PDA

View Full Version : Fun Versus Roleplay, How do you makes games Interesting?



Chaosticket
2018-01-13, 12:54 PM
Watched Gamers 2 Dorkness Rising today. Not the first time Ive read, watched, or seen a great adventure.
Youve encountered this problem before where there are people with different ideas and goals.

Ive tried both roleplaying and going off the rails to avoid the typical idea of a Dungeons and Dragons game as Ive done that often already. Either be a murderhobo & kill everything, be a roleplayer and try to talk my way out of fights, and Im hoping to eventually get high tier spells and direct stories.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-01-13, 01:04 PM
If you want to avoid a typical D&D game then play a different RPG instead?

Chaosticket
2018-01-13, 01:19 PM
Let me known if youve done this before. You, the pretty heroes have a quest from people to kill the always evil ugly species.

I like to see deconstructions, parodies, and fourth wall breaks of that. Movies, webcomics, and other players stories' like befriending the "always evil" species. Or point out adventurers being hired killers doesnt exactly make them "good".

How often do you hear Monty Python references?

Aneurin
2018-01-13, 01:34 PM
Watched Gamers 2 Dorkness Rising today. Not the first time Ive read, watched, or seen a great adventure.
Youve encountered this problem before where there are people with different ideas and goals.

Ive tried both roleplaying and going off the rails to avoid the typical idea of a Dungeons and Dragons game as Ive done that often already. Either be a murderhobo & kill everything, be a roleplayer and try to talk my way out of fights, and Im hoping to eventually get high tier spells and direct stories.

Uh, what are you asking here? Or what discussion do you want to create?

Your topic title doesn't really seem to relate to the body of the post. What do you want to talk about? How to have fun roleplaying? Having fun and playing a character aren't mutually exclusive, after all. Or how to deal with different play styles at the table? Or how to avoid fights and still get experience? (The answer to the last one is "don't play a system that only offers experience for murder and theft", by the way)


To answer the topic title, though; I personally reconcile fun and roleplaying by, well, having fun and taking pleasure in playing out a fully fleshed character. I don't need to kick ass and chew bubble gum to enjoy playing a particular character, and am quite happy watching the character unfold and develop as the story twists and turns.


If you want to avoid a typical D&D game then play a different RPG instead?

...This. The best way to avoid a standard D&D experience is not to play D&D. Or anything based on D20, really, like Pathfinder and M&M.

Chaosticket
2018-01-13, 01:58 PM
Are you able to roleplay and have fun? Do you roleplay everything to be linear and serious?

Is roleplaying an anchor or an asset?

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 02:45 PM
Well, yes, I roleplay and have fun, it's the reason I play Dungeons and Dragons primarily. However, maybe you should explain why it doesn't quite gel for you? Why do you think fun and roleplaying are such vastly different things?

KillianHawkeye
2018-01-13, 02:56 PM
Are you able to roleplay and have fun?

Yes, absolutely. If all I wanted was to mindlessly kill stuff, level up, and gain new abilities, I would just play a video game. Roleplaying is what makes games meaningful to me.


Do you roleplay everything to be linear and serious?

I don't know what you mean by "linear" in this context, but I'll play serious if my character is very serious, sure. I'll also play wacky if my character is a dumb comic relief character (which can be a lot of fun, too).


Is roleplaying an anchor or an asset?

Mostly an asset, but it can be both. If, for some reason, you decide not to be true to your character, then you might see it as an anchor. But hey, if anchors were so bad, you wouldn't find one on every ship! Even an anchor is an asset that has a useful function. But in all seriousness, having something that reminds you how your character usually acts is very helpful when you're roleplaying a personality that's very different from your normal one, especially for newer players or those who have difficulty maintaining a separation between themselves and their characters.



I think you have some preconceived notions about roleplaying that aren't really true for most people. You seem to see it as being in opposition to playing the game, when that couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, they call them roleplaying games for a reason, right? The fun of a roleplaying game is in getting to make decisions and seeing their outcomes and in testing your character's abilities and prevailing (or failing to prevail) against whatever dangerous situations you come across.

"Fun Versus Roleplay" is generally a false dichotomy, unless roleplaying is legitimately not fun for you. But then, why are you playing RPGs? I think that you believe that roleplaying only means talking, or only acting in certain restrictive pre-defined ways. A lot of people have similarly bad misconceptions about D&D-style alignment. But that's probably just because you've had a poor teacher, because the truth is that roleplaying is everything that your character does and every decision you make.

Lord Raziere
2018-01-13, 03:10 PM
roleplaying IS fun.

I do not see what distinction is. If I'm roleplaying I'm having fun. My character being snarky? roleplaying. my character being referential when no one else gets the joke? roleplaying. my character being a badass? roleplaying. my character helping her daughter become santa and invent christmas by pulling the sleigh with her dbz powers? roleplaying. my character pulling a prank upon people by making something called trollface surprise with her horrible cooking? roleplaying. the same character as all of this crying in rage and despair to the sky because a dear friend sacrificed herself in battle? all of it is roleplaying. the best kind of roleplaying.

in a DnD game? I'm a hobgoblin artificer and literally the most intelligent character in the group. she is neutral good, knows five languages, draconic is the one she uses to cast spells because its the programming code of all of creation because creation is made of three dragons, she calls the uptight human noble she works with "Lady Peacock" while speaking goblin to the other hobgoblin in the group, she wields a crossbow and her ultimate goal is to learn artifice so that she can return to her people and uplift them in an industrial revolution someday so that their quality of life is improved.

and its all fun. I do not see why it wouldn't.

johnbragg
2018-01-13, 03:27 PM
Are you able to roleplay and have fun? Do you roleplay everything to be linear and serious?

Is roleplaying an anchor or an asset?

I'm getting the sense that you're working in a second language.

