TheRPGSite

Eleven ways to be a better Role player (http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/)

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.

#1 and #2 are basically the same thing: participate. Yeah, we've all dealt with that guy.

#3 presumes that characters are always on the same side, with the same goals. Usually, sure, but always? No. (And the longer a campaign goes on, the more likely the characters' goals will diverge, and even conflict. This is not a bad thing, so long as everyone acts like a grown up.)

#4 is basically "he who screws up first is in control." Generally speaking, a bad idea, and a road to boredom. Though in extreme cases, players need to be . . . nudged in the right direction. I had this conversation once (too many times), over a character that was ill-conceived as a lab rat:

"Why am I going on this mission? I'd rather stay in the lab."

"I dunno, why are you going? It's your character, you tell me. Otherwise, he'll stay behind in the lab. You might want a new character to actually play, though."

That was the last time I had that conversation with that player.

#5: see #3.

#6: Don't be a rules lawyer. Or, to genericize, act like a grown up. And again, while that's a pretty good rule, there are times when it matters. Specifically, if someone believes the rules say a particular thing (and are correct), and base their actions on that belief, and the GM changes the rules without the player knowing it until their character is screwed over (or dead), then the GM needs to rethink the whole situation. Or he's a dick. See the generic version of #6: act like a grown up.

#7: See #6: act like a grown up.

#8: See #6: act like a grown up.

#9: See #1/2: partcipate.

#10: See #1/2, and mix in a little #6.

#11: See #10.

So, to recap, we have:

Participate
Act like a grown up.

Only a couple of real points, but excellent points.

I think this article should makes for some interesting discussion.

Some of these seem like good points, others are not things I would want my players to embrace as rules to live by at all times. Number one is simple, but easily overlooked advice, and I think probably the best one on the list for making for a fun night of play. Number eight makes sense. I rarely see that sort of thing occur (one player genuinely upsetting another), but when it does, that is the right way to address the problem. Number seven is solid. I like where he is going with number six (rules lawyering) because he is emphasizing that the problem is arguing at length about rules. Every group will have a different level of toleration for that ort of thing, but understnding that at a certain point it is better to let it go than to waste game time continuing with an argument about the rules, is useful (I would add, if it is a big issue, raise it, and if can't be resolved quickly, try to discuss it after the game session).

Rules 3-5, while I understand the need to address them, I am a little less fond of. I think a better rule of thumb is to not be a jerk, but that doesn't mean things like number three, four or even number five should always be avoided, or that those can't be fun (some of my favorie sessions grew out of conflict between characters). I think there is a placefor that kind of stuff, but they do need to be approached cautiously because they can easily lead to emnity in the party (so I do undestand why he put those in there). .

I think there's an important corollary to #8 ("If you make someone uncomfortable, apologise and talk to them about it."): If you don't like what's happening, say so.

3, 4, 9, and 10 aren't really what I would call roleplaying guidelines, they're shared narration roleplaying guidelines.  They're the type of roleplaying you get when you are "roleplaying" within a fiction you're all creating instead of a world you're all inhabiting.

People go apeshit when someone tries to draw a distinction between a RPG world treated as a "World in Motion" as opposed to a type of fiction(or literary form as Robin Laws would have it), but this distinction is crucial and fundamental to describing the experience, and 3, 4, 9 and 10 of this list prove it.

Quote from: The ListTHREE. Don’t try to stop things.
Negating another player’s actions is fairly useless play; it takes two possible story-changing elements and whacks them against each other so hard that neither of them works. For example, your fighter wants to punch some jerk, but your monk’s against it, so he grabs the fighter’s hand. In game terms, nothing’s happened.

Instead, go with the flow. Build. If the fighter wants to break someone’s nose, what happens after that? Does your monk rush to help the jerk up? To admonish the fighter? To apologise to the jerk’s friends, before shit really kicks off? To save the fighter in the big brawl that ensues, even though he was going against your will? Or to throw the biggest guy in the tavern right at him, to really teach him a lesson? Those are all examples of interesting stories. Stopping him from doing anything whatsoever isn’t.

This advice has nothing to do with the characters involved but the players.  It's telling the player to NOT roleplay his character first, but to keep an eye to the story and build on the story the other guy has created.  It's basically saying "Don't cockblock other's storytelling."

