TheRPGSite

On pages 66-67 of the Basic Rules, the author lays out two methods of RP, specifically Descriptive (essentially 3rd person aka "Tordek stomps over to the bar and orders a drink") and Active ( 1st person or in-character, including mannerisms and body language aka "I stomp over to the bar and glare at the innkeeper. 'Gimme another drink, ye daft bastard.'")

I've been involved with discussions about this in the past, and even taken some heat when professing my own personal distaste for the active method (you aren't really roleplaying unless you are speaking in-character!) but I think this is the first time I've seen each method clearly labeled and as such this section stood out to me.

Is this the first time Descriptive and Active have been used to define these two methods of RP, or have I just skipped over every What is Roleplaying? section in every book I've read since 1985?

I don't think there is a huge difference either way, I have seen people slip in and out of both without a major problem.

Eh. Either is fine. I personally prefer narration to embodiment.

However.

The really gifted RPer is able to provide characterization efficiently. A few very characteristic and appropriate words said during the active parts of a game have more weight to me than all the masturbatory fluff ever written.

One of the best segments written during the 2e era was from the castle guide. A character called in a favor and got a stone giant and his son to help him build a castle on the moors. After the whole castle was built, a century storm came trough, destabilized the ground, and the castle slowly sank right into the ground.

With no fanfare, the stone giant turned to his son and said, "that's why you never build a castle in a swamp."

Elegant. Efficient. Just nine words. Perfect characterization. You know exactly who that stone giant is.

I don't care whether the stone giant's player narrates the line or speaks in character. The line itself is perfection.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;768316Eh. Either is fine. I personally prefer narration to embodiment.

However.

The really gifted RPer is able to provide characterization efficiently. A few very characteristic and appropriate words said during the active parts of a game have more weight to me than all the masturbatory fluff ever written.

One of the best segments written during the 2e era was from the castle guide. A character called in a favor and got a stone giant and his son to help him build a castle on the moors. After the whole castle was built, a century storm came trough, destabilized the ground, and the castle slowly sank right into the ground.

With no fanfare, the stone giant turned to his son and said, "that's why you never build a castle in a swamp."

Elegant. Efficient. Just nine words. Perfect characterization. You know exactly who that stone giant is.

I don't care whether the stone giant's player narrates the line or speaks in character. The line itself is perfection.

I see you have read the Bible a bit.:)

Quote from: Raven;768299Is this the first time Descriptive and Active have been used to define these two methods of RP, or have I just skipped over every What is Roleplaying? section in every book I've read since 1985?

They're usually called First Person roleplaying and Third Person roleplaying.  

I think doing 100% either is kind of odd.  First person if you're speaking as your character, third person if you're talking about them, switching back and forth between them.

I say, "Conan orders more wine." - Third person
I say, "Barkeep more wine!" - First person
I say, "Conan says 'Barkeep more wine!'" is third person narration, don't really know anyone who does that.
Most people I play with bounce back and forth seamlessly, depending on what's going on.

Never heard the terms Active and Descriptive before, but they are decent terms.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768358They're usually called First Person roleplaying and Third Person roleplaying.  

I think doing 100% either is kind of odd.  First person if you're speaking as your character, third person if you're talking about them, switching back and forth between them.

I say, "Conan orders more wine." - Third person
I say, "Barkeep more wine!" - First person
I say, "Conan says 'Barkeep more wine!'" is third person narration, don't really know anyone who does that.
Most people I play with bounce back and forth seamlessly, depending on what's going on.

Never heard the terms Active and Descriptive before, but they are decent terms.

It would never occur to be not to be in 1st person.
I observed something interesting at GenCon a few years back. The Gm of a SW game had an aged officer giving us a debrief about a situation. He aapproached it like this
GM: The guy looks about 50 maybe 60 years old his voice is deep and horse from too long shouting orders at people. He describes the situation to you describing how the aliens arrived and what they have been up to for the last few weeks and why you were called in to assist.

To me that was totally bizarre. I would have been.
GM: The guy looks about 50 or 60 years old a seasoned guy used to giving orders:In a suitably deep horse voice "Right rookies you guys are here to do a job...etc.etc...." a minute or so of describing the situation all in character. From that point onwards I would use that characters voice and the PCs would know who was speaking etc.

I found the GMs unwillingness to engage in "in character dialogue" quite odd.

As a GM or a player all my dialogue is first person. As a Player all my directions are "I leap forwards, trying to snag the back of the truck with the handle of my umbrella" .  I find the more I do this and create the context in which it is deemed the norm the more the rest of the table follow suit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;768364It would never occur to be not to be in 1st person.

Yeah, me either.  Of course, you roleplaying the way you do will be roughly 12.73 quadrillion times more effective then Inspiration in teaching roleplaying. :D

I tend toward descriptive roleplaying. It's also how I tend to write, and as I prefer PBP or chat, it comes more naturally to me.

Quote from: dragoner;768312I don't think there is a huge difference either way, I have seen people slip in and out of both without a major problem.

Pretty much. My friends do whatever that they're most comfortable with, or whichever is easier. I don't care if online LARPing thespians don't like my style.

