Quote from: Nexus;664656Eleven ways to be a better Role player

I thought it was well done article over all with some useful suggestions for most gamers. All the tips aren't universal and some personal preference comes in on some of them (which is unavoidable for subjects like this) but all in the all, good rules of them. I think tips 3 and 4 are the two that don't work as well for my personal style but overall some solid stuff.

It's good advice, especially #1 "do stuff". Yesterday I asked my players what they wanted their PCs to do - one player said "I want to do X" but another responded with "I want to be Y" - with no indication of how he was going to set about achieving that in-game (and no 'how do I...?' questions that I could respond to). I see a lot of that nowadays and it's really annoying. Whenever I ask "What do you want" I get "I want a pony" not "I want to go get a pony" - so I switched to "What do you want to do?" and I still often get "I want a pony/I want to be a master of ponies" - as if the player can just sit back and expect the GM to give them stuff.

Maybe this passivity has been trained in by too many CRPGs? Too many linear storypaths? Anyway it needs to be done away with.

Quote from: Soylent Green;664751Giving this losing hand, the advice in the article to essential try to find ways and rationalise going with the flow in a way that makes a bit more sense for the character is, I think, not unreasonable. But it's more about the best out of a bad situation. The real trick is trying not to get into that of hole in the first place.  

Yes - if "My character wouldn't do that!" comes up early on in a campaign, you failed at making a good character - either your own fault, or the GM's fault for not setting appropriate expectations. If the GM said "Your PCs are adventurers", and you make a PC who wants to stay home and bake cookies, you have failed at chargen. At that point it's up to you to mitigate your failure by coming up with reasons why your cookie-baker would go adventuring.

Late in a campaign, your PC should have a well-established character, and the GM shouldn't expect you to act out-of-character to follow some plot thread/railroad he's cooked up, so at that point "My Character Wouldn't Do That!" is more likely to be a GMing failure.

Quote from: Opaopajr;664809I hate assumed "glued to the hip" party dynamics. And far too many of these suggestions have that in mind. When I roleplay, I assume I am not part of a party gestalt, that I can separate when I like AND the GM can support that, and intra-party dynamics are fluid.

If you have no interest in any of those things as GM of a table, you MUST TELL ME!

You want to be able to go solo at your choice, while the other players sit and watch? Won't that annoy them?

I think "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons" or similar should be enough of a warning that your PC will be part of a party gestalt, won't normally be having solo adventures, and that any lengthy time spent on solo activities will be by negotiation and agreement rather than as of right. In fact I'm struggling to think of any RPGs (not story-creation games) where team-based play isn't the default assumption.

Edit: Though there are games like Paranoia and WFRP where PVP is normal or even mandatory.

Quote from: S'mon;664908Yes - if "My character wouldn't do that!" comes up early on in a campaign, you failed at making a good character - either your own fault, or the GM's fault for not setting appropriate expectations. If the GM said "Your PCs are adventurers", and you make a PC who wants to stay home and bake cookies, you have failed at chargen. At that point it's up to you to mitigate your failure by coming up with reasons why your cookie-baker would go adventuring.

Late in a campaign, your PC should have a well-established character, and the GM shouldn't expect you to act out-of-character to follow some plot thread/railroad he's cooked up, so at that point "My Character Wouldn't Do That!" is more likely to be a GMing failure.

I totally agree especially about the player failed at making a good character or the GM's fault for not setting appropriate expectations.

The latter however is trickier than it appears and I've certainly had problems before with GMs tell you to create whatever you want and seem very reluctant to explain the setting expectations. World of Darkness GM seem particularly bad at that; I guess that maybe that stripping the setting to bare essentials without using Latin sounding words seems inelegant.

That said I also struggle with the term 'adventurer'. The role isn't not quite 'mercenary', it's not quite 'criminal', 'thrill seeker' or 'hero' though it can be any of these. There seems to be a whole lack of clarity of purpose and structure around the generic adventure that 'member of the Rebel Alliance', 'agent of MI6' or 'Ghostbuster' have. As such I know how to create a new character with the right motivations, abilities and attitudes to fit any of those more specific examples, but I have no idea how to create an 'adventurer'.

Welcome, The_Rook!

Quote from: S'mon;664909You want to be able to go solo at your choice, while the other players sit and watch? Won't that annoy them?

I think "We're playing Dungeons & Dragons" or similar should be enough of a warning that your PC will be part of a party gestalt, won't normally be having solo adventures, and that any lengthy time spent on solo activities will be by negotiation and agreement rather than as of right. In fact I'm struggling to think of any RPGs (not story-creation games) where team-based play isn't the default assumption.

Edit: Though there are games like Paranoia and WFRP where PVP is normal or even mandatory.

I absolutely do not run WoD or In Nomine SJG, etc. like that. Half of my D&D games run where the party may split up at any time, a la stable of characters play. The other half necessarily runs them separately due to the nature of style of play and delegation, a la Birthright. The vast majority of my GMing is NOT team base play, on purpose. I tolerate such games when I know about them ahead of time and want to be with said players. It's not a style I enjoy or run.

And as I support espionage/scouting, diplomatic envoys, and the like there are swaths of disparate "screen time" (if one must call it so). If I find it particularly long I will separate it out into another session, if necessary. But normally there's secret notes and GM asides allowed, and I try to run simultaenously more than one location of action at a time by staggering each bit with 2-5 minutes of face time per. For some this is dizzying to follow. As someone who runs IN SJG with allowed Kyriotates, it's somewhat mundane (if a bit more taxing).