"ARe you able to roleplay and have fun?" Yes. Roleplaying is the competitive advantage tabletop pen-and-paper (or play-by-post) games have over video games. Roleplaying is, or should be, the fun. My guy kills lots of stuff, I'm having the fun of inhabiting the personality of a big gruff hero who saves the village. OR inhabiting the personality of a sneaky sneak who strikes from the shadows, allowing his big dumb tank friend to take the hits. Or inhabiting the personality of a spellcaster obsessed with magical knowledge.

And these personalities interact (or should interact) around the table.

You sometimes have to handwave some things.

"Why do these conflicting personalities stay together?" If the campaign or DM hasn't supplied an answer, sometimes you have to handwave that a little bit.

"Why are we following this railroad plot?" Because you're giving your mediocre DM a break--he can't handle full scale sandbox shenanigans at this point in his DMing career.

Sometimes roleplaying is serious, sometimes lighthearted, depending on the tone of the campaign, the group, and the character. One of my characters was a military-brat straightlaced fighter, who disapproved of the unusual (substitute "conventional" for his alignment.) Another character just rubbed the rest of the party strangely, stealing the pants of defeated enemies (it's called a trademark, people.) and ended up playing the "bad cop" in the party--if his party members thought he was somewhat crazy, might as well lean into that and use that against the party's enemies. ("My friends, you see, they're nice guys. Me, I try to be a nice guy. But it Just. Doesn't. Work! I--I can't be the nice guy. So I guess that makes me--the Bad Guy. You should talk to my nice guy friends. Because if you can't work it out with them, then that just leaves me. The Bad Guy.")

JNAProductions
2018-01-13, 03:29 PM
Roleplaying IS fun.

If you don't find that to be true, consider why you'd want to play a Role-Playing Game.

Darth Ultron
2018-01-13, 03:42 PM
Youve encountered this problem before where there are people with different ideas and goals.

This is where you start. The ''myth'' is that you randomly walk over to your ''best'' friends and say ''I got this super cool game, lets play!", and then somehow you all ''magically'' have a great fun time.

So right from the start: Don't do that. To just randomly group some friends together guarantees different ideas and goals. What you want to do is find people that share the ideas and goals that you have, and befriend them and make a group.




Ive tried both roleplaying and going off the rails to avoid the typical idea of a Dungeons and Dragons game as Ive done that often already. Either be a murderhobo & kill everything, be a roleplayer and try to talk my way out of fights, and Im hoping to eventually get high tier spells and direct stories.

Well, you should always have fun.

Chaosticket
2018-01-13, 04:32 PM
Okay this was poorly written as I had to work so I couldnt edit the opening post.

I like role-playing so long as one this is understood: dont ignore the effort. Im not demanding 1million experience for acting like Gandalf, but something. Also I hate railroading ignoring personal decisions especially when I do it in character.

Those the easiest way to break me in roleplaying and ruin a promising game.

JNAProductions
2018-01-13, 04:36 PM
Okay this was poorly written as I had to work so I couldnt edit the opening post.

I like role-playing so long as one this is understood: dont ignore the effort. Im not demanding 1million experience for acting like Gandalf, but something. Also I hate railroading ignoring personal decisions especially when I do it in character.

Those the easiest way to break me in roleplaying and ruin a promising game.

See, for a lot of people, roleplaying is its own reward. We don't need XP or gold or anything to have a good time roleplaying. The act of roleplaying is fun, so even if it's actively BAD for our characters, we do it anyway, because that makes sense and is fun.

Most all of us are in agreement on the railroading bit, though. Railroading is bad. (Linearity is NOT necessarily bad, but the trick is to get player buy-in so that way their characters follow the path without it being forced.)

Chaos, from your various threads, it honestly sounds like you might not enjoy TTRPGs much. And that's fine-nothing says you HAVE to enjoy them-but you might honestly have a better time just playing Skyrim or something.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 04:39 PM
I like role-playing so long as one this is understood: dont ignore the effort. Im not demanding 1million experience for acting like Gandalf, but something. Also I hate railroading ignoring personal decisions especially when I do it in character.

So...It sounds more like you hate bad DM's and like to have experience for roleplaying. I don't disagree with either, but I think the first is a bit...Well, done to death as to why it is a bad thing.

The latter? I don't see a problem with that. Tabletop players are still gamers, and sometimes that little powergaming gremlin we all have in our minds wants to take the wheel for a bit. I think a good game (and therefore, DM) utilizes the habits and expectations of their players to the benefit of the game. Is it gaming a bit to get experience for interacting with the bartender as a dwarf? Probably, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

RazorChain
2018-01-13, 05:02 PM
Ah the old roleplay vs fun argument.
We all know the answer to that one.

If roleplaying is no fun then stop doing it. Unless of course you are roleplaying at gunpoint then you should roleplay like your life depended on it.

JNAProductions
2018-01-13, 05:02 PM
So...It sounds more like you hate bad DM's and like to have experience for roleplaying. I don't disagree with either, but I think the first is a bit...Well, done to death as to why it is a bad thing.

The latter? I don't see a problem with that. Tabletop players are still gamers, and sometimes that little powergaming gremlin we all have in our minds wants to take the wheel for a bit. I think a good game (and therefore, DM) utilizes the habits and expectations of their players to the benefit of the game. Is it gaming a bit to get experience for interacting with the bartender as a dwarf? Probably, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

I'd say XP for RP is something that should be done sparingly, and usually as... Compensation, I guess?

Like, for instance, let's say your character is deathly afraid of something, and that fear causes the character to make some truly AWFUL decisions. I'd say that's something that could be worthy of XP if you, the player, know they're bad decisions and would usually avoid them, but it makes sense in character. It's the lollipop you get after your shot. :P

I would NOT give XP just for holding an in-character conversation with another player, or an NPC.

johnbragg
2018-01-13, 05:19 PM
Okay this was poorly written as I had to work so I couldnt edit the opening post.