I think there is a place for third person roleplaying in terms of skipping over very minor scenes like buying provisions or updating characters on things the players already know about, but I would always want first person roleplaying to form the vast majority of any session. Even minor scenes like buying arrows and redundant exposition can be fun to play out sometimes, you just want to keep it in check so they don't stop you getting on with the actual adventure.

Yeah, I kinda flip between the two, depending on what's the easiest way to narrate what I'm doing.

Quote from: Raven;768299Is this the first time Descriptive and Active have been used to define these two methods of RP, or have I just skipped over every What is Roleplaying? section in every book I've read since 1985?

I remember something similar in Dragon 103 (I believe), one of the last articles Gary Gygax wrote for Dragon before his departure.  He had talked about Role Playing vs. Role Assumption, and that sounds vaguely like this--Role Playing is the active type while Role Assumption is the descriptive type.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768358They're usually called First Person roleplaying and Third Person roleplaying.  

I think doing 100% either is kind of odd.  First person if you're speaking as your character, third person if you're talking about them, switching back and forth between them.

I say, "Conan orders more wine." - Third person
I say, "Barkeep more wine!" - First person
I say, "Conan says 'Barkeep more wine!'" is third person narration, don't really know anyone who does that.
Most people I play with bounce back and forth seamlessly, depending on what's going on.

Never heard the terms Active and Descriptive before, but they are decent terms.

They are good descriptors, and more importantly, it is a nice inclusion in the books.  Good to see them taking time to talk about the roleplay.

Quote from: Ladybird;768398Yeah, I kinda flip between the two, depending on what's the easiest way to narrate what I'm doing.

Same here -- and for most of the people I've played with over the years.

This is a useful distinction I think. Been paying attention more to this because it came up in a discussion some time ago. It varies from group to group and player to player a bit, but I notice people shifting between the two as needed.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768408They are good descriptors, and more importantly, it is a nice inclusion in the books.  Good to see them taking time to talk about the roleplay.

Yeah I never seen that particular subject addressed in D&D. It is a good thing they put it in there.

I generally require 1st person errr.. active roleplaying during the campaign particularly when interacting with NPCs. What I don't require is for the player to act as a distinct personae compared to their own. More power to them if they do this but the type of game I run works perfectly fine if a player roleplays the character as themselves in the setting.

I do this because I find it cut down on the meta gaming and the players are more apt to treat the setting as a living breathing place rather as a chessboard with the NPCs as pieces.

Quote from: estar;768419I generally require 1st person errr.. active roleplaying during the campaign particularly when interacting with NPCs. What I don't require is for the player to act as a distinct personae compared to their own. More power to them if they do this but the type of game I run works perfectly fine if a player roleplays the character as themselves in the setting.

I do this because I find it cut down on the meta gaming and the players are more apt to treat the setting as a living breathing place rather as a chessboard with the NPCs as pieces.

Also, and this is advice as much as truth...
The PCs mirror the GM, often, in terms of how they approach this.  When the GM describes then talks to the PC in first person, the Player normally does the same.  And the same is true in the opposite.  
Players take a lot of their cues from their GM.  In almost any case, if there is something wrong or 'off' with your game, look to yourself first before blaming the PCs.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768443Also, and this is advice as much as truth...
The PCs mirror the GM, often, in terms of how they approach this.  When the GM describes then talks to the PC in first person, the Player normally does the same.  And the same is true in the opposite.  
Players take a lot of their cues from their GM.  In almost any case, if there is something wrong or 'off' with your game, look to yourself first before blaming the PCs.

Yeah and as a DM if your players adopt the way you interact and play things through their PCs well you could reward that behavior with some small token :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;768468Yeah and as a DM if your players adopt the way you interact and play things through their PCs well you could reward that behavior with some small token :D

Like say an inspiration point?

Quote from: dragoner;768470Like say an inspiration point?

I'll bite you.  I swear I will.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768471I'll bite you.  I swear I will.

lol

I take it you don't like that mechanic, but it really just names a process that has been around for years; in the old days, we called them luck points.

Quote from: dragoner;768473lol

I take it you don't like that mechanic, but it really just names a process that has been around for years; in the old days, we called them luck points.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30020

You have me right.  I, personally, don't like mechanics that actively push a player away from the IC perspective.  

But I don't bite people for it.  And I really think there are lots of ways of having fun playing RPGs, and that honestly, it's good for D&D to stretch and offer options.

Pretty much first person. Thats where the fun is for me. Especially as a GM getting to play all kinds of characters.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768478http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30020

You have me right.  I, personally, don't like mechanics that actively push a player away from the IC perspective.  

But I don't bite people for it.  And I really think there are lots of ways of having fun playing RPGs, and that honestly, it's good for D&D to stretch and offer options.

Yes, a slight dovetail with that other thread. ;)

Dice are bigger push away from IC, but I still like them.

Conceptually the inspiration points have been there, I think, just not codified. Want I do like, and what is added, is where the players can be charitable and give them away. The downside is if an economy where characters can trade them develops, I see that fraught with pitfalls, and I would say no material trades.

When describing actions, I switch between third and first person depending on whim.