Quote from: The ListFOUR. Take full control of your character.
“My character wouldn’t do that” is a boring excuse, a massive NO to the game’s story on a fundamental level. It’s a point-blank refusal to participate.
Instead of being bound by pre-conceived notions of what your character would and would not do, embrace complications and do it, but try to work out why. Why is your Rogue doing this mission for the church? Does he have ulterior motives? Is it out of a sense of companionship with the rest of the party? Characters in uncomfortable situations are the meat and drink of drama.
(Do you remember that great story about that hobbit who told Gandalf to fuck off, and sat at home picking his hairy toes all day before his entire village was swallowed up by the armies of darkness? No. No you bloody don’t. So put on your backpack and get out there, Frodo)
If you keep finding yourself having to explain your actions, or not wanting to go along with group decisions because of your character’s motives… well, sweetheart, maybe your character’s motives are wrong. They’re not written in stone. The group’s the thing, not your snowflake character, and if they’re not working, drop them off at the next village and maybe try playing someone more open to new ideas. Maybe work with the group to build a character that fits in.
Your character is part of the story; this is not your character’s story.

Now a lot of people are going to endorse this advice because it basically says "Don't be a dick" which is fine.  Unfortunately, it doesn't say, "Don't be a dick" it says "Don't fuck with the collaborative storytelling."  How does it do that?  By saying the character's motives aren't set in stone.  Sure, a character can change organically over play in response to situations that happen in a game world, just like we can in life.  However, that's not what this person is suggesting, what he's suggesting is "Alter your character to go with the flow." or as they put it "Your character is part of the story." Note, not part of the world, setting or what have you.

Quote from: The ListNINE. Be a Storyteller.
The World of Darkness books call their GM a Storyteller, because they are very obviously unable to call a spade a spade. But they have a point; a GM is telling stories. It’s easy to forget that the players are doing that too.
So put some effort in, eh? Say some words. Develop a character voice and stance. Describe your actions. Work out a level of agency with the GM so you can chip into wider descriptions, or just make assumptions and describe it and see if it sticks. A good GM should go with what you’re saying, anyway, unless it really goes against their plan.
Similarly, brevity = soul of wit, and all that. A good GM doesn’t monologue, or have their NPCs have long discussions, or make players sit back and watch while their world plays out. So know when to shut up, and to keep your descriptions short – unless you’re an incredible storyteller, of course. But short and punchy is always better than long and flowery.

Advice for a player who likes to have agency and authorial power in the world outside his character but within his character's life.  We've had specific threads about this exact topic, so won't recap here.

Quote from: The ListTEN. Embrace failure.
Failure can be embarrassing. I know that I get pretty het up when the dice don’t favour me – when I’ve spent ages waiting to have my turn in a large game, say, or when I’m using some special power, or when I’ve been talking a big talk for a while or described some fancy action – and I use some pretty bad language, too. And not “fun” bad language, like we all do when we’re gaming. Like threatening “is this guy okay” bad.
And that’s not cool. I need to learn to treat failure as a story branch, not a block. Why did I miss? Why didn’t my intimidation roll work? Why didn’t I pick the lock? Why was I seen? Who worked out that I’m the traitor? What other options can I explore?
Some systems build this in by default – Apocalypse World, for example – and they give you the ability to somehow affect the world whenever you roll the dice, not just fail to affect someone’s Hit Points. That’s great! We need to get ourselves into that mindset by default. We need to view failures as setbacks and explain why our character didn’t achieve their goal, and we need to understand that failure is not the end of the world.

Now here again, a lot of people are just going to say good advice, because you can sum this up as "Failure can be interesting."  Again the important part is how it's said.  It's not interesting from the perspective of the character, but of the story.  "I need to learn to treat failure as a story branch, not a block."  If this guy is treating character failure as a story block or branch, guess where his mind is at the time, IC or OOC?  Immersed in the world as a character, or immersed in the story as a player and part author?  It's not a coincidence that he embraces the "Success with Complications" of the AW system as this always leads to moving the story forward, somehow.

tl;dr version - the guy has a roleplaying list with almost half the suggestions requiring an OOC mindset with an eye on the shared narration.  Fundmentally different mindset behind the word "Roleplaying".