I like role-playing so long as one this is understood: dont ignore the effort. Im not demanding 1million experience for acting like Gandalf, but something.

I'm not 100% with you on this. Roleplaying is basically its own reward. It's what's supposed to make the game fun, not giving your character a cookie. I really don't like giving XP for roleplaying--if nothing else, it's an irritant to me to have different party members at different XP levels anyway. But I'm okay with some sort of a game reward for really exceptional roleplaying--some sort of hero point or drama point is okay. (A free re-roll, or an extra action or something--not something that creates a long-term imbalance in the party.) But I try to be careful of that, because sometimes you're rewarding some of your players for just being better at theater than others. On the other other hand, they're the ones carrying the dramatic load, so.....


Also I hate railroading ignoring personal decisions especially when I do it in character.

This is a bigger problem. It's not just that your roleplaying isn't rewarded, it's ignored. "My guy wants to do X" "Well, too bad, the party has to go do Y"

That sounds like your problem with your group. You want to play "your guy", your group just wants to kill the things and collect the loot and check off the quest.

Question: Is "your guy" someone that the rest of the party is apt to roleplay with? How often is your "ROLEPLAYING!" something that would derail the rest of the party's goals?

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 05:38 PM
I would NOT give XP just for holding an in-character conversation with another player, or an NPC.

I think a matter of taste and how the players act. If the group isn't using XP but milestones, doing something like attending a party to scope out a place for latter schemes might make a whole lot of sense. I usually think of RP being worthy of experience if it amused the other players. So yes, if you ordered that drink either by creative roleplaying or just by acting out the character enough to make others have fun, I'd say that's worthy.

JNAProductions
2018-01-13, 05:41 PM
I think a matter of taste and how the players act. If the group isn't using XP but milestones, doing something like attending a party to scope out a place for latter schemes might make a whole lot of sense. I usually think of RP being worthy of experience if it amused the other players. So yes, if you ordered that drink either by creative roleplaying or just by acting out the character enough to make others have fun, I'd say that's worthy.

You and I shall have to disagree then.

Admittedly, I realize that I actually use milestones too, so it's more just whenever it's appropriate to level up, but I guess I'll echo what was said earlier.

Giving XP for RP will, in general, end up with players of differing levels. That's not the end of the world, but I generally try to avoid that.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 05:45 PM
Giving XP for RP will, in general, end up with players of differing levels. That's not the end of the world, but I generally try to avoid that.

Oh. That. I usually just say that if one person roleplays well, it counts for the whole group. I don't like levels that are TOO uneven (1-2 at most, and usually not even that). I also see rewarding the group doesn't put pressure on people to put in 100% every session, because sometimes life happens or someone isn't feeling the situation or they choose to step back and let someone else have the spotlight. After all, that spotlight might get them closer to their next level anyway.

Florian
2018-01-13, 05:56 PM
Folks just have different sources of "fun" when playing an RPG, which I try to accept and cater to. That said, I simply avoid having a "Cass" and a "Joana", with different or conflicting "fun" sources at my table at the same time, not worth the effort.

Quertus
2018-01-13, 06:37 PM
I started as a War Gamer. The advantage that Role-playing Games have over War Games is, well, the Role-playing.

So, can one have fun while role-playing? Um, yeah, of course, otherwise, this "role-playing" fad would have failed, and we'd all be playing War Games.

Role-playing isn't just "Talky Time", though, it's every decision you make as the character.

Now, there are groups where serious role-playing would actually be a detriment to the fun with that group. If you have found yourself in such a group, you need to ask yourself if you can play a role-playing game without taking anything seriously - and, if you can, whether you'd want to. If that's not the kind of environment you'd enjoy, then that group / game might not be for you.

Ignore that last paragraph if I've read between the lines wrong, and that doesn't apply to your situation.

johnbragg
2018-01-13, 06:51 PM
Giving XP for RP will, in general, end up with players of differing levels. That's not the end of the world, but I generally try to avoid that.

Yeah. If you're going to give a player a biscuit, I'd make it a consumable--good for one re-roll/extra action/minor plot point ("turns out we have ONE more healing potion/length of rope/etc we, uh, forgot about before"). They'll end up spending those on another party member most of the time anyway.

Quertus
2018-01-13, 07:06 PM
Giving XP for RP will, in general, end up with players of differing levels. That's not the end of the world, but I generally try to avoid that.

You give the whole party XP for one player role-playing. Just like you reward the whole party for any behavior you want to see more of.

And, at the end of the session, you ask the players, as a group, to nominate events that are XP worthy. Then Everyone is looking for and remembering and liking everyone's contributions to the game. Books, books, books. (inside joke for something that still gets referenced at one of my tables).

EDIT: or, at least, that's what I've found works best for me.

Tanarii
2018-01-13, 07:39 PM
If roleplaying is no fun then stop doing it. Unless of course you are roleplaying at gunpoint then you should roleplay like your life depended on it.Now thats a disclaimer! 😂😂😂


Giving XP for RP will, in general, end up with players of differing levels. That's not the end of the world, but I generally try to avoid that.Its not only not the end of the world, but it's also not a mechanical balance problem in any RPG I've played, ran, or read, to have a difference of one level. Most of them can handle a difference of more than one.

What's your reasoning for trying to avoid it? I can think of several not related to mechanical balance reasons off the top of my head, mostly related to requiring in-game downtime to gain a level or player psychology. But im curious what yours is.

JNAProductions
2018-01-13, 08:24 PM
Now thats a disclaimer! 😂😂😂

Its not only not the end of the world, but it's also not a mechanical balance problem in any RPG I've played, ran, or read, to have a difference of one level. Most of them can handle a difference of more than one.

What's your reasoning for trying to avoid it? I can think of several not related to mechanical balance reasons off the top of my head, mostly related to requiring in-game downtime to gain a level or player psychology. But im curious what yours is.

