It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do!

[Quertus]

First, I don't care much for characters who are defined by an archetype. It's paint-by-numbers storycraft. Each character should be that specific character, not "a human fighter" or "the smart one" or "the magical girl" with some details tacked on.

Second, there's nothing wrong with a character who starts out unsuitable for "adventuring" or "mystery solving" or "crime fighting"... or naive... or scared... or whatever -- the problem is when the player defines the character by those things so that's always what the character will be and they'll never pick up any combat or investigation or research skills of any usefulness.

Player -- "My character is the scrappy noob!"
GM -- "You've been reading too much TV Tropes, stop picking archetypes and make an actual character."

I think I understand, but just to be sure...

You would have no problem with my player describing me as a pacifist, especially since that has changed over my lifetime. But you would take issue if my player defined me... as/by a single archetype, like "gamer #42"?

This makes communicating about characters a bit difficult though, doesn't it? If I say I'm a gamer with an interest in computers... well, how far do I have to go before I sound less like a stereotype and more like a real boy to you?

Well, the problem is, when different people say "role-playing" they mean very different things. So if I say I am consenting to a "role-playing game" meaning Type A, but then get a "role-playing game" Type B, I would imho be very justified in saying "ya know what, this isn't for me" and walk out on the group. Or discuss with the group how to make the game more to my liking, but if the rest is fine with Type B, why spoil their fun?
So, depending on the different perceptions of the term, some people might very well not like there being "role-playing (Type A)" in a "Role-playing game (Type B)"
And be perfectly justified in that dislike.
(To maybe fill the example with more meaning, if someone defines role-playing as "having a character to play that can do cool stuff I can't", putting them into a game of "role playing is basically improv acting" people might be a very bad idea, and the first player being against there being "role-playing" in his "Role playing game" perfectly justified, since this is not the kind of Role-playing he likes. To paraphrase a very apt statement someone else said about LARPs some years back: RPGs aren't really ONE Hobby. They are more like 20, and I play about 7.)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

I don't think that's necessarily true, though. Yeah, introducing a floor is probably inevitable, but I don't quite follow how you unavoidably introduce a ceiling. I mean, as long as I fullfill the requirements the system gives me (the floor), how am I limited in going into more detail and beyond that in any way? I give you that there are probably systems that DO introduce a ceiling, but the necessity of that happening... I'd have to be convinced, and as of now am not. (To be fair, you did not bring any arguments yet, you just postulated it. So hearing your reasoning for that might very well proof enlightening^^)

The human mind is far more complex than any system people will actually play. Any system that rewards you for following this oversimplification of personality is providing Pavlovian reinforcement of a ceiling.

(Also, the qualifier of a "good" group is somewhat nebulous. How do you even define that, and how do you know you are in one? Or, in other words: How can I determine if I am better off with taking a system as a base, or by letting everything run free?)

Hmmm... What's the opposite of "dysfunctional"? A group where you could actually sit down and have a conversation about play style, and everyone walks away feeling it was productive, with no hurt feelings. You know, kinda the opposite of Bizarro World.

[Floret]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

Right back atcha, to be honest.
I am aware we are operating under different definitions of Role-playing, with me having a much broader definition. (For better or worse) If I had to define mine I would probably come out at something along the lines of "Role playing is playing a Role/Character in a (Role Playing) Game" which is a bit tautological, I admit, but with my goal to not divide into "Real" and "Fake" Role playing, that's what you get.
But, I have not yet actually managed to understand what exactly you mean by role-playing. Is it in any way close to being the "Role-playing is actually improv acting" example? Because I find that to be a weirdly and unhelpfully limited definition, given that a vast part of what people call Roleplaying is excluded by it.
(And, as we all hopefully have learned from the desaster in the Player/GM-led thread, using definitions different from what other people use can cause heavy issues with communicating)

The human mind is far more complex than any system people will actually play. Any system that rewards you for following this oversimplification of personality is providing Pavlovian reinforcement of a ceiling.

I mean, sure, it si. But... how is it doing that? It rewards me for hitting the beats, but as long as it doesn't punish me for improv-ing between the required ones, how is this actually limiting me? I mean, sure, following the beats and only the beats does provide a ceiling (One being identical with the floor), but that is not given by the system, but instead by the player playing the system.

Hmmm... What's the opposite of "dysfunctional"? A group where you could actually sit down and have a conversation about play style, and everyone walks away feeling it was productive, with no hurt feelings. You know, kinda the opposite of Bizarro World.

The opposite of "dysfunctional" would be "functional", I believe
And alright. But... to be completely honest, that definition does not strike me as particularly related to whether or not the group could profit from a guideline-system for roleplaying.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think I understand, but just to be sure...

You would have no problem with my player describing me as a pacifist, especially since that has changed over my lifetime. But you would take issue if my player defined me... as/by a single archetype, like "gamer #42"?

