How do you roleplay? (Forked from Narrative thread)

[Harime Nui]

Perhaps, then, there is some connection between narrativist/forgey/storygamey/whatever-you-want-to-call-them mechanics and short-term games?  Not necessarily that one causes or requires the other, but perhaps they work better together than trying to run a long-term campaign with forgey rules?

Yeah, I think so.  Thinking of the few storygames I know off the top of my head, Dread doesn't seem meant to last longer than maybe 1-2 sessions (and usually ends with everybody dead); I've never heard of an Apocalypse World/Dungeon World type game that didn't devolve into Porky Pig in Wackyland by session 3 and run out of steam soon after.  

If you're going to create a campaign that players are gonna keep coming back to for session after session for years, you basically can't let them feel like it's their own playground.

[Opaopajr]

On RPG StackExchange are abundant other examples of gameworld-warping even as advice praised by the crowd there, most of which would have me leave a game right away. Or players who want to say they are playing an actual game with risks but seem to actually want the GM to make them automatically win and be the cool heroes and not ever have any setbacks. And the community there seems to encourage enabling this and to discourage suggesting a game with actual risks and consequences. e.g...

Well that place sounds thoroughly horrible to me. Nice to know another forum where to not waste my time. We're far too incompatible to be reconcilable, it seems, and there's no use trying to make it work.

Thanks for the heads up!

[Gronan of Simmerya]

No it didn't sound that way to me. And those were good ideas for ways to deal with those problems. But I wanted to make explicit that there were multiple things going on in each example, and while having good GM techniques for them is good, I meant them as examples of types of metagame gameworld-warping that I like to avoid.

On RPG StackExchange are abundant other examples of gameworld-warping even as advice praised by the crowd there, most of which would have me leave a game right away. Or players who want to say they are playing an actual game with risks but seem to actually want the GM to make them automatically win and be the cool heroes and not ever have any setbacks. And the community there seems to encourage enabling this and to discourage suggesting a game with actual risks and consequences. e.g.

Question: "How do I handle offended players as GM?" Synopsis: My players said they wanted a "dark, rough and dangerous" game, but when they wiped out everything in my adventure (BTW I fudged some rolls that would have killed them so they wouldn't die) and started killing their way through other areas and took on more strong enemies despite my warnings, they started sulking when some of them took some temporary hitpoint loss. "Both players were really pissed that they got wounded and lost interest in the game. They were offended and upset and the game began to stall. How do I handle such players?"

Most popular answer: (Advice on perspective very diplomatically worded and then: ) "If you must make players fail and suffer harsh consequences, you should try to minimise both how hard the failure should hit and how powerless they are as a result." ... "If they're already frustrated, you should do what you can to give them back some power." ... "rush to a conclusion: say that most of the fight goes out of the enemy as soon as the players kill the next one, or say "okay, you kill the rest of them, we don't really need to bother rolling dice, you're going to win eventually""

Another answer saying basically that "coddling" the players by not letting them lose or even take temporary damage was neither dangerous nor much of a game, and made other good points without being diplomatically worded to shield the feelings of players who might identify with these immature players, got downvoted and actually deleted by moderators.

Similar for questions about what to do when a PC dies. "Have them make a new character of equivalent power and have it show up right away." or "Let them have the character's twin appear." or "Let them get ressurrected immediately." seem to be popular options, while suggestions about serious consequences for dying tend to get a "boo hiss" especially if one expresses that one doesn't like or see the point of pretending to be in a dangerous situation in an actually-consequence-free game.

Once again, clarity of expectations.  I always say, first thing, there is no guarantee that any player character will survive even a single session.

Truthfully, some people want to be doing table top freeform RPing, not playing a game with winning and losing.  That's OK, but that's why expectations need to be clear.

[ArrozConLeche]

Sounds a bit like the lifepath stuff in CP2020.

[Sommerjon]

Yeah. I remember. It sounded incoherent the first time. It still does the second time.

I don't care how you play let's pretend in your own time, but it is rather annoying to hear you whine over and over that the only reason other people don't agree with you is tradition or something.

For someone who says they don't care how someone plays let's pretend you get all bent when they don't agree with you about let's pretend.
Whine over and over?  Touched a nerve I see.

