PDA

View Full Version : True Role-Playing



sikyon
2008-07-28, 12:02 PM
In order to truly role-play, one must completely assume the identity of the character they wish to play. The problem is, this includes both physical and mental characteristics.

You can role-play someone with greater physical strength or skill by rewriting the dynamics of physical interaction (say d&d combat system).

However, you cannot role-play another person with superior mental skills. It is literally impossible, unless you re-write the mental skill system. You cannot come up with ideas above your own intelligence level, you cannot be more charismatic than you actually are unless they are abstractified.

In essence, in order to truly role-play, one can revamp a physical system of combat into dice. One must, however, also revamp the problem-solving and idea creating systems into a system of dice and modifiers. Furthermore, it is impossible to actually to know what the solutions to the problem or ideas actually are unless they are prepared by someone (say the DM) with the actual mental faculties of the character. Since this is often impossible, one then needs to abstraction them, such as "my character rolls a 20 on her problem solving check, and comes up with solution A" ; "your opponent then rolls a 15 +7 modifier on their counter solution check, and comes up with counter-action A-1". In this event, one would also need to express how much physical dependance there is on the plan, such as "Plan A has a DC 20 if it requires a DC 15 physical abilites check to follow, or DC 30 if it requires a DC 10 physical abilities check to follow"

And therefore we come to the general expression for role playing.

Winterwind
2008-07-28, 12:19 PM
If I understand you correctly, this would imply dice and mechanics are, for some reason, a requirement for roleplaying. Considering freeform roleplaying works just fine, and mechanics are more of a system to introduce randomness into the story and help with deciding what happens next, rather than a system that has anything whatsoever to do with the roleplaying itself, I must respectfully disagree.

Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to play a character with mental skills superior to one's own. Due to the storytelling nature of roleplaying games, it is not necessary to genuinely be more intelligent than one is - it suffices to play the character in such a manner that the other players get an impression of dealing with a character in possession of superior intelligence. Slightly more complex speech patterns, a somewhat cryptic demeanor (as to signify that the character knows more than it might appear), and the other players will get the right picture of the character. It doesn't matter in the least that there is nothing to actually back up this cryptic demeanor - when telling a story, all that matters is what arrives at the people the story is told to, namely the other players at the table.

Chronicled
2008-07-28, 12:27 PM
Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to play a character with mental skills superior to one's own. Due to the storytelling nature of roleplaying games, it is not necessary to genuinely be more intelligent than one is - it suffices to play the character in such a manner that the other players get an impression of dealing with a character in possession of superior intelligence. Slightly more complex speech patterns, a somewhat cryptic demeanor (as to signify that the character knows more than it might appear), and the other players will get the right picture of the character. It doesn't matter in the least that there is nothing to actually back up this cryptic demeanor - when telling a story, all that matters is what arrives at the people the story is told to, namely the other players at the table.

This is also true in Play by Post (PbP) games; with the amount of time allowed between each action, the player can think over decisions that the character must make in an instant. Ever come up with the perfect retort in a conversation, but a minute (or several) too late? Your PbP character doesn't have to have that problem.

Swordguy
2008-07-28, 12:32 PM
Well...to be fair, he has a point. Intelligence isn't expressed solely by a complex speech pattern or cryptic behaviour. There's genuine expressions that can't be accurately represented by a person of lower intelligence - pattern recognition and problem solving abilities come readily to mind. If it should take a person of X intelligence to solve an abstract puzzle in Z minutes, a person of X-Y intelligence should generally not be able to solve the problem faster than the person of X intelligence (barring luck) if at all.

Likewise, if it takes X intelligence to recognize a pattern, a person of X-Y intelligence should not be able to recognize it.

So, if the player is of X-Y intelligence, and the character is of X intelligence, how do you allow the player to recognize that pattern or solve that puzzle as if they instead had X intelligence? It requires an abstraction - which was the OP's point.

I would argue that accurately free-form RPing a character above your own intelligence level really is impossible. You can't literally be smarter than yourself, which it what is required to FFRP a PC smarter than you. You can act smarter - but you can't be smarter.

Spiryt
2008-07-28, 12:33 PM
Not to mention that you can just roll Knowledge and if you roll well, your DM can give you hint(s).

Or give you hints just beacuse you have good Int.

Of course it assumes that DM knows what's the best course of action in given moment. It's not always 100% true, but usually DM have the best grasp on what's going on.... At least in games that aren't complete paranoia.

nagora
2008-07-28, 12:39 PM
It is not impossible to play someone with superior mental skills when one takes into account the massive advantages players have over characters. The biggest one is that players rarely have to think in "real time", and even if they do in a particular session they may have an entire week or more off between games to think about something the character has only moments to consider.

Additionally, players have experience of other characters and knowledge which is impossible for most characters to have (including all the movies and such like that most players have seen which may have served as inspiration for the DM). They also have access to hints from the DM and sometimes suggestions from other players.

Generally, the challenge is to keep all the player's advantages in check enough to play a character, even an Int 18 one, not to boost them to match the character.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 12:44 PM
Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to play a character with mental skills superior to one's own. Due to the storytelling nature of roleplaying games, it is not necessary to genuinely be more intelligent than one is - it suffices to play the character in such a manner that the other players get an impression of dealing with a character in possession of superior intelligence. Slightly more complex speech patterns, a somewhat cryptic demeanor (as to signify that the character knows more than it might appear), and the other players will get the right picture of the character. It doesn't matter in the least that there is nothing to actually back up this cryptic demeanor - when telling a story, all that matters is what arrives at the people the story is told to, namely the other players at the table.

Yet your actual problem solving skills will not be enhanced. This does work, but only if the story has already been set in stone (see: acting). In the event that there is free will, you can't problem solve above your intelligence.