This makes communicating about characters a bit difficult though, doesn't it? If I say I'm a gamer with an interest in computers... well, how far do I have to go before I sound less like a stereotype and more like a real boy to you?

Yes, that's close to one part of the problem. If "your player" came to me and said "I'm playing a pacifist", I'd say "that's it?", in the same way I'd respond to someone who said "I'm playing a wizard".

The second part is when the player has a concept for the character that drastically limits their participation or contribution to what the other player characters are doing inside the game, and clings to that concept as THE defining aspect of the character.


Now, as for "gamer with an interest in computers", that's very generic. If introducing yourself to someone, do you say "Hi, I'm (your name) ", or do you say "Hi, I'm one of millions of (insert generic "archetype" here) " ?

The human mind is far more complex than any system people will actually play. Any system that rewards you for following this oversimplification of personality is providing Pavlovian reinforcement of a ceiling.

Too true. Rules that try to define personality are almost inevitably going to come up short.

[Segev]

So are rules that try to define combat. Unless you're making a simulation that models the precise motions and interactions of all the muscles in the body with the physics of the objects and forces being employed in the battle, down to expressly describing the exact kind of damage and the force-equations on the now-wounded parts of the body to evaluate impedence of function and rate of blood loss and loss of blood's impact on other internal organs' performance.... you'll be applying a ceiling to how well you can RP combat.

You know, unless you decide that the model gives you the gross, in-game effects and that you can fluff WHY those effects are manifesting however you like.

At which point you can do the same for social mechanics working on a model of a character's psyche.

[Lord Torath]

Yes, that's close to one part of the problem. If "your player" came to me and said "I'm playing a pacifist", I'd say "that's it?", in the same way I'd respond to someone who said "I'm playing a wizard".

The second part is when the player has a concept for the character that drastically limits their participation or contribution to what the other player characters are doing inside the game, and clings to that concept as THE defining aspect of the character.


Now, as for "gamer with an interest in computers", that's very generic. If introducing yourself to someone, do you say "Hi, I'm (your name) ", or do you say "Hi, I'm one of millions of (insert generic "archetype" here) " ?

It's the difference between saying "My character is a Rigger, who likes shooting stuff with drones" and "My character is a Rigger. She likes cats, hates cars (prefers bikes or her feet), generally prefers to use non-lethal force (except for Toxic Shamans, who killed her aunt, uncle, and cousins, Die! Die! Die!), and thinks anything made by Renraku is worse than useless. An Archetype is a starting point, and shouldn't wholly define your character.

[The Glyphstone]

So are rules that try to define combat. Unless you're making a simulation that models the precise motions and interactions of all the muscles in the body with the physics of the objects and forces being employed in the battle, down to expressly describing the exact kind of damage and the force-equations on the now-wounded parts of the body to evaluate impedence of function and rate of blood loss and loss of blood's impact on other internal organs' performance.... you'll be applying a ceiling to how well you can RP combat.

You know, unless you decide that the model gives you the gross, in-game effects and that you can fluff WHY those effects are manifesting however you like.

At which point you can do the same for social mechanics working on a model of a character's psyche.

Sounds like the combat mechanics for FATAL.

[Segev]

Sounds like the combat mechanics for FATAL.

Oh, please, FATAL was not written by somebody with enough understanding of how limbs are linked together to write rules that would work in that level of detail.

[ComradeBear]

So are rules that try to define combat. Unless you're making a simulation that models the precise motions and interactions of all the muscles in the body with the physics of the objects and forces being employed in the battle, down to expressly describing the exact kind of damage and the force-equations on the now-wounded parts of the body to evaluate impedence of function and rate of blood loss and loss of blood's impact on other internal organs' performance.... you'll be applying a ceiling to how well you can RP combat.

You know, unless you decide that the model gives you the gross, in-game effects and that you can fluff WHY those effects are manifesting however you like.

At which point you can do the same for social mechanics working on a model of a character's psyche.

They are also essentially stating that of the various Stances one can RP from, Actor Stance is the One True Right Way, when it is not.

To define what I mean by the Stances, Stances are another creation of the Forge, used to attempt to describe one of the many complexities of the RPG experience.

Now, notes about Stances before I continue:
Nobody uses just one. Everyone switches around, but many have a favorite.
This is not prescriptive, nor is it designed to account for any of a million individual scenarios in which you devise a thing that might be between stances. It doesn't matter if it's between. There's nothing wrong with straddling a line, here.
This is for Players, not GMs.

Actor Stance:
This is where you try to live in your character's head and do things because they would do so. Narrative reasoning comes before action.

Pawn Stance:
This is where you really don't care what the character thinks. The character is a game piece. You take actions for mechanical reasons, no narrative reasoning required.