You might try doing us the courtesy of accepting that we actually do know what we like when we play.

Strange that you demand this of me, but you seem to be immune to those rules.

To sum up:

1. You directly quote me.
2. I reply.
3. You claim that you never "bothered to respond" to me.

That sort of blatant lie really bodes well for the intellectual content of your post.

Far as I need to go, the rest in just asinine.
I referred to the hyperbolic statement.  Unless you want to claim that type of buffoonery is being realistic.

Looking at your sig, I understand, that you have a constant desire of recognition by others, but holy hell dude if you really need my referencing of your hyperbolic statement to be me responding to you by a direct quote.  By all means let it be so.

[Ravenswing]

Oh geez... that would derail me too. My first thoughts are ...

You're kinder than I'd likely be, with that manner of trainwreck of a gaming style.  Depending on how much sleep I didn't get the night before, the words out of my mouth might be "What, out that window?  I see Donald Trump fellating a goat, accompanied by a kick line of emperor penguins dressed in Dallas Cowboys uniforms, while a marching band plays the Horst Wessel Song set to a disco beat.  Want me to describe the goat as well, or would you rather pick up the pengui -- err, ball, yourself?"

When I'm not GMing, I don't want to bother with narrative descriptions.  That's part of the point of being a player.

[Bren]

Strange that you demand this of me, but you seem to be immune to those rules.

Your claim is that you know why other people play in a traditional style. And your claim is that we are wrong or lying about the reasons we provided, but that you know better than we do why we like what we like. That is arrogant and discourteous.

I never claimed to know better than you why you like to play let's pretend in a group improv style. I assume you feel that group improv play is more fun for you than playing with a traditional GM.

Am I wrong?

[Ratman_tf]

I don't play in literary genres, I play in worlds that are alternate universes, that could be just as real as ours.  They have their own physics and cosmology and while some things are the same as ours, others aren't.  

How do you roleplay?

For myself, I like games that are inspired by generes, but don't necessarily try to emulate them. For example,  a game with magic is going to need to handle how magic works somehow, but that's different from emuating how magic works in Middle Earth versus how it works in He-Man.
But it's a fine line, and one I don't care to draw. But it's a guideline that's served me well enough when deciding whether to be inspired by something, or directly try to emulate it.

[Nexus]

For myself, I like games that are inspired by generes, but don't necessarily try to emulate them. For example,  a game with magic is going to need to handle how magic works somehow, but that's different from emuating how magic works in Middle Earth versus how it works in He-Man.
But it's a fine line, and one I don't care to draw. But it's a guideline that's served me well enough when deciding whether to be inspired by something, or directly try to emulate it.

It is difficult to exactly describe where the line lays but I feel the same way. I tend to adjust things to take out or mitigate the tropes and conventions that I don't like or feel are untenable in the rpg medium. Its a hazy and arbitrary line but it works for me.

[Sommerjon]

Your claim is that you know why other people play in a traditional style. And your claim is that we are wrong or lying about the reasons we provided, but that you know better than we do why we like what we like. That is arrogant and discourteous.

I never claimed to know better than you why you like to play let's pretend in a group improv style. I assume you feel that group improv play is more fun for you than playing with a traditional GM.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

I don't run or play group improv style.

If the GM never bothered to determine, then the player gets to determine.
I don't believe that the player needs to suggest and the Gm needs to make a call anymore. Hanging around here helped me reach that conclusion. The GM already made the call on it by never bothering to determine.

As for the other part I need go no further than 'play in a traditional style'  you make my point for me.

[Bren]

Yes.

I don't run or play group improv style.

If the GM never bothered to determine, then the player gets to determine.
I don't believe that the player needs to suggest and the Gm needs to make a call anymore. Hanging around here helped me reach that conclusion. The GM already made the call on it by never bothering to determine.

What do you think improv is? You have repeatedly said that anything the GM hasn't specifically defined is open to any player improvisation-ally creating whatever he wants with no ability of the GM to curate or veto the player's creation, because the GM is not allowed to step on another player's creation. This is improv!*

As for the other part I need go no further than 'play in a traditional style'  you make my point for me.

Again you misunderstand. I think intentionally.