This is also true in Play by Post (PbP) games; with the amount of time allowed between each action, the player can think over decisions that the character must make in an instant. Ever come up with the perfect retort in a conversation, but a minute (or several) too late? Your PbP character doesn't have to have that problem.

While this is one scenario, in truth a truely novel and original solution may simply not be possible in a realistic amount of time. If, for example, your DM gives you a relativistic physics trap of which there is a solution but the DM does not know it, a person of higher intellegance might be able to solve it, while a person of lesser intellegance would stand no chance, even given his entire life to solve it.

quick edit:


It is not impossible to play someone with superior mental skills when one takes into account the massive advantages players have over characters. The biggest one is that players rarely have to think in "real time", and even if they do in a particular session they may have an entire week or more off between games to think about something the character has only moments to consider.


See above. Time may have a cutoff point. More time =/= more creativity.



Additionally, players have experience of other characters and knowledge which is impossible for most characters to have (including all the movies and such like that most players have seen which may have served as inspiration for the DM). They also have access to hints from the DM and sometimes suggestions from other players.


Metagaming, the anti-thesis of true RP. Next.

Winterwind
2008-07-28, 12:46 PM
I would argue that accurately free-form RPing a character above your own intelligence level really is impossible. You can't literally be smarter than yourself, which it what is required to FFRP a PC smarter than you. You can act smarter - but you can't be smarter.Most of the time acting smarter should suffice - to employ an analogy, if we were talking about a movie with an actor playing Einstein, we would say the actor did his job well when we could point to the Einstein-character and say "By golly, that guy sure was smart!", not necessarily if the actor managed to convince us that he as a person was of above-average intelligence as well.

In the situations you describe, like puzzle-solving, granted, that's where actually being that intelligent would be helpful. But there are ways around that. If there is a rules framework, that's what mental attributes, knowledge skills and whatever the system in question has to offer are for. In freeform, there still is a gamemaster to give hints (which (s)he should hand out more readily to a supposedly intelligent character than a less intelligent one, just like a skilled, experienced and/or talented character is more likely to be granted a success than one which is none of that in any other situation).


Yet your actual problem solving skills will not be enhanced. This does work, but only if the story has already been set in stone (see: acting). In the event that there is free will, you can't problem solve above your intelligence.See above. That's what gamemaster hints are for.


While this is one scenario, in truth a truely novel and original solution may simply not be possible in a realistic amount of time. If, for example, your DM gives you a relativistic physics trap of which there is a solution but the DM does not know it, a person of higher intellegance might be able to solve it, while a person of lesser intellegance would stand no chance, even given his entire life to solve it.If noone, including the gamemaster, is aware of that solution, it doesn't matter that noone is able to come up with it, because noone will be aware the character was not played to maximum possible intelligence.


Metagaming, the anti-thesis of true RP. Next.If you consider gamemaster hints to be metagaming. Personally, I consider them arbitration of the same kind as the gamemaster deciding that a physical action succeeds or fails. The gamemaster is part of the interface linking players and the in-game world together.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 12:49 PM
Most of the time acting smarter should suffice - to employ an analogy, if we were talking about a movie with an actor playing Einstein, we would say the actor did his job well when we could point to the Einstein-character and say "By golly, that guy sure was smart!", not necessarily if the actor managed to convince us that he as a person was of above-average intelligence as well.

In the situations you describe, like puzzle-solving, granted, that's where actually being that intelligent would be helpful. But there are ways around that. If there is a rules framework, that's what mental attributes, knowledge skills and whatever the system in question has to offer are for. In freeform, there still is a gamemaster to give hints (which (s)he should hand out more readily to a supposedly intelligent character than a less intelligent one, just like a skilled, experienced and/or talented character is more likely to be granted a success than one which is none of that in any other situation).

This assumes the game-master is smarter than you.

For example,

DM creates a problem A and a solution A-1. You're character is smarter than the DM. In true RP, your character should have devised a solution A+ which is faster/more efficient/better than solution A-1. Your DM simply giving out anwsers is not true RPing, because your DM is required to have at least the int of your character.

Morty
2008-07-28, 12:52 PM
Metagaming, the anti-thesis of true RP. Next.

Maybe it is metagaming, but it's definetly a solution to the problem. Of course, the hints have to be subtle, such as "it dawns on you that..." and let the player figure it out.
Also, to see the issue from the other side, there's also the problem of players being to smart for their characters- for example, a very smart person might decide to play a half-wit thug but keep on coming up with smart plans and dialogue. It's much easier to solve though, the players just have to restrain themselves.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 12:55 PM
Maybe it is metagaming, but it's definetly a solution to the problem. Of course, the hints have to be subtle, such as "it dawns on you that..." and let the player figure it out.
Also, to see the issue from the other side, there's also the problem of players being to smart for their characters- for example, a very smart person might decide to play a half-wit thug but keep on coming up with smart plans and dialogue. It's much easier to solve though, the players just have to restrain themselves.

It's not a solution, because then you are destroying the system. If there is metagaming in your true role-playing it nvalidates the "true" role-playing and your situation collapses.


It's the (non)-solution of

LHS = RHS

just multiply both sides by 0 and problem solved.

valadil
2008-07-28, 12:56 PM
I remember someone throwing out a similar debate at lunch some years ago. He said something like nobody should play int 18 characters because it's impossible to roleplay. I told him he shouldn't play int 18 characters and dismissed the argument.