Author Stance:
Similar to Actor Stance, but the reasoning is inverted. You make a decision for mechanical/tactical reasons, and apply a narrative reason why afterwards. (For instance if you build a really well optimized undead-killer cleric and decide that they are so good at killing the undead because undead killed their family and they devoted their life to the slaughter of the undeceased.)

Director Stance:
Basically mini-gm stance. You establish scenes, perhaps even describe some NPC actions, basically do some of the GMs job for them.

Those are the 4 stances as I know them. Now to dive in for realsies:

Metagaming/Immersion are a false dichotomy. Theres a lot of nuance in there, and saying that having a metagaming reward for RP "kills immersion" might very well only be true for you.
(Now, I'm biased here, in that I think the whole concept of Immersion is a huge load of bunk, because barring mental health issues an in inability to separate fantasy from reality, you will never stop being aware that you are playing a game. You will not feel the sword in your hands and smell the sweat of the thief's neck as you strangle them to death. You will not feel the blows against your character as if made to your own person. You are separate from your character, and any attempts to get into their head will be limited by the sheer fact that they are not real, they do not exist, only you exist, and it is YOU who makes decisions. Not them. So when a GM wants to tempt the character, they CAN'T. Because the character isn't real. But you, friend, you ARE real. And so they can tempt YOU.

That is why the mechanics exist. When you engage in those mechanics, switch to author stance. Make a good reason why their opinion was swayed, at least temporarily. Stretch those creative muscles. The character isn't real. Anything you SAY is their reaction, IS their reaction. The character has no autonomy at all. Only you. So when we need to appeal to someone, again, we cannot appeal to the character. Because they are not real. We can only appeal to YOU. Because you're the real one.

[Max_Killjoy]

So are rules that try to define combat. Unless you're making a simulation that models the precise motions and interactions of all the muscles in the body with the physics of the objects and forces being employed in the battle, down to expressly describing the exact kind of damage and the force-equations on the now-wounded parts of the body to evaluate impedence of function and rate of blood loss and loss of blood's impact on other internal organs' performance.... you'll be applying a ceiling to how well you can RP combat.

You know, unless you decide that the model gives you the gross, in-game effects and that you can fluff WHY those effects are manifesting however you like.

At which point you can do the same for social mechanics working on a model of a character's psyche.

I just don't see them as the same:

1) Things like motivation and personality and mental processes and "psyche" / "soul" are internal to the character, whereas combat and even social interaction are external to the character.

2) Most of us can't safely engage in actual lethal combat or even a close approximation thereof, as even most gamers lack the skill and training to even remotely work out combat on an actual physical level... most gamers frankly lack the knowledge to work out combat on the imaginary level, especially with the way fiction typically misrepresents combat.

[Max_Killjoy]

They are also essentially stating that of the various Stances one can RP from, Actor Stance is the One True Right Way, when it is not.

To define what I mean by the Stances, Stances are another creation of the Forge, used to attempt to describe one of the many complexities of the RPG experience.

Now, notes about Stances before I continue:
Nobody uses just one. Everyone switches around, but many have a favorite.
This is not prescriptive, nor is it designed to account for any of a million individual scenarios in which you devise a thing that might be between stances. It doesn't matter if it's between. There's nothing wrong with straddling a line, here.
This is for Players, not GMs.

Actor Stance:
This is where you try to live in your character's head and do things because they would do so. Narrative reasoning comes before action.

Pawn Stance:
This is where you really don't care what the character thinks. The character is a game piece. You take actions for mechanical reasons, no narrative reasoning required.

Author Stance:
Similar to Actor Stance, but the reasoning is inverted. You make a decision for mechanical/tactical reasons, and apply a narrative reason why afterwards. (For instance if you build a really well optimized undead-killer cleric and decide that they are so good at killing the undead because undead killed their family and they devoted their life to the slaughter of the undeceased.)

Director Stance:
Basically mini-gm stance. You establish scenes, perhaps even describe some NPC actions, basically do some of the GMs job for them.

Those are the 4 stances as I know them. Now to dive in for realsies:

Metagaming/Immersion are a false dichotomy. Theres a lot of nuance in there, and saying that having a metagaming reward for RP "kills immersion" might very well only be true for you.
(Now, I'm biased here, in that I think the whole concept of Immersion is a huge load of bunk, because barring mental health issues an in inability to separate fantasy from reality, you will never stop being aware that you are playing a game. You will not feel the sword in your hands and smell the sweat of the thief's neck as you strangle them to death. You will not feel the blows against your character as if made to your own person. You are separate from your character, and any attempts to get into their head will be limited by the sheer fact that they are not real, they do not exist, only you exist, and it is YOU who makes decisions. Not them. So when a GM wants to tempt the character, they CAN'T. Because the character isn't real. But you, friend, you ARE real. And so they can tempt YOU.