Quote from: S'mon;664908Yes - if "My character wouldn't do that!" comes up early on in a campaign, you failed at making a good character - either your own fault, or the GM's fault for not setting appropriate expectations. If the GM said "Your PCs are adventurers", and you make a PC who wants to stay home and bake cookies, you have failed at chargen. At that point it's up to you to mitigate your failure by coming up with reasons why your cookie-baker would go adventuring.

Late in a campaign, your PC should have a well-established character, and the GM shouldn't expect you to act out-of-character to follow some plot thread/railroad he's cooked up, so at that point "My Character Wouldn't Do That!" is more likely to be a GMing failure.

I agree that that is an issue of poorly expressed campaign expectations and defined game starting point, a.k.a. the premise.

There has to be a reason each character meets upon the same time and/or space (or world in motion arc, but that's really challenging!). Otherwise, why not run separate game sessions?

Clearly defined beginnings are so important. It's true that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Working together may be a part of that, but does not have to be. However there has to be a connecting thread to justify coordinating people's real life schedule to the same playtime. That's just courtesy for their time.

Quote from: The_Rook;664897It actually says that in the article at the end of that point:



In response to a lot of the chat on this thread against points 3 and 4: it's not about agency and stripping characters of their internal motivations. It's looking to foster a willingness for players to insert their characters into difficult situations, to control their position in the story, not just what they say and do.

Any good idea can be taken too far. "Too far" is quite a bit closer for those ideas, as expressed. IMO.

Quote from: S'mon;664908Yes - if "My character wouldn't do that!" comes up early on in a campaign, you failed at making a good character - either your own fault, or the GM's fault for not setting appropriate expectations. If the GM said "Your PCs are adventurers", and you make a PC who wants to stay home and bake cookies, you have failed at chargen. At that point it's up to you to mitigate your failure by coming up with reasons why your cookie-baker would go adventuring.

Late in a campaign, your PC should have a well-established character, and the GM shouldn't expect you to act out-of-character to follow some plot thread/railroad he's cooked up, so at that point "My Character Wouldn't Do That!" is more likely to be a GMing failure.

"My character wouldn't do that" can also be a failing of thinking outside the box.

Quote from: Bill;665663"My character wouldn't do that" can also be a failing of thinking outside the box.

Actually, anyone announcing " my character wouldn't do that" has failed roleplaying 101 already by failing to respond in first person.

Don't get up on a soapbox and start declaring what your character would or wouldn't do, just DO or DON'T DO whatever.

There isn't any need to step out of character in order to refuse what you believe is a poor idea. Whats wrong with just saying " No,"?

Would you characterize anyone who refuses a Baldric-worthy cunning plan as unable to think outside the box?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665784Actually, anyone announcing " my character wouldn't do that" has failed roleplaying 101 already by failing to respond in first person.

There isn't any need to step out of character in order to refuse what you believe is a poor idea. Whats wrong with just saying " No,"?

Well, the times I've heard this said (or something like it), is after an in-character confrontation has failed to produce an unsatisfying result, and it's clear the conflict is at the player level.  It emerges out of feelings like, "My god, when is this cyclical argument ever going to end?" "Why is the dwarf being so goddamned stubborn?" "I'd love to keep the party together, too, but I just can't see how my character, given what's happened so far, would participate that way."

When you feel there's an OOC issue, stepping out of character is entirely appropriate.

Quote from: fuseboy;665786Well, the times I've heard this said (or something like it), is after an in-character confrontation has failed to produce an unsatisfying result, and it's clear the conflict is at the player level.  It emerges out of feelings like, "My god, when is this cyclical argument ever going to end?" "Why is the dwarf being so goddamned stubborn?" "I'd love to keep the party together, too, but I just can't see how my character, given what's happened so far, would participate that way."

When you feel there's an OOC issue, stepping out of character is entirely appropriate.

What would be an unsatisfying in-character result? The group wants to do X and the surly dwarf wants to do Y so they do thier respective stuff. If there are 6 people in the party then 50 minutes of each game hour is spent with the group and 10 minutes with the loner. If the loner gets tired of playing for 10 minutes each hour he can rejoin the group.

An out of character discussion can be held after the game.

Quote from: Soylent Green;664913I totally agree especially about the player failed at making a good character or the GM's fault for not setting appropriate expectations.

The latter however is trickier than it appears and I've certainly had problems before with GMs tell you to create whatever you want and seem very reluctant to explain the setting expectations. World of Darkness GM seem particularly bad at that; I guess that maybe that stripping the setting to bare essentials without using Latin sounding words seems inelegant.

That said I also struggle with the term 'adventurer'. The role isn't not quite 'mercenary', it's not quite 'criminal', 'thrill seeker' or 'hero' though it can be any of these. There seems to be a whole lack of clarity of purpose and structure around the generic adventure that 'member of the Rebel Alliance', 'agent of MI6' or 'Ghostbuster' have. As such I know how to create a new character with the right motivations, abilities and attitudes to fit any of those more specific examples, but I have no idea how to create an 'adventurer'.

WFRP 3E's party sheet does a good job of addressing this. Mercenaries, Oathbound, Thugs, etc. are varied enough to give players choice, but coherent enough that they work in the setting. For D&D you could have Plunderers, Protectors, Explorers, etc.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665784Actually, anyone announcing " my character wouldn't do that" has failed roleplaying 101 already by failing to respond in first person.

That is a definition of roleplaying that not everyone shares.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665789What would be an unsatisfying in-character result? The group wants to do X and the surly dwarf wants to do Y so they do thier respective stuff. If there are 6 people in the party then 50 minutes of each game hour is spent with the group and 10 minutes with the loner. If the loner gets tired of playing for 10 minutes each hour he can rejoin the group.

An out of character discussion can be held after the game.

If you were a ventriloquist, you'd be the creepy kind that talks to your puppet even when no one else is around. You know you would.