When my character is TALKING though, I always say what he says. Its hard to get a personality down without first person talking to me.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;768487When describing actions, I switch between third and first person depending on whim.

When my character is TALKING though, I always say what he says. Its hard to get a personality down without first person talking to me.

Same here, although I confused the hell out of the players one time when I had an NPC that talked about themselves in the third person but didn't have a weird accent.

Quote from: JRT;768399I remember something similar in Dragon 103 (I believe), one of the last articles Gary Gygax wrote for Dragon before his departure.  He had talked about Role Playing vs. Role Assumption, and that sounds vaguely like this--Role Playing is the active type while Role Assumption is the descriptive type.

Dragon 102, page 8.

QuoteFirst, it is important to remember that "role-playing" is a modifier of the noun "game". We are dealing with a game which is based on role playing, but it is first and foremost a game.
Games are not plays, although role-playing games should have some of the theatre included in their play. To put undue stress upon mere role-playing places the cart before the horse. Role playing is a necessary part of the game, but it is by no means the whole of the matter.
Role playing is similar to, but not the same as, role assumption. The latter term is generally used to identify the individuals acceptance of a part which he or she could actually perform. While a child might play the role of a parent, an adult would assume that role when dealing with his or her children.
This distinction is important in the context of gaming because of the stress now being placed upon role playing. Too much emphasis in this direction tends to make playing out an adventure more of a childrens "lets pretend" activity than an action-packed game which involves all sorts of fun, including the playing of a role but other fun aspects as well.

The one way of roleplaying is the true and proper path, laid down by the righteous as how we should all play, every game, in all ways.

The other way of roleplaying will destroy the hobby and marks you as an enemy of all that is worthy and good.

Choose carefully...

Quote from: Spinachcat;768524The one way of roleplaying is the true and proper path, laid down by the righteous as how we should all play, every game, in all ways.

The other way of roleplaying will destroy the hobby and marks you as an enemy of all that is worthy and good.

Choose carefully...

I completely agree. Also, you are a heretic and need stoning. :)

Quote from: dragoner;768312I don't think there is a huge difference either way, I have seen people slip in and out of both without a major problem.

Likewise.  In fact, it seems to be the norm.

Anybody who says "You're not role playing unless...." needs to have their tongue introduced to your pee hole.

^^ Yeah, I agree. I find myself using both types with regularity. I like the active/descriptive terms--they're useful. Somehow I missed that section on my read-through, though.

Quote from: Omega;768515Dragon 102, page 8.

So in otherwords inspiration points are just fine and NO you aren't your character like some here insist on pain of stupidity, yes? It seems to me FUN is the point not some flexible definition of roleplaying made up by someone not at my table.

Quote from: Mr. Kent;768624^^ Yeah, I agree. I find myself using both types with regularity. I like the active/descriptive terms--they're useful. Somehow I missed that section on my read-through, though.

The actual terms themselves are why I started the thread, as they stood out to me as useful as well in light of previous discussions. The linked Gygax articles seems to hit the same notes and of course the 1st/3rd person descriptors have been used forever but as one poster said this might be the first time D&D itself has made the distinction.

Also I don't want to be seen as one of these assholes who are obsessed with rpg terminology. Like the guy who came up with Magic Tea Party? Fuck that guy.

It does seem the case that virtually everyone uses some mix of both methods. I doubt anyone who wasn't online ever bothered to make the distinction in the first place. As much as I talk about hating in-character dialogue, I still do it, and the concepts are not something we ever discussed in our home games.

In the end, I think it boils down too "Hey, it's cool that they brought this up in D&D".

Quote from: Spinachcat;768524The one way of roleplaying is the true and proper path, laid down by the righteous as how we should all play, every game, in all ways.

The other way of roleplaying will destroy the hobby and marks you as an enemy of all that is worthy and good.

Choose carefully...

I choose sandwich.

(http://i.imgur.com/T7t2SkW.png)

Quote from: Omega;768515Dragon 102, page 8.

The problem with Gary quotes is that they lack the historical context.  Narrative mechanics as we know them today didn't exist when Gary wrote that.  What did exist, were the beginnings of a focus on story, narrativism and acting which manifested in proto Larps which is where the old usenet discussions started.  Asking for an absence of story mechanics is not the same as eliminating most rules for a storytelling session, which is what Gary was really talking about.  Nice try though.

Quote from: Spinachcat;768524The one way of roleplaying is the true and proper path, laid down by the righteous as how we should all play, every game, in all ways.

The other way of roleplaying will destroy the hobby and marks you as an enemy of all that is worthy and good.

Choose carefully...

Or...some people just prefer character-facing mechanics that can be associated to the setting and engaged with as the character where as others seem to have this deep-seated need to deny the truth of their own preferences and deny that mechanics can even have such a distinction...you know, whichever. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Marleycat;768640So in otherwords inspiration points are just fine and NO you aren't your character like some here insist on pain of stupidity, yes? It seems to me FUN is the point not some flexible definition of roleplaying made up by someone not at my table.

Case in point. :D

Quote from: Raven;768642"Hey, it's cool that they brought this up in D&D".

Yeah, they are good terms.