What I've done since then to facilitate a character realizing ideas beyond a player is to just change the source of the ideas for flavor reasons. Sometimes the GM can give a player an idea his character would have thought of. Other times, with the right group, players can pass each other ideas. I've seen a lot of puzzles in dungeons. I've also seen a lot of barbarians come across those puzzles. An actual barbarian wouldn't have much luck with such a puzzle, but it's hardly fair to make that player sit out while the rest of the group solves things. So we end up letting the barbarian play, but the genius character gets credit for the barbarian's ideas because that just makes more sense in the story. Note that this sort of explanation only works with some groups of people who would put the overall story above their own character's achievements.

Winterwind
2008-07-28, 12:56 PM
This assumes the game-master is smarter than you.

For example,

DM creates a problem A and a solution A-1. You're character is smarter than the DM. In true RP, your character should have devised a solution A+ which is faster/more efficient/better than solution A-1. Your DM simply giving out anwsers is not true RPing, because your DM is required to have at least the int of your character.Edited part of the answer to this into my last post. This matters only if there is another player who is neither me nor the gamemaster attending the session who is more intelligent than both of us, in which case the immersion is disturbed for this particular player only. That's regrettable, granted, but doesn't impact me directly. Trying to maximise enjoyment for everyone, the group could try to find a solution for this unfortunate situation (either by allowing some limited player idea transfer or another, less metagaming-dependant solution, as to the liking of the group), but initially that's the problem of a solitary player only.
Also, I spoke of giving out hints, not answers; having everything solved by the gamemaster would probably be rather unfun.

EDIT: A good example for aforementioned "another, less metagaming-dependant solution" was just provided by valadil.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-28, 01:00 PM
In order to truly role-play, one must completely assume the identity of the character they wish to play.

Woah there. I disagree. I play my characters not as "my avatar in another world", but as "my favorite character in an interactive story". Am I not a true roleplayer?

Of you ask me, this thread smells of elitism. If you differ between true (and superior) roleplaying and non-true roleplaying, then you already start at a wrong position.

tumble check
2008-07-28, 01:09 PM
Let's not forget that the OP is talking about extremes here.

D&D (and many RPGs) have abstracted things that are physical(battle) and persuasive(diplomacy), but much of the problem-solving and character quirks have been up to the players.

Sometimes this "true roleplaying" is easy. It explains why some players will nerf their characters a bit, not for the sake of it, but because, for example, when it comes time for them to learn a new feat or a new spell, the player doesn't think "which new ability is the most advantageous to my character/party?", instead they think "If my character were real, which would they logically learn next, and why?" Also, some players that play less intelligent and calculating characters such as Barbarians, will rush into battle or make stupid decisions, even when the player knows better. If a Dwarven Barbarian's family were slaughtered by Goblins, he might rashly charge whenever he sees them, regardless of the circumstances or what his party implores.

But when it comes to "true RPing" things of which you can't personally conceive, abstraction can be useful.

Because you, the player, aren't necessarily strong enough to hold a 6ft long warhammer and hit some large, strong man in an Orc costume, you instead roll dice to see how your character physically performs, as based on his established physical attributes.

So it makes sense, that if you were instead playing a character that exceeds your own mental ability as opposed to physical, then (if you wanted to stay 100% true to abstraction)...

Because you, the player, aren't necessarily smart enough to know how to solve a certain dungeon puzzle, you would be rolling dice to see how your character mentally performs as based on his established mental attributes.

However, even the above mentioned "character quirks" can be abstracted too. One could roll to see if their Barbarian resists the urge to charge the Goblins.

But it's not done this way, because it isn't really fun. If there's no mental exercise in a campaign on the player's part, then why are you playing, right?

This brings up the question of how much one can abstract before things get boring. D&D (especially 4e) leaves very much unabstracted. This has historically been a staple of most RPGs.


EDIT: I'm not sure anyone is talking about superiority here. I'm certainly not.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 01:10 PM
Woah there. I disagree. I play my characters not as "my avatar in another world", but as "my favorite character in an interactive story". Am I not a true roleplayer?


No, you are not a true roleplayer.




Of you ask me, this thread smells of elitism. If you differ between true (and superior) roleplaying and non-true roleplaying, then you already start at a wrong position.

Did I ever say "true roleplaying" was superior? No, I did not. You are assuming that it is, which is false.

Obviously, whatever is most fun is the best, as roleplaying is a game. However, I am talking about high accuracy mental simulations (typically the most involved games only attempt to describe physical systems accurately).




What I've done since then to facilitate a character realizing ideas beyond a player is to just change the source of the ideas for flavor reasons. Sometimes the GM can give a player an idea his character would have thought of. Other times, with the right group, players can pass each other ideas. I've seen a lot of puzzles in dungeons. I've also seen a lot of barbarians come across those puzzles. An actual barbarian wouldn't have much luck with such a puzzle, but it's hardly fair to make that player sit out while the rest of the group solves things. So we end up letting the barbarian play, but the genius character gets credit for the barbarian's ideas because that just makes more sense in the story. Note that this sort of explanation only works with some groups of people who would put the overall story above their own character's achievements.

Collaborative thinking is excellent, but effectivness as a function of people, like it does with time, is not linearly dependant. Even a think tank of a few dozen very smart people are not the equivalent of a top level genius, at least in quality of output.

Edit:




Because you, the player, aren't necessarily smart enough to know how to solve a certain dungeon puzzle, you would be rolling dice to see how your character mentally performs as based on his established mental attributes.

The problem with that, as I said in my original post, is that any mental solution still requires physical activity to execute, which therefore leads to an abstraction of the physical system as well. Because there is no exact mental solution with mental abstraction, there can be no exact physical parameters with which to execute the solution, so the physical portion must be abstracted too.

ie.

I have a large pit. I roll a DC 20 and solve the problem. But now I have to execute the solution.

was the solution:

Jump over (requires jump check)

Make a bridge (requires engineering check)

Swing a rope (requires use rope check)

or more likely some other solution

we can't know what the solution was, so we can't make a specific check and must instead make an "execution check".