I think that when in a gaming session you find yourself thinking "But my guy would not do that" you are kind of screwed either way. You can either go with the flow and in doing so lose your connection with your character till effectively you stop caring or you make a stand and potentially mess up the game session for everyone else too.

Giving 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.  

Note that going with the flow isn't necessarily just about following the GM's story in can also be something that comes from the other players which you find jarring.

Quote from: CRKrueger;6647493, 4, 9, and 10 aren't really what I would call roleplaying guidelines, they're shared narration roleplaying guidelines.

I feel the same way.

"TWO. Realise that your character does not exist outside of the things you have said. You can write as many pages of backstory as you like, mate, but they don’t factor in one bit to the game unless you show them happening."

This one raised my eyebrow: This is not how I feel about my characters, their backstories, actions and motivations, whether I am GM or player. They certainly do exist beyond whatever comes out of my mouth and makes it in the limelight at the game table. I actually role play my character and some thoughts are not expressed, some backstory elements are never spelled out but present when I make decisions as my character, some group or faction doesn't appear in the action of the game but is at work in the background and influences the events, etc. Role playing is something that is internal and external, and the existence and interactions of these elements in the background, in my mind, in the imaginary world around, beyond the game table, is a big part of what interests me in playing a role playing game. Without that, I might as well play "Once Upon A Time" or line up the minis and play HeroClix instead.

Quote from: Benoist;664760I feel the same way.

"TWO. Realise that your character does not exist outside of the things you have said. You can write as many pages of backstory as you like, mate, but they don't factor in one bit to the game unless you show them happening."

This one raised my eyebrow: This is not how I feel about my characters, their backstories, actions and motivations, whether I am GM or player. They certainly do exist beyond whatever comes out of my mouth and makes it in the limelight at the game table. I actually role play my character and some thoughts are not expressed, some backstory elements are never spelled out but present when I make decisions as my character, some group or faction doesn't appear in the action of the game but is at work in the background and influences the events, etc. Role playing is something that is internal and external, and the existence and interactions of these elements in the background, in my mind, in the imaginary world around, beyond the game table, is a big part of what interests me in playing a role playing game. Without that, I might as well play "Once Upon A Time" or line up the minis and play HeroClix instead.

Sorry about the "Me too." post but yeah, this is largely how I feel too. The backstory, to me, is essential part of the character; what makes them an (albeit imaginary) person with a past, goals and motivation not just a playing piece or an avatar moving around an imaginary game board. This doesn't mean they can never change but I'd want it to be organic, something that stems from the experience and growth as a person not just because the people they hang out with decide they want to do something.

Of course, there has to be some compromise. That's why the player should work with their gm and other players. Ask questions, make (and take) suggestions to a create that will be engrossing to play and "work" (whatever the group's definition is) in the game's premise.

Quote from: Nexus;664769Of course, there has to be some compromise. That's why the player should work with their gm and other players. Ask questions, make (and take) suggestions to a create that will be engrossing to play and "work" (whatever the group's definition is) in the game's premise.

Session Zero is paramount in that regard.

I 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!

So half of these suggestions is favoring subsuming character roleplay into party role roleplay. I don't do that unless I agree to that up front. He can take those 'universal' suggestions and shove it. I get to play enough RPGs without such assumed bullshit.

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!

So half of these suggestions is favoring subsuming character roleplay into party role roleplay. I don't do that unless I agree to that up front. He can take those 'universal' suggestions and shove it. I get to play enough RPGs without such assumed bullshit.

Well put, and part of my gripe with points 3 - 5, because the advice basically reads "You need to be ready to sacrifice your character concept and fun for the rest of the group". Which is swell, but it also works the other way around, or at least it should. I'll use the recent mediocre Warhammer campaign I was playing in, to illustrate my gripes.

Number 3:

The problem with "not stopping things" is how much that affects the character concept. As I pointed out before, I crashed an invisible wall by roughing up some junkie NPC that was apparently a Very Important NPC to the GM (which made guards I bribed moments before to arrive a minute after the fight started...I wish real world police was that effective). If the party stopped me there, rather than watch a scene unfold, a lot of sour feelings would have been perhaps avoided, and I could've been talked down from that action. On the other hand, generally speaking, it is worth sometimes to sit down and plan before action, so such things don't arise - but that's mostly before the action itself goes down. Of course, it's another thing that this ties into point 5 - since PvP is verboten, you shouldn't lay a hand on a fellow player anyway. And again - if a character is too problematic, perhaps you ought to change the character?