I like my players to be mechanically similar, in terms of power. D&D 5E, the system I usually run, can handle discrepancies (though I wouldn't want players in different tiers of play, usually) but I'd rather keep it simple and have everyone be at the same level.

Darth Ultron
2018-01-13, 08:56 PM
You give the whole party XP for one player role-playing. Just like you reward the whole party for any behavior you want to see more of.


So you do it ''everyone gets a participation trophy'' style?

Well, not a way I agree with, for sure. If one player act good, and the rest are jerks...you give everyone the reward so that next time that one player is good again, and everyone else is a jerk...again.

I give out individual XP as a reward for role playing. I don't care about the level differences: the good role players will be a couple levels higher and the bad roll players will be a couple levels lower. That is what I want.

The die hard, bad roll players won't change. But there are more then enough average players in the middle that will get the idea that role playing is a good idea and that they should do it.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 09:02 PM
Well, not a way I agree with, for sure. If one player act good, and the rest are jerks...you give everyone the reward so that next time that one player is good again, and everyone else is a jerk...again.

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned not just gathering people due to familiarity and friendship, but common interests. This implies you go out of your way to gather a group of people who you then judge based on your own personal preferences and treat some like jerks. That's commitment to making yourself miserable.

Tanarii
2018-01-13, 09:38 PM
I like my players to be mechanically similar, in terms of power. D&D 5E, the system I usually run, can handle discrepancies (though I wouldn't want players in different tiers of play, usually) but I'd rather keep it simple and have everyone be at the same level.
A one level difference is mechanically similar. A 3 level difference is mechanically similar once out of Tier 1. That's a rationale that doesn't hold up given the mechanics of the system.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 09:45 PM
Even if the system COULD handle it, doesn't mean it should. Players aren't going to stick around if they feel like you're snubbing them, so it might feel like a circle jerk or popularity contest if not handled well. I mean...The DM is basically the arbiter of what is good RP or not, so a bit of pressure there.

Furthermore, giving out experience and loot becomes more difficult with different levels. It really seems like extra work to me, and that's something I strongly don't like. Begone, extra effort!

And lastly...It's going to be one weird story if the team are at different power levels. Ah yes, the many adventures of Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman and...Aquaman. He handles the coffee and watches over the other henchmen and mounts.

Darth Ultron
2018-01-13, 09:54 PM
Earlier in the thread, you mentioned not just gathering people due to familiarity and friendship, but common interests. This implies you go out of your way to gather a group of people who you then judge based on your own personal preferences and treat some like jerks. That's commitment to making yourself miserable.

Well, no, but I do get how your personal bias sees that.

The best way to have a game is to, yes, game with people that have common interests.

But, that is not always possible. Sometimes you don't get to pick and choose. And sometimes...people lie and falsely represent themselves.

gooddragon1
2018-01-13, 10:04 PM
Yes, absolutely. If all I wanted was to mindlessly kill stuff, level up, and gain new abilities, I would just play a video game. Roleplaying is what makes games meaningful to me.

A video game will never match the flexibility of pencil and paper. There's just too many things you can't program in. So, while I may not enjoy the roleplaying aspect fully, I certainly do enjoy the mechanical flexibility and ability to change up terrain and so many other elements on the fly.

This is why I dislike attempts to increase balance by sacrificing flexibility. In my mind it's losing the one advantage D&D has over video games.

Tanarii
2018-01-13, 10:05 PM
Furthermore, giving out experience and loot becomes more difficult with different levels. It really seems like extra work to me, and that's something I strongly don't like. Begone, extra effort!Um, why is it more difficult when they're in the same Tier of play? I've never found it any harder than giving them out to all the same level characters.

Milestones XP specifically be easier than encounter XP, or it can be harder. Depends on how you handle someone missing a milestone session, or sessions between milestones.

Plus it's not feasible unless there's only one party in the campaign. In fact, the entire premise of 'all the same level' is heavily based on the assumption of a single party of PCs.


And lastly...It's going to be one weird story if the team are at different power levels. Ah yes, the many adventures of Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman and...Aquaman. He handles the coffee and watches over the other henchmen and mounts.So .... because the power levels are mechanically similar, it's a weird story because they're different power levels? :smallconfused:

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 10:17 PM
Um, why is it more difficult when they're in the same Tier of play? I've never found it any harder than giving them out to all the same level characters.

Even within the same tier, someone can feel more or less useful than their buddies. Experience in many editions is also calculated differently. And if you give an awesome doodad to a party with one really good mage and an okay mage...Who do they want to give it to? Sure, it won't create issues for most groups, but it's more effort than I want to do for little to no reason. Who the hell feels good sitting down at a table where the DM has passed judgement on their character and determined them to be lesser? What does that accomplish?

When it happened to me, I didn't feel encouraged or challenged to RP, I felt that my RP wasn't good enough or what the DM wanted. And if the DM was expressing a clear disinterest in what I was doing, I wasn't doing anyone any favors by hanging around. Maybe it was a break down in communication, but I still must ask, what is it supposed to do?


Milestones XP specifically be easier than encounter XP, or it can be harder. Depends on how you handle someone missing a milestone session, or sessions between milestones.

If the group levels up, doesn't matter if they show or not, character matches others. They were just there or handling some issue off-screen. It's not milestone experience as written for most systems, but I am a very lazy person.


Plus it's not feasible unless there's only one party in the campaign. In fact, the entire premise of 'all the same level' is heavily based on the assumption of a single party of PCs.

...I assume that there's only one party of PCs? Not entirely sure what the problem is here, unless you mean campaigns with multiple parties of player characters, which is going to be handled differently because of many different issues.