Thus, physical system exactness is moot when anybody's character is reasonably smarter than them. All exactness is moot, only abstaction can provide a general solution.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-28, 01:18 PM
Did I ever say "true roleplaying" was superior? No, I did not. You are assuming that it is, which is false.


Then perhaps you should give this style of roleplaying a name that doesn't make people jump to this conclusion? You must admit that "true roleplaying" does sound like something purer and superior.

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-28, 01:27 PM
Your DM simply giving out anwsers is not true RPing, because your DM is required to have at least the int of your character.

This is not in fact the case, as the DM (or, at least, a good DM), knows everything about everything in the entire campaign. The player only has the information that is presented to him.


You must admit that "true roleplaying" does sound like something purer and superior.

No, no, no. He doesn't have to admit anything. Regardless of you're being absolutetly correct.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 01:29 PM
This is not in fact the case, as the DM (or, at least, a good DM), knows everything about everything in the entire campaign. The player only has the information that is presented to him.

Then the solutions are metagamed, and any use of them destroys the accuracy of the system.


Then perhaps you should give this style of roleplaying a name that doesn't make people jump to this conclusion? You must admit that "true roleplaying" does sound like something purer and superior.

"pure elements" are not better than compounds.

This is the most accurate description. I could also call it "perfect" roleplaying or "truely accurate" roleplaying. The fact that purity and accuracy have a positive connotation is not my fault, and whomever thinks so is making an assumption.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-28, 01:48 PM
I would call it neither pure nor perfect. Acting can be considered one of the purest forms of roleplaying, and while there was a time when actors were encouraged to "become their roles" and feel the same as the characters they play do, this is no longer the case.

Also, stating that if someone considers the words "perfect", "pure", "accurate" and "true" superior equals to them making a baseless assumption is being purposely ignorant of the impact society and language have on human perception.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 02:01 PM
I would call it neither pure nor perfect. Acting can be considered one of the purest forms of roleplaying, and while there was a time when actors were encouraged to "become their roles" and feel the same as the characters they play do, this is no longer the case.

Acting is indeed a case of pure roleplaying, but without free will. Furthermore, virtually every story has some point of inconsistency, which of course destroys roleplaying. The only way to ensure self-consistency is to create a deterministic system.



Also, stating that if someone considers the words "perfect", "pure", "accurate" and "true" superior equals to them making a baseless assumption is being purposely ignorant of the impact society and language have on human perception.

Did I call the assumption baseless? No, I did not. It's not baseless, like how racial profiling is not baseless. It's still an assumption that should be validated in each case.

Society and language are perceptive, relative things. If you hadn't noticed, we're talking about objective reality here.

Severedevil
2008-07-28, 02:17 PM
There's a trivial way to solve the problem - if stat generation is supposed to be 3d6 down the line, then 18 Int is only 1 in 216. That's scarcely genius-level, so with all the player's advantages it shouldn't be hard at all. (A fair number of players are smarter than that anyway.)

Of course, if you start stacking up magic that bizarrely twists a character's mind and personality to enhance his mental acuity, you run into problems. Thirty intelligence is rather hard to mimic.

ericgrau
2008-07-28, 02:27 PM
Passive knowledge skill checks rolled by DM in secret. Doesn't cover tactics and a lot of things, but it's something.

I feel guilty now about playing a clever gnome sorceror who dumped int. OTOH I made some other poor choices before I learned more about the system. The party's & DM's reactions to the battlefield control things he did were priceless though. That group hadn't seen such things before, and I learned about it simply by scouring the PHB spell chapter front to back.

18 int is in fact genius. And 10 is average, not even low. I find it annoying when players play int 8 or cha 8 or etc. 8 as a complete idiot/misfit/etc., when they might very well have that same stat themselves. It's just a little below average, that's all.

Eldritch_Ent
2008-07-28, 02:47 PM
I agree with everyone but the OP. "True Roleplaying" definitely seems skewed towards making your definition of it look better.

In addition, You- The OP- are also wrong. Nobody has to have the INT score of their character. Same as someone doesn't need any of the other 5 core attributes (STR, DEX, CON, WIS, CHA) of their characters to truly roleplay. One doesn't need to be use Multishot to play an archer, one doesn't need to be able to cast prestidigitation to be a wizard...

A person doesn't need to be naturally gifted at anything to pretend that their character is better than them at it.

If you want to be the ultimate "true roleplayer", then take up a LARP with actual weapons for a while, and roleplay as yourself set in a modern setting. Otherwise, you're simply drawing lines in the sand for no real reason. Splitting Hairs. That sort of thing.

valadil
2008-07-28, 02:48 PM
Then perhaps you should give this style of roleplaying a name that doesn't make people jump to this conclusion? You must admit that "true roleplaying" does sound like something purer and superior.

I agree that true and pure roleplaying have a holier than thou sound to them.

How about total roleplaying? Complete roleplaying? Precision roleplaying? Exhaustive roleplaying? I kinda like that last one, but exhaustive has a negative connocation. Immersive roleplaying? Full roleplaying? Rigorous roleplaying? Correct roleplaying? I think that's a step down from true roleplaying.

Do any of those seem like better terms for this style of roleplaying?

-- edit --

Ooh, what about byzantine roleplaying? Or draconian? Well, maybe that last one would get confused with draconic.

Swordguy
2008-07-28, 03:00 PM
I agree that true and pure roleplaying have a holier than thou sound to them.

How about total roleplaying? Complete roleplaying? Precision roleplaying? Exhaustive roleplaying? I kinda like that last one, but exhaustive has a negative connocation. Immersive roleplaying? Full roleplaying? Rigorous roleplaying? Correct roleplaying? I think that's a step down from true roleplaying.