Traditional is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive term. It is shorthand for a long definition that includes playing in an imaginary world, treating that world as having a reality of its own, the GM as prime creator, the players taking on roles as beings existing in that world, the players affecting the world through the actions of their PCs but not through an ability to author the reality of the world during play, etc.

I call that traditional because (a) that is a much shorter thing to type and I am lazy, (b) that is how games were played by those who first played them and, in my lengthy experience, that is how the majority of people first played those games back in the day so there is a tradition behind that style of play - hence the term, and (c) most people (but apparently not you) seem to understand what is meant by the shorthand.

I play in a fairly traditional way, because I like playing that way better than the alternatives I've seen, including the "player gets to call dibs a shotgun behind the bar" style of play that you seem to love.


* Best when said in an over-the-top imitation of Gerald "This is Sparta" Butler.

[Sommerjon]

What do you think improv is? You have repeatedly said that anything the GM hasn't specifically defined is open to any player improvisation-ally creating whatever he wants with no ability of the GM to curate or veto the player's creation, because the GM is not allowed to step on another player's creation. This is improv!*

Again you misunderstand, looks like intentionally.

When a player "talks in character" and a GM responds by "talking in character"  is that improv?  If it's not what is it?  More of this tradition you speak of?

There are restraints to what a player is capable of doing.  I wouldn't think, still don't, that this has to be completely laid out here, I seem to be wrong.
Setting/genre trumps player.  This is what Justin's "no true scotsman" fails hard at.
Perhaps the issue is you think this
nDervish: I look out the window. What do I see?
GM: Good question. Why don't you tell me what you see?
I've never once said this or even implied this.  I have quoted what I was talking about every time "If the GM never bothered to determine, then there's nothing wrong with the player's implicit suggestion. GM's call. Always."
See if it was
If the GM knows there is a shotgun there, then it's there.
If the GM knows there is no shotgun there, then it's not there.
No issues from me at all, up to a point.  If you are going against tropes give the players something.  

Again you misunderstand. I think intentionally.

Really?  
Really?
Let's cut through the bullshit  You got your pussy are hurt because I said "It's either "because that's the way I learned to play" or it's hyperbole. Which hasn't surprised me in the slightest."
Remember that?  You keep whining about it.
Then
what
the
fuck
is

I call that traditional because (a) that is a much shorter thing to type and I am lazy, (b) that is how games were played by those who first played them and, in my lengthy experience, that is how the majority of people first played those games back in the day so there is a tradition behind that style of play - hence the term, and (c) most people (but apparently not you) seem to understand what is meant by the shorthand.

that
Yeah I'm the one that misunderstands. :rolleyes:

[Bren]

Again you misunderstand, looks like intentionally.

Really? Let's look at what you said.

There are restraints to what a player is capable of doing.  I wouldn't think, still don't, that this has to be completely laid out here, I seem to be wrong
Setting/genre trumps player.  This is what Justin's "no true scotsman" fails hard at.
Perhaps the issue is you think this
nDervish: I look out the window. What do I see?
GM: Good question. Why don't you tell me what you see?
I've never once said this or even implied this.  I have quoted what I was talking about every time "If the GM never bothered to determine, then there's nothing wrong with the player's implicit suggestion. GM's call. Always."

While you say there are restraints on what the player can create, is that restraint something the GM does? Earlier you said.

Remember this?
This is why I dislike "If the GM never bothered to determine, then there's nothing wrong with the player's implicit suggestion. GM's call. Always."
I don't believe that anymore. Hanging around here helped me reach that conclusion.

Here you said you no longer believe that it is the GM's call.

So which is it? Does the GM's call always trump the player's invention in a setting or doesn't it?

Once you decide which it is, get back to me.

Let's cut through the bullshit  You got your pussy are hurt because I said "It's either "because that's the way I learned to play" or it's hyperbole. Which hasn't surprised me in the slightest."

Remember that?  You keep whining about it.

Yes I remember that. This was the explanation of where the name for a certain style of play comes from. It wasn't the definition of the style of play, nor was it a justification for that style. No justification is necessary beyond, someone saying that's how their group likes to play.