I've only had one player who spoke exclusively third person because that was how is old group did it.  And after that one session he decided he didn't like the way we were doing it and he went back to just being a wargaming buddy of mine, instead of a player in my games where 1st person is the norm, but not required.  No harm, no foul.

Quote from: Raven;768299On pages 66-67 of the Basic Rules, the author lays out two methods of RP, specifically Descriptive (essentially 3rd person aka "Tordek stomps over to the bar and orders a drink") and Active ( 1st person or in-character, including mannerisms and body language aka "I stomp over to the bar and glare at the innkeeper. 'Gimme another drink, ye daft bastard.'")

I've been involved with discussions about this in the past, and even taken some heat when professing my own personal distaste for the active method (you aren't really roleplaying unless you are speaking in-character!) but I think this is the first time I've seen each method clearly labeled and as such this section stood out to me.

Is this the first time Descriptive and Active have been used to define these two methods of RP, or have I just skipped over every What is Roleplaying? section in every book I've read since 1985?

The jargon aside, what strikes me is the utter exclusion in your post of the phenomenon that actually was identified as role-playing in all I recall reading before 1985!

The newer identification of rp with superficial "thespian" performance -- not with engaging the imagined world-situation from a specifically located perspective -- seems to reflect a shift to the view that the proper object is for a player to tell a story.

To me, it's comparable to defining basketball-playing in a way that regards the basketball as at best optional, and often as an impediment that gets in the way of "real, proper" basketball-playing (which is all about which style of haircut and jewelry one wears, and whether those are matched with tattoos).

Can somebody tell me what the fuck he's talking about?

I'm well aware role-playing existed before 1985. It was just an arbitrary number to close out the post.  Jesus H.

Quote from: soviet;768396I think there is a place for third person roleplaying in terms of skipping over very minor scenes like buying provisions or updating characters on things the players already know about, but I would always want first person roleplaying to form the vast majority of any session. Even minor scenes like buying arrows and redundant exposition can be fun to play out sometimes, you just want to keep it in check so they don't stop you getting on with the actual adventure.

That's my view - as GM, third person is for minor stuff and for skipping over things I don't want to roleplay out, perhaps to get on to something more interesting, or occasionally because I'm feeling burnt out and don't want to put in the effort (as last Monday - wasn't feeling very well). It's highly sub-optimal but it gets the job done. First person roleplay is for the important stuff and is about the most fun I can have in an RPG. :)

As player, I'm ok if a GM uses third-person like this, but if they're incapable or unwilling ever to roleplay first-person I don't enjoy the game, and I'll leave it when I realise this.

Quote from: Raven;770246Can somebody tell me what the fuck he's talking about?

I'm well aware role-playing existed before 1985. It was just an arbitrary number to close out the post.  Jesus H.

What I'm talking about is that ways of talking about it are what you're calling role-playing, and that's not the thing itself. We can talk about Rommel, or in imitation  of Monty, but that doesn't make Afrika Korps an RPG, any more than amateur theatrics do so for Rail Baron or Acquire.

What made Dungeons & Dragons an RPG was the element of having all and only the options you would have if you were (say) a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.

What Mr. Gygax pointed out in the article quoted earlier, is that an excessive concern with "role-playng" in your thespian sense tends to shortchange the game element in RPG. The game is not how you talk after the fact, it's in actually making moves. Whether those are made from an in-the-game-world perspective is what makes the difference that makes an RPG.

No amount of funny voices or elegant narration makes in its own right anything but an entertainment that may or may not happen to be associated with role-playing and/or game.

Quote from: Phillip;770258What made Dungeons & Dragons an RPG was the element of having all and only the options you would have if you were (say) a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.

What Mr. Gygax pointed out in the article quoted earlier, is that an excessive concern with "role-playng" in your thespian sense tends to shortchange the game element in RPG. The game is not how you talk after the fact, it's in actually making moves. Whether those are made from an in-the-game-world perspective is what makes the difference that makes an RPG.

No amount of funny voices or elegant narration makes in its own right anything but an entertainment that may or may not happen to be associated with role-playing and/or game.

Not sure this is true.
When you hear about old games from folks like OG they specifically point out that they never made suboptimal choices based on character. Although they may have done based on deliberately ignoring meta-knowledge.

So rather than  having all the options of  a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken, you have all the options of you pretending to be a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.
There was little if any effort to try to think like a novice magician, or like someone with a different mindset.

Estar has refered to that default style of play as RPG as sports. You all have characters in a dungeon and you limit your action to what your characters know about the setting but you don't take actions based on your characters personality. In effect you play yourselves in that situation.

And the thespian element of roleplay isn't a funny voice or an elegant speech that is a very limited view of what thespian means. The thespian element of roleplay is to inhabit the character not just the world. To do things that the character would do not things that "a player that hopes to suceed in getting through the dungeon and maximising their treasure haul" would do.

I don't really know what people mean by thespians in an RPG context.

When playing RPGs I see players make decisions about what their character does using four different decision paradigms.

1) Choose actions that the player believes will maximize character survival and advancement while minimizing character risk.

2) Choose actions that the player believes the character would make (based on character personality, background, culture, etc.) even if those choices may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or for telling a better story.