That is why the mechanics exist. When you engage in those mechanics, switch to author stance. Make a good reason why their opinion was swayed, at least temporarily. Stretch those creative muscles. The character isn't real. Anything you SAY is their reaction, IS their reaction. The character has no autonomy at all. Only you. So when we need to appeal to someone, again, we cannot appeal to the character. Because they are not real. We can only appeal to YOU. Because you're the real one.

Damn ignore system doesn't fully function, so might as well respond to this, since I didn't realize I was reading your post until halfway through.

First of all, when you say "immersion is bunk", the thing you go on to describe is a silly caricature of immersion (the scent of straw is strong, in fact). Actual "immersion" does not require the player to forget that they're playing a game, or to have mental health issues, or to be unable to separate fantasy from reality. People reading books or watching a movie don't forget what they're doing or lose their sense of reality, and yet immersion in the story happens even there.

Second, I'm tired of the term "narrative" being applied to both character-driven decisions and storytelling-driven decisions. You describe "actor stance" as driven by in-character decisions, and then describe this as "narrative reasoning". One group tells me that "narrative focus" means that the game is character-driven, and then another group goes on and on about "narrative focus" being "story now" and "exploring premise and theme" and a bunch of other NON-character-driven stuff that almost always ends up treating characters and setting as contrivances, and continuity and coherence and consistency as impediments to "great story!" Character-driven and storytelling-driven focuses need to have different names, because they're DIFFERENT THINGS.

( This is also part of why I've gotten sick of the "big model" and "GNS" and related attempts to slice up gaming -- they make far too many conflations between things that are actually at odds, and between focus and mechanics... and generally reflect unspoken agendas and biases. )

Third, this whole thing with stances... not sure why you'd call "mechanical decisions first" "Author Stance", it just sounds like "pawn stance" with wallpaper. As for "pawn stance", at that point you might as well just go play a board game.


Really, I wouldn't want to be involved in a gaming group that took this "stances" stuff seriously, or who hammered and hammered and hammered on this "your character isn't real your character isn't real your character isn't real" garbage.

[ComradeBear]

I just don't see them as the same:

1) Things like motivation and personality and mental processes and "psyche" / "soul" are internal to the character, whereas combat and even social interaction are external to the character.

2) Most of us can't safely engage in actual lethal combat or even a close approximation thereof, as even most gamers lack the skill and training to even remotely work out combat on an actual physical level... most gamers frankly lack the knowledge to work out combat on the imaginary level, especially with the way fiction typically misrepresents combat.

Most players lack the ability to accurately simulate an entire other person and their entire lifetime of memories, motivations, emotions, and temptations, too.

Even individuals with Disassociative Identity Disorder (aka "multiple personalities") don't actually have multiple personalities. Assuming an additional identity is a way to "disassociate" from a circumstance or emotion. So yeah, this argument doesn't hold up well. >.>

[Max_Killjoy]

Most players lack the ability to accurately simulate an entire other person and their entire lifetime of memories, motivations, emotions, and temptations, too.

Even individuals with Disassociative Identity Disorder (aka "multiple personalities") don't actually have multiple personalities. Assuming an additional identity is a way to "disassociate" from a circumstance or emotion. So yeah, this argument doesn't hold up well. >.>

So you're saying that only someone with a mental disorder can even come close to roleplaying a character?


Would you like to trade in your shovel for a backhoe at this point?


Seriously, you accuse other people of "one true wayism", and then turn around and make this sort of crass and belittling and haughty statement against people who view the hobby differently than you do, or have different RPing techniques than your over-analytical (and frankly cold, stiff, and dreary, and IDK, maybe even post-modernist) "stances" and "your character isn't real" ?

Really? "Your character isn't real, you are"? Who exactly do you think doesn't know this, that you have to offer it up as some sort of grand revelation?

There's a vast difference between the delusion that a character is literally real, and the kind of emotional investment and depth that treats a character as "real", in the sense of verisimilitude. Your attempts to conflate the two and preach about it are just plain insulting and arrogant.

[ComradeBear]

Damn ignore system doesn't fully function, so might as well respond to this, since I didn't realize I was reading your post until halfway through.

First of all, when you say "immersion is bunk", the thing you go on to describe is a silly caricature of immersion (the scent of straw is strong, in fact). Actual "immersion" does not require the player to forget that they're playing a game, or to have mental health issues, or to be unable to separate fantasy from reality. People reading books or watching a movie don't forget what they're doing or lose their sense of reality, and yet immersion in the story happens even there.

I used exaggeration, but I personally don't believe immersion is the be-all, end-all of RP. And I reject the idea that not being sufficiently immersed means you aren't really RPing.

Second, I'm tired of the term "narrative" being applied to both character-driven decisions and storytelling-driven decisions. You describe "actor stance" as driven by in-character decisions, and then describe this as "narrative reasoning". One group tells me that "narrative focus" means that the game is character-driven, and then another group goes on and on about "narrative focus" being "story now" and "exploring premise and theme" and a bunch of other NON-character-driven stuff that almost always ends up treating characters and setting as contrivances, and continuity and coherence and consistency as impediments to "great story!" Character-driven and storytelling-driven focuses need to have different names, because they're DIFFERENT THINGS.