Number 4:

This is a very problematic advice. On one hand - you've signed up to play a game about adventurers, be one (burn the fucking barge and all that - though the GM should also allow players to pursuit their economical leisures. Heck, my A&8's game is built around this very notion, with players mostly doing their "day jobs", occasionally hitting across some adventure, as they plan to take over the town). On the other hand, this advice has a huge hole - namely, that sometimes doing this would lead to your character concept entirely breaking.

Another example from the Warhammer game, last session in fact. We've found some necromancer guy, who turned out to be possessed by a demon of Tzeentch. Me, playing this tough dwarven mercenary (who has hired 3 thugs as "cannon fodder" - though they've indeed saved my skin), knock the wizard out when he's turned (or he attacked me, I don't remember - maybe he was possessed for a moment) and tie him up. At some point the wizard starts talking about how he's possessed and needs help getting the demon out. I'm of course saying that we need him to translate what we came for, and we're taking him to the Inquisitor to get our dwarven pal released. At some point I see party members whispering between themselves, and when I see one of them going for untying the wizard, I raise my shield and ask what the hell is going on, so we get into this argument and the declaration sticks that they are trying to untie the wizard. So I tell them (IC, that is) that I sod this, and if they want to trust some Chaos hellspawn, they can do so, but without me. I order my hirelings to help me take the safe we've found in sorcerer's laboratory, and tail it out of there. I mean, I'm a loyal mercenary (to the point of nearly killing a guy who threatened a wizardess who hired me), but there are limits, and consorting with Chaos is certainly one of them.

It turned out I was right and the "perfectly safe" ritual turned out transfusing the demon into the wizardess, but that's another point. My point is - sometimes it's alright to loose a character, in a way that retires it by leaving the party.  There are some moments where it's preferable to leaving than breaking your character too much, especially perhaps if the party is visibly doing stupid stuff (by Warhammer's standards, trusting a warlock possessed by a demon is not exactly smart stuff).

Another problem with this advice that it basically comes from this idea that "the group that slays together stays together". It's alright for the party to split, usually temporary, sometimes permanently - we had once, in a different (and better) Warhammer campaign our merchant "buddy" run off with the entire loot - and straight after a truly bloody and horrifying battle, that'd think that made us comrades, you bastard! He got his own piece of campaign with some friends of the GM, while me and some of the mates continued with our own. And after I've recruited a certain dwarven engineer to our party, well - we went to get my revenge. But that's a story for another time. Let's just say that our former buddy got himself a pretty profitable business, so it was a Lock Stock and 2 Smocking Barrels: Nuln Edition. I'll admit I let him live because he was a PC though, and because my character wasn't entirely bloodthirsty madman - to say, that some OOC consideration is alright when you talk about in - party conflict. But it's also understandable if it's sometimes thrown out of the window.

On a less "hardcore" end of the spectrum, are the "I don't like to do this" splits - a posh wizard may not wish to go to a particularly bad tavern, or as it happens in my current Aces & Eights game, the party's professional Gambler, who's coming from rich Southern family, isn't exactly a hunting aficionado and would rather not dirty his fine suits by doing so. So while the rest of the party went off to hunt, he stayed behind in town to make connections and gamble (which already nearly landed him in trouble as croupier spotted his cheating...but fortunately, as he dislikes his boss, was more than willing to strike a deal with a caught pro). And as it turns out, it was a blessing in disguise, as the guy who plays the Gambler can only make the date next week when no other player can - so I can lead 2 separate game sessions, without much trouble.

Point 5 - again, I agree, don't be a dick for the most part. For example, if your party member is trapped on a drowning ship, why would you abandon him (this happened to me, and I've later had to save that bastard's skin because I hadn't slightest IC clue)? But on the other hand - there are moments when violence may be the only answer, for example the scene I've just described above - I've left because I could sense that it'd come to blows, and I did not fancy my chances against the three, especially given the wizard's bloody sleep ability. But if they'd try to keep me from taking the safe out, I'd either give them the ultimatum to keep the sorcerer tied and then I stay, or get the hell out of my way or I'll cut them down - Chaos consorts needn't receive mercy, even, or especially, fellow dwarves. There are just sometimes moments when it may be the only option left.