Do any of those seem like better terms for this style of roleplaying?

-- edit --

Ooh, what about byzantine roleplaying? Or draconian? Well, maybe that last one would get confused with draconic.

Method Roleplaying. As in "Stanislavsky's Method for Actors". That's more or less what's being described - a total immersion into the character where you think and act (albeit within the confines of the game/ruleset) as the character would, with no thought given to your (the player's) desires.

It's a completely valid way to play. Tengu is both right and wrong in that it's not the ONLY way to play - but it is a completely valid playstyle. Also, he goes out of his way to look for elitism/stuff that he doesn't like, so don't get to concerned about it, OP.

Now, assuming that you are using this Method Roleplaying the OP's premise is correct. If you are using another playstyle (like Tengu's), then it's not. As usual, both sides have elements of truth.

Winterwind
2008-07-28, 03:03 PM
we can't know what the solution was, so we can't make a specific check and must instead make an "execution check".

Thus, physical system exactness is moot when anybody's character is reasonably smarter than them. All exactness is moot, only abstaction can provide a general solution.However, if nobody can know what the solution was, nobody can know there was a more intelligent solution available in the first place. In this case, however, I see no reason not to assume the most intelligent solution the players can come up with (with or without gamemaster aid) is the most intelligent solution possible, and hence exactly the right choice for the high-intelligence character to propose. Being the most intelligent solution the players can come up with, it will most definitely sound intelligent to them - and hence make the character appear just the right way to them. Sounds like mission accomplished to me.

Also, doesn't it seem kinda paradoxical to make immersion more difficult by switching to a higher level of abstraction for the sake of supposedly better roleplaying? In my humble opinion, the best roleplaying possible is the one which achieves the highest degree of immersion for everyone present, hence this seems entirely backwards to me.

Finally, I agree that "true role-playing" is perhaps... not the best way to word it.

nagora
2008-07-28, 03:08 PM
All exactness is moot, only abstaction can provide a general solution.
Ah, if only that were true!

Swordguy
2008-07-28, 03:12 PM
However, if nobody can know what the solution was, nobody can know there was a more intelligent solution available in the first place. In this case, however, I see no reason not to assume the most intelligent solution the players can come up with (with or without gamemaster aid) is the most intelligent solution possible, and hence exactly the right choice for the high-intelligence character to propose. Being the most intelligent solution the players can come up with, it will most definitely sound intelligent to them - and hence make the character appear just the right way to them. Sounds like mission accomplished to me.


But that in and of itself is a level of abstraction. :smalltongue:

Winterwind
2008-07-28, 03:21 PM
But that in and of itself is a level of abstraction. :smalltongue:Well, maybe so, but an unnoticeable one. :smallbiggrin:

My point still remains: It's not important that the solution one comes up with is objectively the most intelligent one (how does one even measure that?), it suffices that it convinces everyone else that your character is a smart person, if that's what you (or your character sheet) claim. Because nobody knows exactly how a real genius wizard, half maddened by his studies, might be. But if you manage to make it seem to them that, yes, this might indeed be how he would be like - then you have reached your goal of roleplaying him well.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 04:03 PM
Well, maybe so, but an unnoticeable one. :smallbiggrin:

My point still remains: It's not important that the solution one comes up with is objectively the most intelligent one (how does one even measure that?), it suffices that it convinces everyone else that your character is a smart person, if that's what you (or your character sheet) claim. Because nobody knows exactly how a real genius wizard, half maddened by his studies, might be. But if you manage to make it seem to them that, yes, this might indeed be how he would be like - then you have reached your goal of roleplaying him well.

Yes, that is one way of looking at it and definatly a valid one. I applaud you for your relativism. However, this still doesn't solve the problem of role playing a character, who is, in relation to yourself, smarter than you. As I said before, playing someone dumber than you is fine, but how can we solve the conundrum of playing someone smarter than you?


I agree with everyone but the OP. "True Roleplaying" definitely seems skewed towards making your definition of it look better.


Look. STATISTICALLY yes pure may be better. However, I have clearly stated that in this case it is indeed not better, so continuing to make that assumption is baseless. Make the mistake once, totally understandable. Make the same mistake twice, and you are wrong.



In addition, You- The OP- are also wrong. Nobody has to have the INT score of their character. Same as someone doesn't need any of the other 5 core attributes (STR, DEX, CON, WIS, CHA) of their characters to truly roleplay. One doesn't need to be use Multishot to play an archer, one doesn't need to be able to cast prestidigitation to be a wizard...


That's because we have abstractified all those actions. We have not abstractified problem solving.



A person doesn't need to be naturally gifted at anything to pretend that their character is better than them at it.

Only if we have some way of expressing it.



If you want to be the ultimate "true roleplayer", then take up a LARP with actual weapons for a while, and roleplay as yourself set in a modern setting. Otherwise, you're simply drawing lines in the sand for no real reason. Splitting Hairs. That sort of thing.

urgh. You don't understand at all. LARP doesn't satisfy the idea of playing someone with higher int than you.


Method Roleplaying. As in "Stanislavsky's Method for Actors". That's more or less what's being described - a total immersion into the character where you think and act (albeit within the confines of the game/ruleset) as the character would, with no thought given to your (the player's) desires.

It's a completely valid way to play. Tengu is both right and wrong in that it's not the ONLY way to play - but it is a completely valid playstyle. Also, he goes out of his way to look for elitism/stuff that he doesn't like, so don't get to concerned about it, OP.

Now, assuming that you are using this Method Roleplaying the OP's premise is correct. If you are using another playstyle (like Tengu's), then it's not. As usual, both sides have elements of truth.