So .... because the power levels are mechanically similar, it's a weird story because they're different power levels? :smallconfused:

Some stories can interweave characters of varying power level and usefulness. Others make you wonder why the main characters keep dragging under=powered characters to their inevitable and messy demise. Why IS that guy here? Why not replace them with someone more competent? The world is ending, we don't have time for your feelings.

Tanarii
2018-01-13, 11:01 PM
Even within the same tier, someone can feel more or less useful than their buddies. I think we got mixed up. Are you aware that Tiers of Play in 5e describes level ranges? Tier 1 = 1-4, Tier 2 = 5-10. I was talking about 5e in the post you by all appearances responded to. Although you didn't quote so I wasn't 100% sure, but the content of your post sure implied you were responding to my comments.

And characters of the same level can feel more or less useful to each other, as well as different. Characters of higher level can feel less useful than lower level cases. And vice versa.


...I assume that there's only one party of PCs? Not entirely sure what the problem is here, unless you mean campaigns with multiple parties of player characters, which is going to be handled differently because of many different issues.Yes that's what I meant. And that's what I run, an open table game with many players and groups of PCs. And by the middle of 5e's Tier 2, characters can easily adventure with characters several levels higher or lower than them. They are not out of the power range of each other. Works in AL (5e official play) as well. Since I know it works to have disparate levels in a group, clearly it would also work even if there was just one party as well.

But the reason I brought it up is because I find a lot of people do assume a single party doing all their adventuring together in lockstep. Which is certainly a reasonable assumption for home games, but a large chunk of people don't play that way.

-----

In regards to you finding it easier in general, your version of milestone easier for you specifically, and being lazy, I can only say ... kudos to you sir! Sounds like a good reason to do it your way. :smallbiggrin: That's exactly what I was curious about.

2D8HP
2018-01-13, 11:06 PM
Watched Gamers 2 Dorkness Rising today. Not the first time Ive read, watched, or seen a great adventure.
Youve encountered this problem before where there are people with different ideas and goals.

Ive tried both roleplaying and going off the rails to avoid the typical idea of a Dungeons and Dragons game as Ive done that often already. Either be a murderhobo & kill everything, be a roleplayer and try to talk my way out of fights, and Im hoping to eventually get high tier spells and direct stories.


Let me known if youve done this before. You, the pretty heroes have a quest from people to kill the always evil ugly species.

I like to see deconstructions, parodies, and fourth wall breaks of that. Movies, webcomics, and other players stories' like befriending the "always evil" species. Or point out adventurers being hired killers doesnt exactly make them "good".

How often do you hear Monty Python references?


Are you able to roleplay and have fun? Do you roleplay everything to be linear and serious?

Is roleplaying an anchor or an asset?


Okay this was poorly written as I had to work so I couldnt edit the opening post.

I like role-playing so long as one this is understood: dont ignore the effort. Im not demanding 1million experience for acting like Gandalf, but something. Also I hate railroading ignoring personal decisions especially when I do it in character.

Those the easiest way to break me in roleplaying and ruin a promising game.
Dude, my reading comprehension must be abysmal tonight, because the only thing I understood from your posts in this thread was the question:

"How often do you hear Monty Python references?"

The answer to which is:

Not nearly enough!


But that's not all of the 1970's and 80's pop-culture references I'd like to hear.

I think in a really good game session someone should shout or mutter:

"KHAAAAAAAN!!!"

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"

"NI!"

"Wherever you go, there you are."

"SPAM!"

"This one goes to eleven"

"A SHRUBBERY!"

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"


Then I'll feel comfortable.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-13, 11:11 PM
I think we got mixed up. Are you aware that Tiers of Play in 5e describes level ranges? Tier 1 = 1-4, Tier 2 = 5-10. I was talking about 5e in the post you by all appearances responded to. Although you didn't quote so I wasn't 100% sure, but the content of your post sure implied you were responding to my comments.

Yes, I was. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that a level 4 in a group of level 1's might seem out of place. I think that it is possible to engage all players in a roughly equal manner with a level disparity, but again...Lazy. Trying to make everyone useful is tricky enough, I don't need more ways to complicate it.

I assumed that was what you were talking about, because I've seen you post in the 5e forum, after all.


Yes that's what I meant. And that's what I run, an open table game with many players and groups of PCs. And by the middle of 5e's Tier 2, characters can easily adventure with characters several levels higher or lower than them. They are not out of the power range of each other. Works in AL (5e official play) as well. Since I know it works to have disparate levels in a group, clearly it would also work even if there was just one party as well.

Never done AL play, admittedly. I might have assumed it wasn't a practical application of the question, really. I could be wrong, however, but I really think if you are struggling with finding fun in role playing, organized play might not be the best first step for you.


But the reason I brought it up is because I find a lot of people do assume a single party doing all their adventuring together in lockstep. Which is certainly a reasonable assumption for home games, but a large chunk of people don't play that way.

I pretty much assume that this point experience is what is used for AL and similar games, since not all DMs can gauge people they don't know well and they're trying to learn the characters and have a limited time frame in which to do so.

Chaosticket
2018-01-13, 11:37 PM
At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

Personally I like decisions related to improving... anything I become interested as I am an engineer. Pretty obvious I wouldnt have fun in a game without things to calculate like currency, levels, and statistics.

RazorChain
2018-01-14, 01:54 AM
At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

Personally I like decisions related to improving... anything I become interested as I am an engineer. Pretty obvious I wouldnt have fun in a game without things to calculate like currency, levels, and statistics.

Sorry to burst your bubble but serious roleplayers are just people like everybody else, some of them are jerks and some of them aren't. Me? I'm a total effing jerk and demand that my players roleplay like their characters life depends on it as it often does.

If the mechanical aspects are the thing that interest you then I suggest you find a group that is interested in the game part of the roleplaying games, it would probably mean less roleplaying and more gaming.

dps
2018-01-14, 09:43 AM
At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

In my experience, oleplayers, as a group, are not noticeably more or less friendly than any other given group of people, nor are serious people less friendly than frivolous people, though serious people may be less outgoing.