And 'allowing' PvP may in fact enrich a play. I've play this one Warhammer one - shot, where we were basically Ye Olde Scum robbing a church of Sigmar. Everything kind of went south as we were doing so, and we've discovered ourselves in the middle of a burning city besieged by some odd forces, stealing something that turned out to be a heavy, solid chunk of Warpstone and a powerful artefact of, I think, Nurgle, as it allowed the holder to control undead who busted into the church. So, the guy who grabbed the artefact, suddenly has us swearing loyalty to him...and of course, I do so. Meanwhile, the others two don't, and Inquisitor and his loyal knight posse runs into the church. One guy gets eaten by zombies, one is press ganged by the Inquisitor into service, while me and this other guy flee outside the city. As we are a mile outside of it, quite safe, I suddenly think to myself - "Why should I listen to this guy?" So I basically ask everyone to stop talking for a moment...and roll To Hit, while saying that I stab the other guy in the back. Not only did I hit, but I also rolled a 10 on damage, which as everyone who played 2e knows that this opens the Gateway to Pain aka additional damage roll chance, which I got. And so, with the obstacle taken out, I took the Artefact of Nurgle and proclaim that if anyone's here is going to become a powerful necromancer, it's going to be bloody me...then finished the guy off.

Everything entirely IC, and even from a story perspective - a pretty sweet ending.

There was also this time when our party's demonologist was stabbed by us in the sleep, but if you were playing one in WFRP 1e, you were asking for it, especially if you rolled one of those Really Socially Bad occupation diseases. The player was in decent spirits about it, as he did kind of threaten us with bloody death the day before, if we did not do as he told.

Quote from: Benoist;664760I feel the same way.

"TWO. Realise that your character does not exist outside of the things you have said. You can write as many pages of backstory as you like, mate, but they don't factor in one bit to the game unless you show them happening."

This one raised my eyebrow: This is not how I feel about my characters, their backstories, actions and motivations, whether I am GM or player. They certainly do exist beyond whatever comes out of my mouth and makes it in the limelight at the game table. I actually role play my character and some thoughts are not expressed, some backstory elements are never spelled out but present when I make decisions as my character, some group or faction doesn't appear in the action of the game but is at work in the background and influences the events, etc...

Quote from: Nexus;664769Sorry about the "Me too." post but yeah, this is largely how I feel too. The backstory, to me, is essential part of the character; what makes them an (albeit imaginary) person with a past, goals and motivation not just a playing piece or an avatar moving around an imaginary game board....

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree in part here. It seems to me what the writer is going on about is "your character does not exist to anyone else at the table outside of the things you have said". In other words,

1. If the other players don't know your backstory, unless you do something that reveals it, it doesn't exist for them.

2. There is also the related issue of backstories that exist only on paper, and have no affect on play. Take something as cliche as "my family was killed by orcs". If the player never plays the PC as being affected by that, then the backstory is meaningless.

I do think you are onto something about an ideology that emphasizes the party, and I think it's at play here as well, in that the emphasis seems to be on sharing your PC's history with the other players by showing them with your PC's actions, rather than simply telling them, or keeping it completely private.

One is the old writing mantra of show, don't tell.

Quote from: apparition13;664868Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree in part here. It seems to me what the writer is going on about is "your character does not exist to anyone else at the table outside of the things you have said". In other words,

1. If the other players don't know your backstory, unless you do something that reveals it, it doesn't exist for them.

2. There is also the related issue of backstories that exist only on paper, and have no affect on play. Take something as cliche as "my family was killed by orcs". If the player never plays the PC as being affected by that, then the backstory is meaningless.

I do think you are onto something about an ideology that emphasizes the party, and I think it's at play here as well, in that the emphasis seems to be on sharing your PC's history with the other players by showing them with your PC's actions, rather than simply telling them, or keeping it completely private.

One is the old writing mantra of show, don't tell.

That's not the read I got from the article but it is a very reasonable interpretation (and one I find generally more agreeable).

Quote from: Nexus;664873That's not the read I got from the article but it is a very reasonable interpretation (and one I find generally more agreeable).

It actually says that in the article at the end of that point:

Quote from: THE LISTSo display your talents, your traits, your weaknesses, your connections. Take every opportunity to show, and not tell, the other people at the table what your character is about.