3) Choose actions that the player believes will make for telling a better story even if they may not be what the character would choose and may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement.

4) Choose actions for the whacky hijinks fun or to see what happens if they pull that lever, drink from that pool, or put horse pee in the Paladin's water skin even if that may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or telling a better story.

Most (probably all) players use more than one paradigm depending on situation (how big is the reward if we succeed, how risky is this action, how much does my character care about X, etc.) and on player mood and whim (I've had a tough day and I just want to kill stuff).

Quote from: jibbajibba;770264Not sure this is true.
When you hear about old games from folks like OG they specifically point out that they never made suboptimal choices based on character. Although they may have done based on deliberately ignoring meta-knowledge.

So rather than  having all the options of  a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken, you have all the options of you pretending to be a novice magician in a dark tunnel with a dagger, a rope and half a chicken.
There was little if any effort to try to think like a novice magician, or like someone with a different mindset.

Estar has refered to that default style of play as RPG as sports. You all have characters in a dungeon and you limit your action to what your characters know about the setting but you don't take actions based on your characters personality. In effect you play yourselves in that situation.

And the thespian element of roleplay isn't a funny voice or an elegant speech that is a very limited view of what thespian means. The thespian element of roleplay is to inhabit the character not just the world. To do things that the character would do not things that "a player that hopes to suceed in getting through the dungeon and maximising their treasure haul" would do.

Not sure what is true? To what is your rumination on what Mornard and friends did pertinent?
 
It is roleplaying regardless of whether my role is a model of Aragorn from Tolkien's novel, or a persona based on envisioning myself as a ranger. I can respect your preference without granting it the status of One True Way. Your opinion of what "Ranger Reid" would or would not do is not by any right binding on me.

If as GM you try to lay down a rule that players must go through motions of stupidy for the sake of dramatic verisimilitude, be prepared for the possibility of losing those who came to play a game. YMMV as to how much they'll put up with, relative to members of the repertory theatre school who will gladly walk backwards into a dark room alone and pretend they've never heard of Monster X that looks like a cute bunny even though you've pulled out that chestnut time and time again.

The absolutely key, distinctive element is that if, for instance, my role is a 19th c. division commander, I do not have a bird's eye view of the whole battlefield, nor do I control such things as every battalion's deployment of companies and every battery's selection of ammunition each minute. On the other hand, neither am I arbitrarily prevented from doing things I actually could do in that position.

I use all three voices. Yes, even second person, especially as GM. I slip into them as it goes, occasionally hitting all three in a dynamic, dialogue heavy scene.

And I think nothing of it as I find it immersive throughout. Certain things, like internal or implicit (or non-corporeal), cannot abide lack of fluidity in voice, IME. For me the point is 'putting you there', and 'show, not tell' has limits with certain abstractions, so I settle for quick awareness there and more description elsewhere.

Quote from: Bren;770272When playing RPGs I see players make decisions about what their character does using four different decision paradigms.

It's even simpler then that.

1. In Character Decision
2. Out of Character Decision

IC could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the character, not the player.

OOC likewise could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the player, not the character.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770277It's even simpler then that.

1. In Character Decision
2. Out of Character Decision

IC could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the character, not the player.

OOC likewise could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the player, not the character.

But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

Quote from: CRKrueger;770277It's even simpler then that.
1. In Character Decision
2. Out of Character Decision

IC could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the character, not the player.

OOC likewise could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the player, not the character.

Too simple for my purposes.

For one thing, it lumps the play style of the original Lake Geneva gamers (which was pretty much the same as the way as my friends and I separately decided to play OD&D back in 1974) from people who play the newer style dramatic logic games. Which seems rather odd and not at all useful.

It also lumps the twerpy, asshat behavior I have occassionally seen in play with a more immersive (and to me satisfying) style of play.

Quote from: Phillip;770279But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

Indeed it would be difficult to play a character with which one shared no aspect of personality.

One might be able to do that with a Pendragon-traits and passion system. Indeed, it seems to me that the trait and passion system was originally invented (or at least was first published) as a way of simulating the utterly-alien-to-humans Dragonewts of Glorantha.

That last issue of Wyrm's Footprints is where I first encountered it, anyhow, if memory serves.

And that's a relatively unobjectionable (to me) step in the direction that thoroughgoing insistence on the supremacy of character simulation leads. If players as real, living sentient beings are regarded as a problem, the solution is to replace them with mechanical algorithms that have no inconvenient fun-seeking minds.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

I've always leaned more towards descriptive, but I'll often use the "I" pronoun. I'll speak out short dialogue sometimes, but I don't really like to act out a character.

I guess I don't really submerge myself into the character even though I did identify with it. In my mind's eye, I always looked at it as an audience member in a movie theater.

Quote from: Phillip;770279But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

I feel blessed then, that not only did I not say anything even remotely close to characters being utterly alien to their players, I said pretty much the exact same thing you did.

"The absolutely key, distinctive element is that if, for instance, my role is a 19th c. division commander, I do not have a bird's eye view of the whole battlefield, nor do I control such things as every battalion's deployment of companies and every battery's selection of ammunition each minute."