Thank you. We'll call it Method Roleplaying, and discuss the inherent faults of it. I figure that method roleplaying is inherently flawed. Can someone demonstrate to me that I am wrong?

If we can't, then I am forced to conclude that Method Roleplaying isn't actually possible when character int > player int + constant.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-28, 04:28 PM
Yes, that is one way of looking at it and definatly a valid one. I applaud you for your relativism. However, this still doesn't solve the problem of role playing a character, who is, in relation to yourself, smarter than you. As I said before, playing someone dumber than you is fine, but how can we solve the conundrum of playing someone smarter than you?


As I recall there was a dragon mag article about just this problem a few years ago (right when I started playing again). I believe it was titled 'dealing with genuis PC's'. My recollection, probably imprefect because I only glanced at the article, was to use Int checks to provide hints or soloutions to problems on the sly (by passing a peice of paper or some such) which the PC then acts out as though they have come up with a soloution.



That's because we have abstractified all those actions. We have not abstractified problem solving.

As I pointed out, it has been suggested already and to a certian extent we have with the Knowledge skills. It's not too dissimilar from your own suggestion.



Thank you. We'll call it Method Roleplaying, and discuss the inherent faults of it. I figure that method roleplaying is inherently flawed. Can someone demonstrate to me that I am wrong?

What do you mean by inherently flawed? Method acting/roleplaying is attempting insofar as possible become that person. It is inherently flawed in the sense that no person can truly and totally do so.

Still, method acting has traditionally produced some of the most commanding and impressive performances in history. Can we demonstrate that despite the fact that it has flaws, it is not still the best method for acting/rping deep and believable characters?


If we can't, then I am forced to conclude that Method Roleplaying isn't actually possible when character int > player int + constant.

No more than we must conclude it's impossible when a player is playing a character with much higher physical attributes than they posess. Yes, there will be levels of abstraction in involved in both cases.

nagora
2008-07-28, 05:01 PM
Actually, the real problem is that you are confusing roleplay with character-simulation. Pure simulation of what a character would do is a) impossible by Quantum Theory and common sense, and b) Boring as a game.
The "metagaming" solution to playing a character smarter than you is in fact a perfectly reasonable way of roleplaying the character (since the object is to play the character's actions, not to play their cognition process). The alternative is impossible to achieve and is therefore not important.

Swordguy
2008-07-28, 05:22 PM
Actually, the real problem is that you are confusing roleplay with character-simulation. Pure simulation of what a character would do is a) impossible by Quantum Theory and common sense, and b) Boring as a game.
The "metagaming" solution to playing a character smarter than you is in fact a perfectly reasonable way of roleplaying the character (since the object is to play the character's actions, not to play their cognition process). The alternative is impossible to achieve and is therefore not important.

But what happens when you're in a group where the simulation of character IS the point? My group, for example, is composed entirely of theatre people - we all act for a living. RPGs are fun practice (and a tax-writeoff) for that.

sikyon
2008-07-28, 07:45 PM
As I pointed out, it has been suggested already and to a certian extent we have with the Knowledge skills. It's not too dissimilar from your own suggestion.


Unfortunatly, knowledge =/= problem solving. It can only be repersentative when the knoweldge is an outcome of a more intelegant problem solving technique.



What do you mean by inherently flawed? Method acting/roleplaying is attempting insofar as possible become that person. It is inherently flawed in the sense that no person can truly and totally do so.


Yes, this is what I am arguing. There is no method of doing this with any objective form of exactness.



Still, method acting has traditionally produced some of the most commanding and impressive performances in history. Can we demonstrate that despite the fact that it has flaws, it is not still the best method for acting/rping deep and believable characters?


But what is "believable"? Theoretically, a single contradiciton destroys an entire system.



No more than we must conclude it's impossible when a player is playing a character with much higher physical attributes than they posess. Yes, there will be levels of abstraction in involved in both cases.

But you can abstractify the physical system while maintaining exactness. Ie. I can simulate a physical system of a person lifting an object exactly with newtownian mechanics, creating a function relating input force with outcome. By varying the input force, we are simulating higher strength.

But we can't do that with mental processes, or can we?


Actually, the real problem is that you are confusing roleplay with character-simulation. Pure simulation of what a character would do is a) impossible by Quantum Theory and common sense, and b) Boring as a game.
The "metagaming" solution to playing a character smarter than you is in fact a perfectly reasonable way of roleplaying the character (since the object is to play the character's actions, not to play their cognition process). The alternative is impossible to achieve and is therefore not important.

a) quantum theory is insignifigant at macroscopic scales

b) yes

I feel that the metagaming solution honestly does not feel like super-intellegent problem solving.

Ie.

Person A sees a huge pit.

If he were a genius, he'd think to create a hand glider of out components from his portable hole.

If he were metagaming, he'd know that if you stomp 3 times on the ground and yell "SHAZAM" a bridge would pop up. As in, even if he was an int 26 genius, there is no way he could know that solution beforehand.


Now theoretically knoweldge skills will let you do this. But knowing something isn't solving a problem, if you understand my meaning.

And no, the DM can't hint to make a hand glider out of the components. Why? The DM isn't that smart either.

namo
2008-07-28, 09:45 PM
In order to truly role-play, one must completely assume the identity of the character they wish to play. The problem is, this includes both physical and mental characteristics.

Like all "pure" definitions, your definition of true roleplaying makes it impossible to achieve. You are grounded in your time and body (even if it doesn't feel like it while playing), limited by your knowledge/past experience/..., influenced by your emotions and sensations, so that the only character you can truly roleplay is your present self. (Yes, you can't even truly roleplay your past selves.)

sikyon
2008-07-29, 12:28 AM
Like all "pure" definitions, your definition of true roleplaying makes it impossible to achieve. You are grounded in your time and body (even if it doesn't feel like it while playing), limited by your knowledge/past experience/..., influenced by your emotions and sensations, so that the only character you can truly roleplay is your present self. (Yes, you can't even truly roleplay your past selves.)