I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.


That's just silly; it's like saying that everyone should have the same favorite food.

Quertus
2018-01-14, 12:21 PM
So you do it ''everyone gets a participation trophy'' style?

Well, not a way I agree with, for sure. If one player act good, and the rest are jerks...you give everyone the reward so that next time that one player is good again, and everyone else is a jerk...again.

I give out individual XP as a reward for role playing. I don't care about the level differences: the good role players will be a couple levels higher and the bad roll players will be a couple levels lower. That is what I want.

The die hard, bad roll players won't change. But there are more then enough average players in the middle that will get the idea that role playing is a good idea and that they should do it.

The "individual reward" is the screen time of getting your actions mentioned in wrap-up. The XP is the group award to encourage others to notice your good behavior. Win/win.

Also, I'm lazy, and don't want to calculate XP multiple times. Or store multiple numbers for when players invariably lost their character sheets.


A video game will never match the flexibility of pencil and paper. There's just too many things you can't program in. So, while I may not enjoy the roleplaying aspect fully, I certainly do enjoy the mechanical flexibility and ability to change up terrain and so many other elements on the fly.

This is why I dislike attempts to increase balance by sacrificing flexibility. In my mind it's losing the one advantage D&D has over video games.

Wow. I'd never considered that.

So... Does a role-playing game offer you anything that a war game doesn't?


Milestones XP specifically be easier than encounter XP, or it can be harder. Depends on how you handle someone missing a milestone session, or sessions between milestones.

Well, there's another thing I'd never considered.

Clearly, I'll need to think more about milestones.


Plus it's not feasible unless there's only one party in the campaign. In fact, the entire premise of 'all the same level' is heavily based on the assumption of a single party of PCs.

Huh. I care about being lazy, and just handing out one XP total at the end of the night.

I could still do that in 3e, but not in 3.5, under this scenario.

And, if I had a spreadsheet of which character was in which sessions, I suppose I could rebuild their XP for them. Sounds like effort, though.


And if you give an awesome doodad to a party with one really good mage and an okay mage...Who do they want to give it to? Sure, it won't create issues for most groups, but it's more effort than I want to do for little to no reason.

I remember a 2e group with the rule "everyone starts at first level". We had 2 new players come in with first level wizards. The characters couldn't really contribute, and the players weren't having fun. My character, Armus, turns to the Ranger/Mage PC, reaches out his hand, and says, "give me your Staff of Power". He complies. Then he holds out his other hand to the party Mage, and "asks" for her Staff of the Magi. She reluctantly complies. Then Armus handed these relics to the two apprentice wizards.

The sorceress objected, but Armus countered by reminding her that her father (from whom she stole her Staff of the Magi) survived his early adventures because his master had the wisdom to do exactly what Armus was doing now.

The fact that distributing these items was an issue is what made it a memorable story.


Who the hell feels good sitting down at a table where the DM has passed judgement on their character and determined them to be lesser? What does that accomplish?

When it happened to me, I didn't feel encouraged or challenged to RP, I felt that my RP wasn't good enough or what the DM wanted. And if the DM was expressing a clear disinterest in what I was doing, I wasn't doing anyone any favors by hanging around. Maybe it was a break down in communication, but I still must ask, what is it supposed to do?

Same.

So, what do you think of my system (The "individual reward" is the screen time of getting your actions mentioned in wrap-up. The XP is the group award to encourage others to notice your good behavior.) Do you think that it would have the desired effect for you?


If the group levels up, doesn't matter if they show or not, character matches others. They were just there or handling some issue off-screen. It's not milestone experience as written for most systems, but I am a very lazy person.

Sounds good to me. :smallwink:


The world is ending, we don't have time for your feelings.

Now that's quote worthy.




"This one goes to eleven"


"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"
.

Well, I don't actually get that last one, but Amalak's tagline is that "This one goes to eleven", so, am I close enough?


At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.


Sorry to burst your bubble but serious roleplayers are just people like everybody else, some of them are jerks and some of them aren't. Me? I'm a total effing jerk and demand that my players roleplay like their characters life depends on it as it often does.


In my experience, oleplayers, as a group, are not noticeably more or less friendly than any other given group of people, nor are serious people less friendly than frivolous people, though serious people may be less outgoing.

Personally, I aim for the impossible goal of 100% accuracy in role-playing, am quite the ****, but don't much care if others roleplay or not.

This limited sample isn't looking good. Still, I've encountered plenty of friendly (and even more outgoing) roleplayers. So, Chaosticket, I can only digest that you expand your sample size.


I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.


That's just silly; it's like saying that everyone should have the same favorite food.

Well, not the same favorite, perhaps, just that everyone enjoy pizza, and everyone enjoy burritos, and everyone enjoy eggplant parmesan, and everyone enjoy peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, and everybody enjoy curry, and everybody enjoy manwich.

This is, sadly, not the way humans are built.


Personally I like decisions related to improving... anything I become interested as I am an engineer. Pretty obvious I wouldnt have fun in a game without things to calculate like currency, levels, and statistics.


If the mechanical aspects are the thing that interest you then I suggest you find a group that is interested in the game part of the roleplaying games, it would probably mean less roleplaying and more gaming.

Chaosticket, back at you, can you not enjoy these other things?

But, really, the group need not be 5+ identical clones to have fun (unless they have a very restrictive idea of what is "fun"). But everyone's range of what they consider "fun" has to have enough overlap that they can share fun moments, like sharing spotlight time.

Florian
2018-01-14, 02:51 PM
At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

It´s just that some "sources of fun" don't mesh well or even ruin others and there is no "I play D&D" but rather "I play an RPG using the D&D rules". I like pizza. I dislike peanut butter and jelly. Putting that on my pizza ruins it for me, and there's no help saying "but it´s still a pizza!".