In other words, if you are roleplaying the "19th c. division commander who does not have a bird's eye view of the whole battlefield", you can make limited choices based on information that only the character knows (IC) or you can make unlimited choices based on information that the player knows (OOC).

Quote from: Bren;770280Too simple for my purposes.

For one thing, it lumps the play style of the original Lake Geneva gamers (which was pretty much the same as the way as my friends and I separately decided to play OD&D back in 1974) from people who play the newer style dramatic logic games. Which seems rather odd and not at all useful.

It also lumps the twerpy, asshat behavior I have occassionally seen in play with a more immersive (and to me satisfying) style of play.

A decision is not a playstyle.  You can break down OOC motivations into as many categories as you want, feel free, but they are still OOC motivations.  Tactical and Narrative are certainly two of them, but not all of them.

The "I'm only doing what my character would do" guy fucking with the party isn't using IC motivations, he's using OOC motivations of wanting to fuck with people and using roleplaying as a cover.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770294A decision is not a playstyle.  You can break down OOC motivations into as many categories as you want, feel free, but they are still OOC motivations.  Tactical and Narrative are certainly two of them, but not all of them.

The "I'm only doing what my character would do" guy fucking with the party isn't using IC motivations, he's using OOC motivations of wanting to fuck with people and using roleplaying as a cover.

yes, I could easily funnel Bren's 4 pieces into "IC" or "OOC".  Not saying that his options were invalid, just that they were one level up.

Quote from: Phillip;770279But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

I think the debate is as resolvable as how does actor acts. Everybody approaches it in their own way with varying results.

I am pretty good at roleplaying different personalities however from experience that what I do in order to roleplay doesn't always works for others. And vice versa.

The best approach is to experiment with a variety of methods until you find what works for you. Because we are talking about a shared leisure activity that includes what fun for you and your fellow players.

I will see say that first-person i.e. active roleplaying on average leads to a more immersive campaign. Also that roleplaying a different personality is not equivalent to active roleplaying. You can roleplay yourself as a character in a fantasy setting and still active roleplay.

Finally that by and large that the only out of game or metagame consideration a player should take into account in his roleplaying is whether it violates Wheaton's law (i.e. don't be a dick).

In the right group being a backstabbing lying son of a bitch won't violate Wheaton's law. It still may have bad in-game consequence but out of game the group is OK with it. In other groups this would be a major social issue.

Quote from: Bren;770280Too simple for my purposes.

For one thing, it lumps the play style of the original Lake Geneva gamers (which was pretty much the same as the way as my friends and I separately decided to play OD&D back in 1974) from people who play the newer style dramatic logic games. Which seems rather odd and not at all useful.

I agree with CK on this. Both groups acting as if they were in the game as their character. For the former the characters are largely a reflection of their personality, for the latter they adopt a vastly different personality.

Since the mid 80s I successfully intregrated both types of players in my campaigns. With the following rules.

1) Act as if you are really there as your character.
2) Speak in first person when you interact as your character.
3) Keep out of game consideration out of in game decision except when it would be poor sportmanship.
4) Accept with good sportmanship the consequences of your decision.  

These days with younger players I remind them that sportmanship is the equivalent of Wheaton's Law of  Don't be a dick.

Quote from: Bren;770280It also lumps the twerpy, asshat behavior I have occassionally seen in play with a more immersive (and to me satisfying) style of play.

I don't see that in what CK said. Everything that is said about tabletop roleplaying has to be taken in the light that it is a shared social leisure activity. The only way it work is for the participants to respect each other sensibilities. And if you can't then it time to find another leisure activity or another group.

Quote from: LordVreeg;770297yes, I could easily funnel Bren's 4 pieces into "IC" or "OOC".  Not saying that his options were invalid, just that they were one level up.

Yeah...
1. IC
2a. OOC: Tactical
2b. OOC: Narrative
2c. OOC: Social
...covers a lot, and you can fine tune from there.

Quote from: Phillip;770258What I'm talking about is that ways of talking about it are what you're calling role-playing, and that's not the thing itself.

Duder, I paraphrased the examples from the basic rules because I had not heard those specific terms used before and wondered if they were new, not because I intended to rewrite what RP means. Take it up with Mearls if you don't like it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770294A decision is not a playstyle.

Then it's a good thing I never said that it was. I just said looking at what paradigm people use to make their decisions is useful.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770294The "I'm only doing what my character would do" guy fucking with the party isn't using IC motivations, he's using OOC motivations of wanting to fuck with people and using roleplaying as a cover.

He quite possibly is using IC motivations if his character is a priest of Eurmal or a follower or incarnation of some other trickster deity. And after all it's not like we don't all encounter real people in the real world who seem to like fucking with the party as it were. It seems rather dubious to suggest that the real person isn't making an IC decision when deciding to act like a twerp. It seems similarly dubious to claim that every player decision to have a character act like a twerp is derived solely form OOC reasons.

Is the twerpy behavior more acceptable if he is acting from IC motivation?

Maybe, to you, but I doubt it is for most gamers. I suppose it might cause me to resolve the situation IC by having my Sword of Humakt separate the Eurmal twerp's soul from his body rather than me saying OOC "Stop doing that shit or go find somebody else to play with!"