I'm talking about creating a self-consistent deterministic system (with the possibility of constant random factors) where you can indeed roleplay mental stats. In the same way that D&D removes the physical part of your characters from your own body, a system that can remove the mental part of your characters from your own mind.

Helgraf
2008-07-29, 12:52 AM
And when you boil it down, you can't prove anything exists, not even yourself. We're always accepting levels of abstration in our own real lives. Why should roles we play be any different?



Unfortunatly, knowledge =/= problem solving. It can only be repersentative when the knoweldge is an outcome of a more intelegant problem solving technique.



Yes, this is what I am arguing. There is no method of doing this with any objective form of exactness.



But what is "believable"? Theoretically, a single contradiciton destroys an entire system.



But you can abstractify the physical system while maintaining exactness. Ie. I can simulate a physical system of a person lifting an object exactly with newtownian mechanics, creating a function relating input force with outcome. By varying the input force, we are simulating higher strength.

But we can't do that with mental processes, or can we?



a) quantum theory is insignifigant at macroscopic scales

b) yes

I feel that the metagaming solution honestly does not feel like super-intellegent problem solving.

Ie.

Person A sees a huge pit.

If he were a genius, he'd think to create a hand glider of out components from his portable hole.

If he were metagaming, he'd know that if you stomp 3 times on the ground and yell "SHAZAM" a bridge would pop up. As in, even if he was an int 26 genius, there is no way he could know that solution beforehand.


Now theoretically knoweldge skills will let you do this. But knowing something isn't solving a problem, if you understand my meaning.

And no, the DM can't hint to make a hand glider out of the components. Why? The DM isn't that smart either.

nagora
2008-07-29, 03:58 AM
But what happens when you're in a group where the simulation of character IS the point? My group, for example, is composed entirely of theatre people - we all act for a living. RPGs are fun practice (and a tax-writeoff) for that.
There's a difference between simulating a character's actions and playing the character: in the latter one is trying to take the place of the character and act as if you were they. In the former, there is a desire to find the actual way this person would act. That's impossible, and not just by Quantum Theory.

a) quantum theory is insignifigant at macroscopic scales
It's not, actually. It's the ultimate basis of chaos theory, and that is very significant at the macroscopic level.

You are essentially putting forward a Newtonian view of the world - that if we knew everything about a character we would know what they would do next. Each character sheet expands to become a Chinese box with tables and charts and rules which spit out how they act given a set of inputs.

Not only is that impossible on the practical level, I don't think it even works in theory, because people (and the universe in general) really is not that deterministic.

And if it's impossible, why worry about how you would do it? And even if you could do it, the result would not be roleplay as a computer would be able to do it. If a dumb machine can do it, it's not any kind of play.



I feel that the metagaming solution honestly does not feel like super-intellegent problem solving.

Ie.

Person A sees a huge pit.

If he were a genius, he'd think to create a hand glider of out components from his portable hole.
But what prevents that from happening in the game, after the player spends some time thinking about it and discussing it with the other players? This is the sort of metagaming I'm talking about - accessing real-world resources that allow the player to pretend to be smarter than s/he would be in the character's situation.


If he were metagaming, he'd know that if you stomp 3 times on the ground and yell "SHAZAM" a bridge would pop up. As in, even if he was an int 26 genius, there is no way he could know that solution beforehand.
I'm not thinking of that sort of meta-gaming (which sounds to me like just straight forward cheating). Having said that, Godlike intelligence might in fact work like that. Who knows?


Now theoretically knoweldge skills will let you do this. But knowing something isn't solving a problem, if you understand my meaning.
I do, yes. But all this that we're talking about is why I don't like games with skill systems for the knowledge areas. I can play those out far, far better than any system that tries to take them off me. Unless we get very frisky, however, we don't want to play out the combat and the casting of magic spells. So, we tolerate combat and magic systems and a few other things, but the rest is covered by "used to be a farmer" or similar background information.

Codifying and rating character knowledge rarely works. There is no connection whatsoever between complexity, precision, and accuracy.


And no, the DM can't hint to make a hand glider out of the components. Why? The DM isn't that smart either.
The DM can recognise a smart idea when s/he hears it.

Kurald Galain
2008-07-29, 04:37 AM
Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to play a character with mental skills superior to one's own.

Precisely. The rulebook for Amber Diceless RPG has a number of good suggestions on this, because for several characters in the book the RPG is based on, the nominal Princes of Amber, it's pretty much a given that they're several steps ahead of everybody else, and excel at out-Xanatossing one another. And yep, you get to play or DM that.

namo
2008-07-29, 04:52 AM
I'm talking about creating a self-consistent deterministic system (with the possibility of constant random factors) where you can indeed roleplay mental stats. In the same way that D&D removes the physical part of your characters from your own body, a system that can remove the mental part of your characters from your own mind.

But it doesn't remove your own body from your own mind. Can you truly roleplay a high Con character, someone who can get trashed over and over and still go on ? Can you truly roleplay a high Str character who can punch through a wall ? Can you truly roleplay a character that has a different size from yours ?

You separate body and mind too much.

I guess I agree with you that "roleplaying" different mental stats is impossible - for your definition of roleplaying. For the same extreme definition, I disagree "roleplaying" different physical stats is possible.

For other definitions, both are possible.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-29, 11:49 AM
Unfortunatly, knowledge =/= problem solving. It can only be repersentative when the knoweldge is an outcome of a more intelegant problem solving technique.