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.

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

Within the context of the rest of the article it comes across differently. Did to me anyway. YMMV. Welcome to the board, btw :)

Quote from: Nexus;664656Eleven ways to be a better Role player (http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/)

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.

Quote from: taustin;665792If 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.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Do you mean that the person going off by themselves deserves more than thier fair share of attention?

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.

Yeah going all passive aggressive is the answer. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665799I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Do you mean that the person going off by themselves deserves more than thier fair share of attention?

You seem to believe that a player should never be out of character. That's creepy in the say way that some ventriloquists pretend (or actually believe) their puppet is real.

People like you are the reason most people think RPGers are weird.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665789An out of character discussion can be held after the game.

Sure, you're welcome to play that way.  For myself, if someone doesn't like what's going on, I want to know right away.  I find the experience is fairly resilient to out-of-character interruptions - they happen constantly anyways. (e.g. physical space considerations, snacking, bathroom breaks, working out modifiers, mechanical resolution).  So if someone's identified their #1 obstacle to having more fun, why not share it right away so we can see if the group is willing to meet their need?

Quote from: Sommerjon;665806Yeah going all passive aggressive is the answer. :rolleyes:

Would it be passive aggressive if 3 characters went a different way and the GM split his attention in half, spending 30 minutes with each group?

It is proportionately the same thing.

Quote from: taustin;665810You seem to believe that a player should never be out of character. That's creepy in the say way that some ventriloquists pretend (or actually believe) their puppet is real.

People like you are the reason most people think RPGers are weird.

There is a difference between being in character all the time and playing in character.

Never being out of character would be like a method actor on a movie set, never breaking character even during breaks. That is a little weird.

Playing in character means that the game is approached from a roleplaying perspective. Out of character comments happen, and the GM will be asked questions by the player directly with regard to clarifying some info about the fictional environment.  So if the player asks the GM " Did you say the entire floor was made of red and black marble", that doesn't mean the character is speaking those words.

Roleplaying is a first person perspective activity. One can step out of roleplaying mode to narrate something (GMs need to do this frequently) but that doesn't change the fact that the roleplaying stops when the narration begins.

I personally enjoyed seeing a list of what the players need to do.  So much vitriol is aimed at GMs not meeting player expectations.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665821Roleplaying is a first person perspective activity. One can step out of roleplaying mode to narrate something (GMs need to do this frequently) but that doesn't change the fact that the roleplaying stops when the narration begins.

For you. Other people have different preferences. Until you can provide me with a receipt proving you own the english language, you don't get to mandate what words mean.

Quote from: taustin;665836For you. Other people have different preferences. Until you can provide me with a receipt proving you own the english language, you don't get to mandate what words mean.

role-play/ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Show Spelled [rohl-pley] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction.


I don't own the English language but I DO use it. You are free to use it as incorrectly as you desire.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665842role-play/ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Show Spelled [rohl-pley] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction.


I don't own the English language but I DO use it. You are free to use it as incorrectly as you desire.

I'm so happy you know how to use Google. You're still full of shit, and you know it. Plus, now matter how furiously you stomp your feet, hands over your ears, screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU," you still don't get to tell other people how to play. Must really suck to be you.

I suspect that definition is more the clinical psychology definition than the gaming definition. The mere fact that there's a 1 at the beginning says it's not the only definition from your source, but of course you cherry picked the one that makes you look the least stupid. And didn't mention what that source was, naturally.

Dude, you really aren't very good at this.

Is there perhaps a disconnect here between two common uses of roleplaying?

1) Participating in an RPG is 'roleplaying'.  Maybe we're on a pizza break and I get a call from a friend who asks "what are you doing" so I answer "roleplaying"

2) Playing in character is roleplaying while you participate in RPGs (often the alternative to roll playing)

I for one have known a great number of roleplayers who only roll-play.

Werds iz fun!

I'll give a recent example, Exploderwizard, why this does not work in practice:

My character from a D&D 4e game was designed around very specific 4e-isms. While I was absent one session, it was decided that the game system had to be converted to 3e/PF. It was an exercise in showing how the two are really incompatible; the character ended up really unorthodox in stats/build.

So I come back, and after being handed a 7 page tax form of a character sheet (instead of the 4 page one I had previously :rolleyes:), I find out "there will be combat!" I soon learn my new character does not function as intended.