I suppose I would have been better suited saying "fiction-based reasoning" since rhe reasoning comes from the Fiction layer of the game rather than the Mechanical layer.

Sorry to trigger... whatever that was by using Narrative instead of Fiction.

( This is also part of why I've gotten sick of the "big model" and "GNS" and related attempts to slice up gaming -- they make far too many conflations between things that are actually at odds, and between focus and mechanics... and generally reflect unspoken agendas and biases. )

I apologize for being one of many trying to understand the infinite intricacies and interactions inherent to RPGs.

Third, this whole thing with stances... not sure why you'd call "mechanical decisions first" "Author Stance", it just sounds like "pawn stance" with wallpaper. As for "pawn stance", at that point you might as well just go play a board game.

Do you not consider that perhaps there are other reasons they might be attracted to the unique gaming opportunities afforded by tabletop games that are not available in other board games?
And it should be noted, (and in fact I did note), that people are rarely just of one stance always. And that the same person can assume all four stances over the course of a single session. Switching stances moment-to-moment is really, really common.

Really, I wouldn't want to be involved in a gaming group that took this "stances" stuff seriously, or who hammered and hammered and hammered on this "your character isn't real your character isn't real your character isn't real" garbage.

The character is a piece of paper and some ideas in your head.
In the same way Harry Potter isn't real, the characters in an RPG are not real.

The idea that the characters in an RPG aren't real should be the LEAST controversial thing I said. >.>

[Enixon]

So you're saying that only someone with a mental disorder can even come close to roleplaying a character?


Would you like to trade in your shovel for a backhoe at this point?

Seem more like he's saying that most players lack the ability to accurately simulate an entire other person and their entire lifetime of memories, motivations, emotions, and temptations, then elaborating on it by commenting on the fact that even people that have mental disorders that make then literally think and believe that they are actually another person, rather than just pretending to be one at the game table, still tend to have bleed through from their original self.

[ComradeBear]

So you're saying that only someone with a mental disorder can even come close to roleplaying a character?

Nope!

I'm saying there is a similar amount of inability to simulate accurate combat without rules as to simulate an entire fictional person's psyche. Everything else you said is not things I was talking about in that post. :D

Seriously, you accuse other people of "one true wayism", and then turn around and make this sort of crass and belittling and haughty statement against people who view the hobby differently than you do, or have different RPing techniques than your over-analytical (and frankly cold, stiff, and dreary, and IDK, maybe even post-modernist) "stances" and "your character isn't real" ?

You're making qualitative arguments about what I'm saying without subtantiating where I've said that any given technique is the one true right way. Though I did offer reasoning for why having mechanical incentives for the RP side is not a bad thing, either. There is a perfectly valid motivation for doing so.

Really? "Your character isn't real, you are"? Who exactly do you think doesn't know this, that you have to offer it up as some sort of grand revelation?

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that we can't appeal to a person who isn't real. But we CAN appeal to someone who IS real.

Stick to points I'm making, pls.

There's a vast difference between the delusion that a character is literally real, and the kind of emotional investment and depth that treats a character as "real", in the sense of verisimilitude. Your attempts to conflate the two and preach about it are just plain insulting and arrogant.

When, exactly, did I conflate the two? I simply said that humans are imperfect simulators of other humans, and so RP mechanics have valid reasons for being a thing.

If you want me to not put words in your mouth, you can't expect me to let you put them in mine. :P

[Dr_Dinosaur]

It's simple rules worship. If it is in the rules, it's fine. But if it is just a person ''acting out'', it's bad.

So the way you run games, except using rules everyone, not just the DM, can actually read and understand?

[Max_Killjoy]

Nope!
I'm saying there is a similar amount of inability to simulate accurate combat without rules as to simulate an entire fictional person's psyche.

Everything I've seen in gaming tells me otherwise. The scale and distribution of the ability shown to "get into the head of the character" is entirely different from the scale and distribution of the ability to "get up and act out a fight scene involving dangerous weapons / techniques". Or maybe I've just been very lucky in terms of the people I've gamed with overall.

(And never mind the difference in risk between "hitting each other with swords" and "try to get into a character's head".)

In fact, there's an entire field of research into intelligence that looks at the ability of one thinking entity to understand that another person -- even a fictional / hypothetical person -- has a different point of view and different knowledge from that entity. Other species display it to varying degrees (dogs are better at it than many primates, in fact), but it peaks sharply in human beings. That ability to "model" another person in one's own head appears to be a key aspect of human intelligence.

Everything else you said is not things I was talking about in that post. :D

Oh, no, it's right there in your posts, all right.