You skipped the definition since it contradicts your contention that other people in this thread, and most particularly me, have claimed the reason we play games a certain way is because of tradition. That is categorically wrong. The reason we play games a certain way is that's how we enjoy them.

The reason we call that way of playing traditional is because, DUH! It is the traditional way that people played.

Here's the entire definition including the important part that you skipped.

Traditional is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive term. It is shorthand for a long definition that includes playing in an imaginary world, treating that world as having a reality of its own, the GM as prime creator, the players taking on roles as beings existing in that world, the players affecting the world through the actions of their PCs but not through an ability to author the reality of the world during play, etc.

I call that traditional because (a) that is a much shorter thing to type and I am lazy, (b) that is how games were played by those who first played them and, in my lengthy experience, that is how the majority of people first played those games back in the day so there is a tradition behind that style of play - hence the term, and (c) most people (but apparently not you) seem to understand what is meant by the shorthand.

I play in a fairly traditional way, because I like playing that way better than the alternatives I've seen, including the "player gets to call dibs a shotgun behind the bar" style of play that you seem to love.

If you read all the words this time and think about what they mean, you might notice that the definition of the style of play does not refer to how people used to play, to tradition, or to nostalgia anywhere in the definition. It simply defines a style of gaming where the GM is the prime creator and curator of the setting. Now if it helps you to understand what that style of play is, then in this conversation we can call it "GM curated gaming" instead of "traditional gaming" for all I care. It doesn't affect the style of play. And it doesn't affect my reason for playing in that style.

Maybe a definition that doesn't use the t-word that you dislike so much will help you to understand what I am saying.
   GM curated gaming is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive term. It is shorthand for a long definition that includes playing in an imaginary world, treating that world as having a reality of its own, the GM as prime creator and curator of the setting, the players taking on roles as beings existing in that world, the players affecting the world through the actions of their PCs but not through an ability to author the reality of the world during play, etc.

Yeah I'm the one that misunderstands.

Exactly.

I'm not hiding anything. I like the GM to be in control. I like the GM to curate the invention of the players to maintain the consistency of the setting. I think that is best done by one person, not by a committee. So do lots of other people.

It's ok that you want to make up stuff as the player. It's OK that you don't want the GM to have a veto over what you create that the GM hasn't already excluded. It's just not the way I want to play. It is the way that people who want to share the creation of a story or setting want to play. Many people call that improv gaming. Some call it story gaming. Whatever one wants to call it, that is what you have repeatedly said you prefer just as you have repeatedly said you are opposed to other ways to play, like GM curated gaming.

[Phillip]

This is why I dislike "If the GM never bothered to determine, then there's nothing wrong with the player's implicit suggestion. GM's call. Always."
I don't believe that anymore.

What is the 'that' you don't believe? Or, going the other way, which is it you do believe? That it IS, or that it is NOT, the GM's call?

[Sommerjon]

Really? Let's look at what you said.....

Yeah let's look, it's not like I haven't posted enough times, yet you still seem to be not reading what is there.
This is why I dislike "If the GM never bothered to determine, then there's nothing wrong with the player's implicit suggestion. GM's call. Always."
I don't believe that anymore. Hanging around here helped me reach that conclusion.
Have you not noticed the underlined words? GM's call. Always.
You do understand the definition of always?

You skipped the definition...

I'm saying why, you keep giving how.

"GM curated gaming" instead of "traditional gaming" for all I care...

It is tradition gaming.  Own it.  It is an established pattern of play that you are accustom to, handing down this pattern of play to others and/or younger generations.  That is the very definition of tradition.  It has nothing to do with how you are doing it, it is why you are doing it.

Case in point, when I was first taught how to play monopoly I was taught you had to go around the board one time before you start buying properties.  I enjoyed playing that way, I always played that way, I never knew any different until another couple pointed out that there was no rule for that in the game.

It's ok that you want to make up stuff as the player. It's OK that you don't want the GM to have a veto over what you create that the GM hasn't already excluded. It's just not the way I want to play. It is the way that people who want to share the creation of a story or setting want to play. Many people call that improv gaming. Some call it story gaming. Whatever one wants to call it, that is what you have repeatedly said you prefer just as you have repeatedly said you are opposed to other ways to play, like GM curated gaming.

I call it what it is roleplaying.