight ... you have to believe your friends will spring to res you, or really believe in what you are fighting for, etc, etc, etc.

As such, even without any "special rule book" ... 4e is a roleplaying game. Your character isn't an interchangeable piece in a wargame anymore than say ... my mechwarrior stops being a character when we go into the wargame "part" of the game. The fact is, if my character dies, he's dead ... it doesn't matter if we win. If my mech is destroyed, it's gone, we have to replace it, or find a new one. The character impacts the wargame and the wargame impacts the character.

I tend to agree. I noted that one of the differences between wargames and RPGs is that there is something happening between the combat, and your decisions between change the kind of combats you will have. Even if you just play a one-shot D&D game, you will have multiple encounters and something happening between them.

Though I've heard that some wargames do feature a "campaign" model - but maybe that's just wargames doing what they did before - spawning the fundaments for an RPG?

 

[jensun]

In previous editions, did we ever have discussions about whether D&D had very little roleplaying elements in it.

Yes, yes and yes.

One of the most oldest compaints about D&D across all editions is that it isn't actually a role playing game, its just a combat simulator for hack and slash play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, yes and yes.

One of the most oldest compaints about D&D across all editions is that it isn't actually a role playing game, its just a combat simulator for hack and slash play.

I think it particularly comes up during "edition" and "game" wars, and goes into the "My game can beat up your game" mentality.
It must be some kind of "dehumanization" technique (maybe I should call it "de-roleplayization"?) for RPGs - "Your game doesn't even deserve the title of Roleplaying Game!"

It's harmless and even fun if it's just used among fans of one game ("Oh, at least we're not playing a hack & slash D&D game! The Black Eye is a real role-playing game!") but its more or less throwing insults in edition wars. (Yeah, insult is a strong word here - but in the context of RPG discussions, this is what it is. Of course there are ways to say that you don't like a game due to the way it facilitates or does not facilitate role-playing without insulting someone..)

 

[firesnakearies]

"Posted: 1:08 a.m. by jvmkanelly Where are the recipes for chatting with friends while cooking? Where are the recipes for conversation over the meal? When I throw a dinner party, I want it to be a PARTY. I guess the idiots who use the Better Joy Cookbook just cook and eat in stony silence, never saying a word or even looking each other in the eye."

 

[buzz]

I originally defined the difference as a matter of scope. But if you are acting in every case for these games, then they are acting games/role-playing games. I didn't know this myself until I read up on what exactly qualifies as Acting. It's pretty broad in that pretty much every computer game is considered an Acting game and therefore an RPG.

I can't really address what constitutes an "acting game," as this is the first time I've ever heard the term used.

However, I think I can safely say that Chess is not a roleplaying game, for reasons I stated above. A game does not become an RPG because the player chooses to adopt a persona. I consider this irrefutable.