You're making qualitative arguments about what I'm saying without subtantiating where I've said that any given technique is the one true right way. Though I did offer reasoning for why having mechanical incentives for the RP side is not a bad thing, either. There is a perfectly valid motivation for doing so.

Gee, sorry if I mistook the utter disdain you displayed for concepts of RPing that you don't see as valid, for you contributing inflated importance to your own way of doing things.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that we can't appeal to a person who isn't real. But we CAN appeal to someone who IS real.

Stick to points I'm making, pls.

So you repeatedly hammer on "your character isn't real", as if it's a revelation, but that's not your point?

OK...


As for appealing to the character, maybe it just doesn't work for you, but for other players, it is possible to appeal to something that they understand that their character would be appealed to by, and to then have their character appealed to by that thing.

The "problem" comes when the player says "my character isn't appealed to by that thing", and the GM believes that what the GM wants the player character to be appealed to by, is more important than what the player has decided. In my experience, this often originates from the GM having something in mind that "makes a better story" or "makes for an interesting challenge" or whatever, and considering that more important than consistent characterization (and this is where we get into RPGs delving into the sins of bad writing that plague so much of our fiction).

At that point, instead of pressing the issue, maybe the GM should say "either this player really means it and really believes this about their character, or this player is not interested in his character experiencing this sort of plot element, and either way I should move on and not drag the game down with a dispute". And no, this is not in any way the same as the player refusing to allow their character to be hit with a weapon or whatever -- one is internal to the character dealing with their inner working and desires and makeup... while the other is external and relates to their physical interaction with the setting/world and other characters.

Of course, if these "nature of the character" mechanics you're in favor of were set up to accurately model the actual nature of the character's internal workings, that would be one thing... but they rarely are. Instead, they're usually set up to make the character vulnerable in additional and "interesting" ways, to make for "better stories".

When, exactly, did I conflate the two? I simply said that humans are imperfect simulators of other humans, and so RP mechanics have valid reasons for being a thing.

Where did you conflate the two?

Really? How about I quote the comment again:

(Now, I'm biased here, in that I think the whole concept of Immersion is a huge load of bunk, because barring mental health issues an in inability to separate fantasy from reality, you will never stop being aware that you are playing a game. You will not feel the sword in your hands and smell the sweat of the thief's neck as you strangle them to death. You will not feel the blows against your character as if made to your own person. You are separate from your character, and any attempts to get into their head will be limited by the sheer fact that they are not real, they do not exist, only you exist, and it is YOU who makes decisions. Not them. So when a GM wants to tempt the character, they CAN'T. Because the character isn't real. But you, friend, you ARE real. And so they can tempt YOU.

Right there.

If you want me to not put words in your mouth, you can't expect me to let you put them in mine. :P

Hard to stop doing something I've never actually started doing.

[ComradeBear]

Everything I've seen in gaming tells me otherwise. The scale and distribution of the ability shown to "get into the head of the character" is entirely different from the scale and distribution of the ability to "get up and act out a fight scene involving dangerous weapons / techniques". Or maybe I've just been very lucky in terms of the people I've gamed with overall.

(And never mind the difference in risk between "hitting each other with swords" and "try to get into a character's head".)

In fact, there's an entire field of research into intelligence that looks at the ability of one thinking entity to understand that another person -- even a fictional / hypothetical person -- has a different point of view and different knowledge from that entity. Other species display it to varying degrees (dogs are better at it than many primates, in fact), but it peaks sharply in human beings. That ability to "model" another person in one's own head appears to be a key aspect of human intelligence.

You're talking about Theory of Mind.
(Ironic since you accused my of psychobabble previously and here we are quoting neurology and psychology.)

And that's all well and good. But it's entirely different from internally simulating another person's entire personality, history, emotions, and experiences.

Oh, no, it's right there in your posts, all right.

Appeal to the Stone.

Gee, sorry if I mistook the utter disdain you displayed for concepts of RPing that you don't see as valid, for you contributing inflated importance to your own way of doing things.

Ref?

Spoiler

Show

Thanks, ref.

So you repeatedly hammer on "your character isn't real", as if it's a revelation, but that's not your point?

OK...

I repeated the assertion twice. >.>
Yes, i used all-caps but I'm also lazy and do that instead of italics or bold. (Also because I post from my phone and it's a pain to do lots of formatting, and I still tend to mess up.)

As for appealing to the character, maybe it just doesn't work for you, but for other players, it is possible to appeal to something that they understand that their character would be appealed to by, and to then have their character appealed to by that thing.