Jay R
2018-01-14, 03:06 PM
My solution is to play with friends whom I trust and who are more-or-less compatible, plus a willingness to let them enjoy their approach while I'm enjoying mine, and a recognition that a game doesn't have to be perfect to be fun.

Just like having fun in any other group activity.


"I learned then, from my wheelchair, that life doesn't have to be perfect to be wonderful."

-- Annette Funicello

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-14, 03:19 PM
You give the whole party XP for one player role-playing. Just like you reward the whole party for any behavior you want to see more of.

And, at the end of the session, you ask the players, as a group, to nominate events that are XP worthy. Then Everyone is looking for and remembering and liking everyone's contributions to the game. Books, books, books. (inside joke for something that still gets referenced at one of my tables).

I assume this is the method of which you speak. I could see issues arising if not everyone at the table knows each other or there is a time crunch due to jobs, but I can definitely see reasons to do it. It puts the focus of the roleplay onto amusing the table, not onto pleasing the DM and whatever expectations they have. It gives the DM time to go over notes to wrap up the campaign before people wander off with their character sheets as well. Only issue I could see are if people are shy and having issues doing the roleplay, this might be some pressure shoved onto them.

I wouldn't use wrapping things up as an individual reward, because some actions (such as accidentally starting a fire) are going to demand more time to explain because the city was on fire. Other characters are also going to be sneaky and unnoticed. However, using this to put emphasis on group efforts is an appealing idea to me...


I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

I don't think I quite get what you mean, can you elaborate?

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-14, 03:39 PM
My solution is to play with friends whom I trust and who are more-or-less compatible, plus a willingness to let them enjoy their approach while I'm enjoying mine, and a recognition that a game doesn't have to be perfect to be fun.


As mentioned elsewhere, the old gaming group here had:


the player who wanted to "do badass stuff" with this character, be cool and impressive and awesome
the player who wanted drama and intrigue, who wanted high risks and hard choices, to plan big and win (or lose) big
the player who wanted to scheme and plot and have all the pieces moving before his opponent even knew they were in a contest
the player who wanted to solve problems -- unravel mysteries, uncover plots, recover artifacts, expose traitors, protect friends, etc
the player who wanted to hang out, eat snacks, and roll dice to kill stuff


And yet somehow, we all had fun and got what we wanted out of the game without having the parts we didn't want constantly hanging over us.

Chaosticket
2018-01-14, 08:43 PM
I think successful games require two factors. Have a vibrant world and have interesting minigames.

If the game is too plain then you can fall back on the minigames. If the minigames are denied then what?

Roleplaying and character building are two different things people can enjoy, hopefully both.

When you make factions and say someone who plays differently "isnt a TRUE (blank)" that things go nasty.

Personally I enjoy the levity you can bring by introduce random elements like parodies.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-14, 09:37 PM
Well, we all know that if you don't roleplay a tiefling, you might as well set your character sheet on fire for selecting an inferior race. But that's fine, everyone makes mistakes such as trying to play an Aasimar.

Through...Curiosity begs me to ask this question: Did you make a parody character that had a lackluster reception at a table more than a few times?

2D8HP
2018-01-15, 12:16 AM
I think successful games require two factors. Have a vibrant world and have interesting minigames.

If the game is too plain then you can fall back on the minigames. If the minigames are denied then what?

Roleplaying and character building are two different things people can enjoy, hopefully both..
I can remember enjoying the "character building mini-game" more (I also "made" custom cars for Car Wars which seemed similar), but now I often just find it toil which I do just to get to the part when the GM says "What do you do?". I think it's fine as an option, but I now think it best if there's short cuts.


When you make factions and say someone who plays differently "isnt a TRUE (blank)" that things go nasty..
:confused:

But that would just leave us things like mortality, politics, and religion to argue about!

:eek:

That doesn't seem wise, I think it best if we "badwrongfun!" over our games instead.


Personally I enjoy the levity you can bring by introduce random elements like parodies.

Um... if you had the old The Rogues Gallery (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rogues_Gallery) supplement, you'd quickly learn that the original players of what became Dungeons & Dragons were some jokers, and they were doing a parody of the fantasy fiction of the time.

Characters like:

Murlynd (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murlynd)

Erak's cousin (http://thecollectorstrove.com/arc-ernie-gygax/)

and

Sir Fang (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5787205&postcount=27)


According to

Mike Monard (http://blogofholding.com/?p=3814)

AKA "Old Geezer" (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?346541-where-did-all-the-funny-shaped-dice-come-from)

who was a player in the first three big "campaigns" (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Tékumel (http://www.tekumel.com/)

"We made up some **** that we thought would be fun."

Quertus
2018-01-15, 01:11 AM
I think successful games require two factors. Have a vibrant world and have interesting minigames.

If the game is too plain then you can fall back on the minigames. If the minigames are denied then what?

Roleplaying and character building are two different things people can enjoy, hopefully both.

When you make factions and say someone who plays differently "isnt a TRUE (blank)" that things go nasty.

Personally I enjoy the levity you can bring by introduce random elements like parodies.

World that be one of two factors, with an or instead of an and?

Personally, I enjoy role-playing. Not so much character building. Splat diving is a chore. Developing a personality and history and the character of the character is time consuming. I've only actually enjoyed character creation once, out of the hundreds of characters I've played.

But I do enjoy the "how do we make a functional party out of this random collection of characters?" minigame.

Parodies and humor... Depends on the group. I can certainly see some players I've gamed with getting "that's not serious role-playing" from some groups I've gamed with. If that's what's going on, then you need to if you can identify how that component is incompatible with their style, and then either see if you can find something that you'll enjoy that falls within their style, or find a different group where your fun matches their fun.

Don't try spreading peanut butter on a pizza.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-15, 06:59 AM
A video game will never match the flexibility of pencil and paper. There's just too many things you can't program in.