Is the consensus that this particular jargon is somewhat new?

It beats the sweeping pejorative application of "powergamers" I seem to recall in C&S 2nd ed. (1983), anyhow.

Quote from: Bren;770303He quite possibly is using IC motivations if his character is a priest of Eurmal or a follower or incarnation of some other trickster deity. And after all it's not like we don't all encounter real people in the real world who seem to like fucking with the party as it were. It seems rather dubious to suggest that the real person isn't making an IC decision when deciding to act like a twerp. It seems similarly dubious to claim that every player decision to have a character act like a twerp is derived solely form OOC reasons.

It is one of those things that fall under "I know it when I see it."

The basic trait that distinguish the two situations is whether the person continues to act similarly out of game.

I played plenty of asshole characters including one in a current campaign. Even got player killed a couple of times (and the character rightly deserved it). But what prevented it from being a social problem was that not how I acted out of game. It was very obvious from my behavior that who I am in-game is not the same as who I am out of game.

And even with that it gets uncomfortable for a group. One example was from the current D&D campaign where  I am playing a Thief with a 6 charisma. Pretty much a rude right royal asshole with very little in the way of redeeming traits.

Most of the guys in the group I known for about six years or so. Middle age gamers that I became friendly in the wake of my blogging and publishing. One of them however is one my oldest friends that I known and gamed with for 30 years.

There was an early session of the campaign where his character caught my character stealing from the party treasure. He roleplays a cleric that a bit of a hardass and preceded to lay down the law. I roleplayed my character like the social retard he was which included among a lack of regard for the threat my friend's character poised.

After the exchange was finished there was silence and my friend asked "What up guys, why are you all quiet." And one of them said very seriously "Do you guys want to continue to playing?". My friend and I busted out laughing and explained that we were just roleplaying and it was all good. That what in-game is in-game.

The big problem with people getting bent out of shape about roleplaying is that they get invested in their characters. More invested than it is healthy. It is pretty much the original sin of RPGs and an issue that largely defied any resolution other than to learn how to display good sportmanship even when your 15th level fighter wielding a hackmaster class sword does a faceplant and dies.

Quote from: Phillip;770312Is the consensus that this particular jargon is somewhat new?

It beats the sweeping pejorative application of "powergamers" I seem to recall in C&S 2nd ed. (1983), anyhow.

the early, early consensus is that it is a useful addition, and that it is a twist, albeit a useful one, on the terminology we currently employ.  

Don't rush it.

Quote from: Phillip;770312Is the consensus that this particular jargon is somewhat new?

It beats the sweeping pejorative application of "powergamers" I seem to recall in C&S 2nd ed. (1983), anyhow.

I've never heard of IC/OOC emotive styles being powergaming. That was reserved for players actually out to amass... well... power... usually to absurd levels, hence the pejorative usage. That could be in or out of character.

The current jargon seems new, or at least different from what has gone before. I have seen very few RPGs that actually mention various tense of style. Even in play examples it can switch around.

Personal play style, Talk in character, narrate actions. Most of the games, with an exception to brand new players, do this.

I set players expectations to speak in first person and refer to their characters as "I", with the occasional slip up being fine.

Quote from: estar;770327After the exchange was finished there was silence and my friend asked "What up guys, why are you all quiet." And one of them said very seriously "Do you guys want to continue to playing?". My friend and I busted out laughing and explained that we were just roleplaying and it was all good. That what in-game is in-game.

Yeah, I've had another player come up after a game and apologize for upsetting me (We'd had a noisy in-character argument about slavery or something), and I was like... I'm not mad at you, why would I be? My character is upset with your character, because of what they said.

In general, if my characters need to act against the best wishes of another player character, then it's out to third-person narration and the group gets an explanation (Their characters, though, are about to have a very bad time). But that's because I know some players who would very much take it the wrong way otherwise.

The only thing I really prefer is players telling me what they're doing in terms of the game world, rather than in terms of the game mechanics, when the system allows for such.

Quote from: robiswrong;770460The only thing I really prefer is players telling me what they're doing in terms of the game world, rather than in terms of the game mechanics, when the system allows for such.

I encourage this whenever I can.  I've run full on Gurps* with new players no problem when I told them to tell me what they are attempting to do, and that I'll figure out the game bits.  I've never required knowledge of the game rules at my table when I GM.  Just the willingness to play a character (with a lot of preferences over requirements in that area too).

*Every rule on that didn't contradict another, more or less.

Quote from: Bren;770303He quite possibly is using IC motivations if his character is a priest of Eurmal or a follower or incarnation of some other trickster deity. And after all it's not like we don't all encounter real people in the real world who seem to like fucking with the party as it were. It seems rather dubious to suggest that the real person isn't making an IC decision when deciding to act like a twerp. It seems similarly dubious to claim that every player decision to have a character act like a twerp is derived solely form OOC reasons.

Someone being an asshat using RP as cover vs. someone RPing an asshat is really easy to spot if you've gamed with the person before or know them at all.  With brand new players, first to the table, choosing to RP a character type that will obviously cause friction with other characters is usually a sign that the player won't be around long...but not always.