The "problem" comes when the player says "my character isn't appealed to by that thing", and the GM believes that what the GM wants the player character to be appealed to by, is more important than what the player has decided. In my experience, this often originates from the GM having something in mind that "makes a better story" or "makes for an interesting challenge" or whatever, and considering that more important than consistent characterization (and this is where we get into RPGs delving into the sins of bad writing that plague so much of our fiction

At that point, instead of pressing the issue, maybe the GM should say "either this player really means it and really believes this about their character, or this player is not interested in his character experiencing this sort of plot element, and either way I should move on and not drag the game down with a dispute". And no, this is not in any way the same as the player refusing to allow their character to be hit with a weapon or whatever -- one is internal to the character dealing with their inner working and desires and makeup... while the other is external and relates to their physical interaction with the setting/world and other characters.

Of course, if these "nature of the character" mechanics you're in favor of were set up to accurately model the actual nature of the character's internal workings, that would be one thing... but they rarely are. Instead, they're usually set up to make the character vulnerable in additional and "interesting" ways, to make for "better stories".

Appealing to the character is functionally the same as appealing to you, which in some regards weakens what I'm saying and in others strengthens it.

By your method, there is 0 capacity to use mechanics to enhance natural persuasiveness. It makes it impossible to play socially adept characters if you are not exactly that socially adept. Which is a limitation not placed on physical combat. The ONLY way to fix this without using "mind control" based on rolls is to incentivise the player, rather than the character. Yes, you can think of a million reasons why the halting, cumbersome, and poorly presented words of Mike might not convince you. But by going along with what he's asking, you get this goodie in exchange for ignoring his personal weaknesses and focusing on the skill his character has.
And if we want to have anyone play whatever character they want, we have to make sure that even Mike can have a chance to be convincing.

Hence, RP-based mechanics are not there to make sure Max has a bad time. They're there to help Mike have a good time. If you can convince people without rolls, hooray. Some people can't. And they get to have their fantasy adventure just as much as you do.

Where did you conflate the two?

Really? How about I quote the comment again:



Right there.

Oooooh, sorry. Try again.
That's not me making any comments on verisimilitude, but rather that barring said things, you won't lose track of literal reality. (Which is a thing I have seen people demand. It's an unrealistic demand.)
Unless you want to assert that I'm lying about my meaning. Which would be something something pots and kettles.

Hard to stop doing something I've never actually started doing.

See above.

[Cluedrew]

Personally I like the idea of rules that interact with a character's personality. Not to say in all cases, or all implementations of it, but I like the idea, here are some reasons why:

• Stories are about people (or at least the ones I like are) and people are defined in part by there personalities. So I like bringing that into the game with mechanics. (Referencing ideas like "proportion of rules is relates to proportion of play time".)
• Without mechanics, personalities can influence decisions, but they can't influence ability. If I want my character to be better at things that require waiting because she is patent, in most systems I have to buy up each skill individually.
• People say that social things are too complex to represent accurately in rules. But so is every other thing the rules cover (and even if they aren't I haven't seen true-to-life combat system ever) and we get by with approximations there. So I don't feel that using approximations hurts here.
• Loss of control, this may sound odd but the fact I don't have complete control is part of the draw of an RPG system. The surprise and the occasional unwanted outcome give the experience something I can't get in writing, where I have complete control.*
• Encoding things in the system can serve as a communication tool (as well as an incentive) to help show what the game being played with the system is about. And given the amount of bad gaming stories that come from bad communication, I think that is good.
• I'll admit I enjoy the novelty of a good personality system, because it is done well so rarely.

*Or in theory I have complete control while writing, sometimes the characters disagree.

Spoiler: Ref?

Show

I probably shouldn't be as amused by these things as I am.

[Quertus]

Right back atcha, to be honest.
I am aware we are operating under different definitions of Role-playing,
But, I have not yet actually managed to understand what exactly you mean by role-playing. Is it in any way close to being the "Role-playing is actually improv acting" example? Because I find that to be a weirdly and unhelpfully limited definition, given that a vast part of what people call Roleplaying is excluded by it.

Hmmm... I don't have a good definition of role-playing. Closest I can come is this: Role-playing is making choices for the character, as the character. Which is related to but separate from acting.

Any other definition is of no use to me, as this definition (approximately) matches what I care about when I say I enjoy role-playing.

If I am provably wrong in my definition, and there exists a more precise word that I should be using instead, then I will happily adopt the new terminology. Until then, I will continue to describe my major sources of enjoyment in playing RPGs as role-playing, tactical combat, solving puzzles, exploration, and rules lawyering, and my minor sources of enjoyment as "having magic" and "rolling dice". With "consistency" as a requirement.

But that's a bit far afield of the thread topic, I think.

The "Role-playing" aesthetic expects that different characters will likely have different responses to the same stimulus, just as different people will have different responses.

For example: A small girl goes to hand <character> a flower.

Victoria gets down to the child's level, and asks, "how much?"

Quertus performs a magic trick, "changing" the flower into a coin for the girl.

Woody asks, "where's your mother?", but probably knew the answer to that question 5 minutes before meeting the girl.