This view is obsolete and tells me you've never played the truly impressive computer games out there. Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World are easily more expansive than your average GM-controlled game. Given enough computational resources, a CRPG will be no worse as a game than the best tabletop game the creator could hold.

Of course, most of the games I'd consider "truly impressive" are labours of love that have been in development for one or more decades. Or they only became computationally feasible past 2000s. So programming them isn't exactly easy.

---

Back to thread topic:

If you are playing a roleplaying game and the roleplaying part is getting in your way, you are doing something wrong. Roleplaying should be the fun you're trying to have. You may be:

1) Playing as the wrong charater.

1a) you chose a role with a personality radically different from yourself, and cannot get in their head, understand their motives etc.

Solution: switch to a character with a personality closer to yourself.

1b) you crafted your character with mechanics which are too complex for you to efficiently use.

Solution: switch to character with less mechanical fiddly bits.

1c) how you expected to play your character clashes with tone of the game. F.ex. you made a serious character for a comedy game.

Solution: swap to a character better in line with tone of the game.

2) Playing in the wrong game.

2a) you chose your character's personality for a different genre than the game turns out to be.

Solution: take the character to a different game.

2b) the medium of the game suit you badly. For example, speaking as your character proves difficult in a tableyop environmeny.

Solution: swap from a tabletop game to play-by-post, or vice versa (etc.)

2c) the rules of the game don't support playing as the sort of character you wish to play.

Solution: change the rules.

3) Playing in the wrong hobby.

3a) you don't actually care about roleplaying, you just want to win the tactical minigame.

Solution: go play Warhammer or one of its offshoots.

3b) you wanted to tell a grand story but the dice and other players are too unpredictable.

Solution: go write collaborative fanfiction, collaborative part optional.

3c) you like the roleplaying part, but just sitting around talking about stuff is lackluster. You want to look like your character and do stuff!

Solution: start LARPing.

3d) you're really just here to hang out with friends and eat snacks, and the game part is just an excuse.

Solution: say it out loud and suggest you go to do something that actually interests you.

4) Playing with the wrong people.

4a) the other players have weirdly specific and unrealistic expectations of your roleplaying skills. F.ex. they expect you to be able to do voices and give you a bad time if you don't.

Solution: tell them to be more tolerant of your mishaps. If this does not help, leave.

4b) the other players have weirdly specific and unrealistic expectations of what the game is about. F.ex. every railroading GM ever.

Solution: tell these people to broaden their horizons. If this does not help, leave.

4c) despite nominally being participants in the same game, no-one else is interested in roleplaying.

Solution: find a new game group.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 07:30 AM
This view is obsolete and tells me you've never played the truly impressive computer games out there. Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World are easily more expansive than your average GM-controlled game. Given enough computational resources, a CRPG will be no worse as a game than the best tabletop game the creator could hold.

Of course, most of the games I'd consider "truly impressive" are labours of love that have been in development for one or more decades. Or they only became computationally feasible past 2000s. So programming them isn't exactly easy.


Really? From what I've seen both of those games are still just video games.

Knaight
2018-01-15, 08:17 AM
This view is obsolete and tells me you've never played the truly impressive computer games out there. Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World are easily more expansive than your average GM-controlled game. Given enough computational resources, a CRPG will be no worse as a game than the best tabletop game the creator could hold.

Expansive and flexible are two different things. Dwarf Fortress is an incredibly detailed system with a giant pile of content. There's still all sorts of interaction that it's not capable of compared to even a thoroughly mediocre RPG run by a thoroughly mediocre GM.

The really obvious example here is dialog. Having an in character conversation is easy. Even the cutting edge of video game dialog options has nothing on the flexibility achievable by two people reasonably proficient in the same language.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-15, 08:39 AM
Yes, people are still better at natural language than machines. Machines are also getting better, to the point where we have chatterbot AIs capable of passing the Turing test, which are usable for video games. So the "never" part in goodragon1's comment does not hold either way.

As for everything else, Dwarf Fortress is flexible enough that I can do things in it which would make your average GM throw their hands up and say "this goes beyond what I prepared, let's get back on track, shall we?" Many common problems in tabletop games (such as railroading) are due because the human GMs are not as flexible as the ideal would have it.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 09:44 AM
Yes, people are still better at natural language than machines. Machines are also getting better, to the point where we have chatterbot AIs capable of passing the Turing test, which are usable for video games. So the "never" part in goodragon1's comment does not hold either way.

As for everything else, Dwarf Fortress is flexible enough that I can do things in it which would make your average GM throw their hands up and say "this goes beyond what I prepared, let's get back on track, shall we?" Many common problems in tabletop games (such as railroading) are due because the human GMs are not as flexible as the ideal would have it.


Huh. As someone who has invented, populated, rough-mapped, and given general histories to whole towns on the fly, for example because the PCs decided they wanted to track down one of their favorite NPCs when he wasn't around, I guess I'm a pretty good GM. :smallconfused:

The superficial qualities of the Turing Test aside, I haven't come across software (games) capable of more than "going through the motions" when it comes to NPCs --that is, there's no motivation or depth, it's just algorithms spitting out canned responses.

Quertus
2018-01-15, 11:34 AM
Huh. As somehow who has invented, populated, rough-mapped, and given general histories to whole towns on the fly, for example because the PCs decided they wanted to track down one of their favorite NPCs when he wasn't around, I guess I'm a pretty good GM. :smallconfused:

That is, indeed, a skill many GMs do not possess. My players have repeatedly commented on how I'm good at improvising (despite the fact that I hate having to improvise, and prefer to end a session on, "so, what are we doing next time?"). Which merely serves to reinforce the fact that their experience matches mine, that most GMs lack that skill.

Now, that skill by itself doesn't make you a good GM. But the lack of that skill, combined with an inability to cope with the lack of that skill, can certainly make you a bad GM.