Quote from: Bren;770303Is the twerpy behavior more acceptable if he is acting from IC motivation?  Maybe, to you, but I doubt it is for most gamers.

Appeal to the authority of an unprovable majority?  Seriously?  

Of course it matters whether it is really IC or not.  The character might have some perfectly good, yet hidden reason for being "twerpy".  The player might be roleplaying brilliantly based on info/orders given by the GM.

Quote from: Bren;770303I suppose it might cause me to resolve the situation IC by having my Sword of Humakt separate the Eurmal twerp's soul from his body rather than me saying OOC "Stop doing that shit or go find somebody else to play with!"

That's usually the best way to handle it, IC.  If you have someone who's trying to be purposely disruptive with IC cover, just play the other characters well, and things take care of themselves.  Once the disruptive player realizes they can't be disruptive with impunity, they stop showing up or become a useful addition to the table.

Quote from: estar;770327your 15th level fighter wielding a hackmaster class sword does a faceplant and dies.

Dibs on the sword!

Quote from: Bren;770272I don't really know what people mean by thespians in an RPG context.

When playing RPGs I see players make decisions about what their character does using four different decision paradigms.

1) Choose actions that the player believes will maximize character survival and advancement while minimizing character risk.

2) Choose actions that the player believes the character would make (based on character personality, background, culture, etc.) even if those choices may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or for telling a better story.

3) Choose actions that the player believes will make for telling a better story even if they may not be what the character would choose and may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement.

4) Choose actions for the whacky hijinks fun or to see what happens if they pull that lever, drink from that pool, or put horse pee in the Paladin's water skin even if that may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or telling a better story.

Most (probably all) players use more than one paradigm depending on situation (how big is the reward if we succeed, how risky is this action, how much does my character care about X, etc.) and on player mood and whim (I've had a tough day and I just want to kill stuff).

Well, I tend to blend 1 and 2.  I try to think "What would my guy do," but on the other hand "my guy isn't a fucking idiot."

Quote from: CRKrueger;770551Appeal to the authority of an unprovable majority?  Seriously?

It's not an appeal to authority though I do think annoying behavior doesn't suddenly become palatable because it is occuring for IC reasons. Whether or not I think the reasons are IC may change how I choose to deal with it.

Are you suggesting that most people are OK with any annoying behavior if it is in character? Seriously?

QuoteThat's usually the best way to handle it, IC.  If you have someone who's trying to be purposely disruptive with IC cover, just play the other characters well, and things take care of themselves.  Once the disruptive player realizes they can't be disruptive with impunity, they stop showing up or become a useful addition to the table.

Disagree. Handling it in character is a possible fall back to talking to the other human. Not the preferred or most effective default resolution.

Quote from: Old Geezer;770554Well, I tend to blend 1 and 2.  I try to think "What would my guy do," but on the other hand "my guy isn't a fucking idiot."

Me too. I do more of 2 and less of 1 now than I did in the mid 1970s, but it is always a mix. I also find it fun to find justifications under 2 for something I thought of using 1.

Quote from: Bren;770631Are you suggesting that most people are OK with any annoying behavior if it is in character? Seriously?

Nope. Me suggesting that I know what most other people would be ok with would be just as incorrect as when you said it.  

Interpersonal conflict between characters is just as much roleplaying as anything else, and in certain cases, makes even more sense then characters being of the same mind.  You keep using terms like "twerp" and "annoying" like you're used to playing with people who act like vaudeville rejects.  If so, you're talking about things I don't really see at tables around here.

Quote from: Bren;770631Disagree.

Ok.

Indeed.

Character interaction and even conflict can be part of the RP without being disruptive.

Unfortunately there are those, and too many of those, who use it as an excuse to be disruptive of the other players enjoyment.

Sorting them out is the hassle sometimes. But when things are rolling smoothly all is fine as long as everyone is on the same wavelength.

Example: One session I was in had a player with a character with a fear of the undead. He'd bolt at the first encounter with. Making them effectively useless for over two thirds of an adventure in a crypt once. It was annoying as all heck. But we knew of the quirk going in and so it was more annoying to the characters than the players. And it was not a quirk that was on ALL THE TIME. Scout a trapped bandit base? He was right there reconnoitering and disarming.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770640Nope. Me suggesting that I know what most other people would be ok with would be just as incorrect as when you said it.  

I assumed you were saying something you believed was true or factual rather than just stating how you like to play an RPG. I failed to read in an unwritten, "to me" after "it matters" in the statement below.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770551Of course it matters whether it is really IC or not.

I really can't argue with what matters to you.

QuoteInterpersonal conflict between characters is just as much roleplaying as anything else, and in certain cases, makes even more sense then characters being of the same mind.

Yes. I agree.

QuoteYou keep using terms like "twerp" and "annoying" like you're used to playing with people who act like vaudeville rejects.  If so, you're talking about things I don't really see at tables around here.

I keep using twerp and annoying to differentiate that behavior from the sort of intraparty conflict or friction that I'm used to seeing in games where the players are making an effort to play characters that have some reason to be part of the same group and to not shit on what the other people at the table enjoy. I've been gaming for 40 years so I have seen a lot of different play styles including players who were annoying twerps or who played annoying twerps.