However my non-combat stuff stays relatively useful, and as that was the original focus I work on that. I develop a setting cause célèbre and plan to work through that. There's an adventurer's bulletin board of quests and it looks like the party will have a chance to split up.

I'm absent again, and in that session the entire party is hoisted two week's travel away into the high mountains, my PC included. I return with no appropriate cold weather, high mountain gear, no real reason to be there as I was busy with something else in town, and completely gimped from system conversion and general prestige class overwhelming system mastery -- oh and I didn't have gear to bump me up into competent fighting form. Fine, whatever. Really, how long could it take to just hang with the party doing something my character never would have done.

Our group was there for 6 whole sessions... (it was biweekly, too. so three whole months!)

I sat out whole combats because I literally had no point being there. This is 3e/PF with powergaming so there's no "shuffle minor items around and other useful small effects" things to do. Torches, tanglefoot bags, oil flasks, all of it useless garbage as everything was being played up-level, with a level gain per session (including me, though I had no idea why). I literally sat upon a stair and watched other PCs fight mobs FOR HOURS.

I had no reason to be there, I had no combat effect whatsoever, so I had to invent other things for my PC to do. I became comedic space as a general docent and active tourist. I would have been better off playing some disposable hireling instead, as I stated openly more than once. My character should not have been there, though the GM made a Herculean effort to accomodate my PC after the fact.

Lesson: It's OK to let parties split. Party splitting and "my character wouldn't do that"  only becomes a problem when the accepted conceit is the party always stays together, not even swapping out to other PCs or temp NPCs. Not every character cares or needs equal XP growth. Not every character needs to be witness to the same 'plot points.' No really, we can separate amicably and return on our own terms.

Quote from: Opaopajr;665917I'll give a recent example, Exploderwizard, why this does not work in practice:

My character from a D&D 4e game was designed around very specific 4e-isms. While I was absent one session, it was decided that the game system had to be converted to 3e/PF. It was an exercise in showing how the two are really incompatible; the character ended up really unorthodox in stats/build.

In practice, you were in a very shitty game. Who switches systems mid-game without consulting all the players?

The thing to do if everyone wasn't satisfied with the 4E game was start over with 3E/ PF characters not pound square (har har) pegs into round holes.

System switching, though ugly, wasn't nearly as bad as dragging a character who really shouldn't have been there in any shape or form. Mechanical weakness aside, my character setting decisions fought against my being there. Only the tangential relation of PC racial 'lost ruin' made any connection. So I made it a pilgrimage of sorts and rolled repeated on Knowledge skills to at least feign relevance.

IMO, you only really hear "my character wouldn't do that" when you have glued-to-the-hip party dynamics. It's the PCs fighting a table conceit. Drop the table conceit and work around it and everything is fine.

And for the record, I'm OK with splitting time unequally. I regularly divide the "hour" equally, so 4 players off to dungeon crawling, and 2 off to city crawling will be divided into 40 min. and 20 min. respectively. But I also leave the option for NPC or hireling play so the out players don't have to just watch. However you'll be surprised how many players are good with just watching. So it really isn't a passive-aggressive issue, as long as you are upfront and give options.

Quote from: Opaopajr;665940System switching, though ugly, wasn't nearly as bad as dragging a character who really shouldn't have been there in any shape or form. Mechanical weakness aside, my character setting decisions fought against my being there. Only the tangential relation of PC racial 'lost ruin' made any connection. So I made it a pilgrimage of sorts and rolled repeated on Knowledge skills to at least feign relevance.

IMO, you only really hear "my character wouldn't do that" when you have glued-to-the-hip party dynamics. It's the PCs fighting a table conceit. Drop the table conceit and work around it and everything is fine.

And for the record, I'm OK with splitting time unequally. I regularly divide the "hour" equally, so 4 players off to dungeon crawling, and 2 off to city crawling will be divided into 40 min. and 20 min. respectively. But I also leave the option for NPC or hireling play so the out players don't have to just watch. However you'll be surprised how many players are good with just watching. So it really isn't a passive-aggressive issue, as long as you are upfront and give options.

Yup. This is why I really like more open parties for campaign play. Players can drop in and out of the campaign as thier schedule permits and play either thier primary character, or an associate as the situation calls for.