I never claimed that knowledge = problem solving. I claimed it was "not too dissimilar", which it's not. Both are abstract ways of representing mental functions (remembering vs. figuring something out) that your character can do but you in the real world cannot.


Yes, this is what I am arguing. There is no method of doing this with any objective form of exactness.

Have some fun with Chaos and Quantam theories. There is no form of doing anything with an objective form of exactness. Why make RPG's (which are not designed to scientific precision and are ultimatley a fantasy pastime) a special case?



But what is "believable"? Theoretically, a single contradiciton destroys an entire system.

Only in mathematical or purley logical systems. Roleplaying is neither of those. Plenty of acting jobs are believable in that sense despite the obvious fact that Johnny Depp is not really Hunter Thompson (for example).


But you can abstractify the physical system while maintaining exactness. Ie. I can simulate a physical system of a person lifting an object exactly with newtownian mechanics, creating a function relating input force with outcome. By varying the input force, we are simulating higher strength.

But we can't do that with mental processes, or can we?

No, and we never will have the capacity to do so. Steven Hawking has an interesting argument on this in his essay/lecture "Free will and determinisim" in Black Holes and Baby Universes.

In truth, we can't even do it with the physical mechanics, although we can at this stage come closer. We can create rough approximations that are good enough the vast majority of the time. The same is true with playing high Int characters.



a) quantum theory is insignifigant at macroscopic scales

Chaos theory is not. When you tie quantam to chaos theory...


Now theoretically knoweldge skills will let you do this. But knowing something isn't solving a problem, if you understand my meaning.

Being told something (i.e. a sucessful knowledge check) doesn't feel like remembering something either. However, in practice, it functions mechanically pretty well.


And no, the DM can't hint to make a hand glider out of the components. Why? The DM isn't that smart either.

But in this case, we are dealing with a theoretical rather than practical problem in RP. If, by definition, no one at the table is smart enough to recognize what the 'real' Int 26 soloution is, then no one can tell the difference between a really smart seeming one and one that's spot on. In which case, considering we are all playing a game for fun, that level of exactness doesn't matter.


I'm talking about creating a self-consistent deterministic system (with the possibility of constant random factors) where you can indeed roleplay mental stats. In the same way that D&D removes the physical part of your characters from your own body, a system that can remove the mental part of your characters from your own mind.

As I said, check the dragon mag article. If you really want that, there are suggestions for doing so. Honestly though, I have to agree with others that it just seems... boring. If all of it can be done mechanically, then why do we need players?

Edit:

Probably should have read the post excerpted below before I responded, since it says a fair hunk of what I did. But hey.


Not only is that impossible on the practical level, I don't think it even works in theory, because people (and the universe in general) really is not that deterministic.

I disagree, but that's really a topic for another thread in a different forum. I'd say it is that deterministic, but not such that it matters.

Winterwind
2008-07-29, 12:24 PM
But in this case, we are dealing with a theoretical rather than practical problem in RP. If, by definition, no one at the table is smart enough to recognize what the 'real' Int 26 soloution is, then no one can tell the difference between a really smart seeming one and one that's spot on. In which case, considering we are all playing a game for fun, that level of exactness doesn't matter.Thank you. This is exactly what I have been trying to express.

sikyon, it is true that a player of real-life intelligence 14 might not be able to come up with a solution that requires intelligence 20, and that it is not possible to play a character of that intelligence in the exact manner this character would behave if (s)he was real. But it sure is possible to play a character in such a manner that everyone at the table deems your "interpretation" of this high-intelligence character convincing and believable. And I just don't see the issue, then; as I see it, only the latter matters, for what is to be gained by the former?

In fact, I can even easily imagine that at times a solution a genuine super-intelligent character would propose might seem utterly unremarkable to the other players, whereas another solution, not identical to the one the super-intelligent character would propose, would baffle the other players with its seeming cunning - in which case the latter solution, while less genuine, would contribute better to instilling the desired picture of the character in the other players' imaginations. Not saying I wouldn't go with the most genuine solution I can come up with nevertheless, but ultimately, as long as the character comes across the right way, why worry?

Fhaolan
2008-07-29, 01:04 PM
There is another method, and I'm somewhat surprised that no-one has mentioned it. Although perhaps the references to free-form RP alluded to this.

These solutions depend on the genius character and his not-quite-genius player not existing in a vaccuum. There are the other players, and the DM, who are active participants in the game.

The simplest version is the other players may make suggestions, out-of-character, which the player can then choose the best one, and RP as if that suggestion actually came from the genius character in question.

A more difficult version is the method recommended to DMs for playing genius NPCs. The DM is present when the PCs come up with their plans, or at least is there when the PCs actually try to act out their plans. A true genius NPC villain will have probably thought of some of these plans even though the DM didn't. Therefore, the DM can retroactively say that the Villain did in fact think of that, despite the fact he himself didn't. This is a bit of a balancing act, so that the Villain is presented as a genius, but not omnipitent.

Applying the same technique to the PC, if the player comes up with a plan that the DM knows won't really work, or thinks he's noticed a pattern that the DM knows isn't really there, but the character is a genius who *should* have come up with a plan that works, or noticed a pattern, the DM modifies the parts of the scenario that the players don't already know about so that the plan has a chance of working, or that the pattern is actually there. The players don't ever have *all* the information. This gives the DM leeway to make up some details on the fly that would make the genius character actually seem like a genius.

I do this all the time, as DM. In many cases the players come up with plots and see patterns that are better (or just funnier) than what I had originally planned. So *yoink* I incorporate them in places that the players haven't actually reached, and their characters seem more intelligent and insightful than the players nominal are.

And this is basically reverse engineering how genius characters in literature and movies are written. The author knows what's going on, so he has the character figure it out as appropriate. In this case the character figures something out, and the author revises what's going on to match.