Armus assumes its a trap, and, if his allies are nearby, he accepts the flower. If not, queue a long series of questions regarding exactly what Armus sees and remembers seeing, before taking whatever action feels right at the time.

Although, depending on what else is going on, any of my characters could just as easily ignore the girl.

I mean, sure, it si. But... how is it doing that? It rewards me for hitting the beats, but as long as it doesn't punish me for improv-ing between the required ones, how is this actually limiting me? I mean, sure, following the beats and only the beats does provide a ceiling (One being identical with the floor), but that is not given by the system, but instead by the player playing the system.

Well, World of Darkness games seem a good example. IIRC, they only require you to push the button for cheese one per session for the role-playing reward. More often for regaining willpower.

It's been a while... I remember gaming the system for willpower being an issue, but don't remember having significant problem with the role-playing reward. No, I take that back: it was difficult to convince people to roleplay better than the minimalistic way that the system encouraged - more difficult than if there had been no system. So, yeah, I really can't say that it was "better than nothing".

Which is different from my ceiling complaint. The ceiling in such a game would be in how often one has to contrive a reason to earn the cheese, or how often one acts out of character in order to earn the cheese.

The opposite of "dysfunctional" would be "functional", I believe
And alright. But... to be completely honest, that definition does not strike me as particularly related to whether or not the group could profit from a guideline-system for roleplaying.

You're absolutely right - that definition has nothing to do with whether a group could profit from a guideline-system for roleplaying. That definition defines my guess as to what group would profit more by sitting down and rolling their own role-playing encouragement cheese. One which matches their themes, their preferences, their biases, their blind spots.

So are rules that try to define combat. Unless you're making a simulation that models the precise motions and interactions of all the muscles in the body with the physics of the objects and forces being employed in the battle, down to expressly describing the exact kind of damage and the force-equations on the now-wounded parts of the body to evaluate impedence of function and rate of blood loss and loss of blood's impact on other internal organs' performance.... [b]you'll be applying a ceiling to how well you can RP combat[/i].

You know, unless you decide that the model gives you the gross, in-game effects and that you can fluff WHY those effects are manifesting however you like.

At which point you can do the same for social mechanics working on a model of a character's psyche.

Hmmm... I feel like this is a trick question. I mean, I feel like the world having consistent rules - in or out of combat - is important to role-playing.

Further, simpler-than-reality combat rules are a boon to role-playing, as they consume less headspace, thereby leaving more headspace for emulating your character's personality ("role-playing") in combat.

They are also essentially stating that of the various Stances one can RP from, Actor Stance is the One True Right Way, when it is not.

To define what I mean by the Stances, Stances are another creation of the Forge, used to attempt to describe one of the many complexities of the RPG experience.

Now, notes about Stances before I continue:
Nobody uses just one. Everyone switches around, but many have a favorite.
This is not prescriptive, nor is it designed to account for any of a million individual scenarios in which you devise a thing that might be between stances. It doesn't matter if it's between. There's nothing wrong with straddling a line, here.
This is for Players, not GMs.

Actor Stance:
This is where you try to live in your character's head and do things because they would do so. Narrative reasoning comes before action.

Pawn Stance:
This is where you really don't care what the character thinks. The character is a game piece. You take actions for mechanical reasons, no narrative reasoning required.

Author Stance:
Similar to Actor Stance, but the reasoning is inverted. You make a decision for mechanical/tactical reasons, and apply a narrative reason why afterwards. (For instance if you build a really well optimized undead-killer cleric and decide that they are so good at killing the undead because undead killed their family and they devoted their life to the slaughter of the undeceased.)

Director Stance:
Basically mini-gm stance. You establish scenes, perhaps even describe some NPC actions, basically do some of the GMs job for them.

Those are the 4 stances as I know them. Now to dive in for realsies:

Metagaming/Immersion are a false dichotomy. Theres a lot of nuance in there, and saying that having a metagaming reward for RP "kills immersion" might very well only be true for you.
(Now, I'm biased here, in that I think the whole concept of Immersion is a huge load of bunk, because barring mental health issues an in inability to separate fantasy from reality, you will never stop being aware that you are playing a game. You will not feel the sword in your hands and smell the sweat of the thief's neck as you strangle them to death. You will not feel the blows against your character as if made to your own person. You are separate from your character, and any attempts to get into their head will be limited by the sheer fact that they are not real, they do not exist, only you exist, and it is YOU who makes decisions. Not them. So when a GM wants to tempt the character, they CAN'T. Because the character isn't real. But you, friend, you ARE real. And so they can tempt YOU.

That is why the mechanics exist. When you engage in those mechanics, switch to author stance. Make a good reason why their opinion was swayed, at least temporarily. Stretch those creative muscles. The character isn't real. Anything you SAY is their reaction, IS their reaction. The character has no autonomy at all. Only you. So when we need to appeal to someone, again, we cannot appeal to the character. Because they are not real. We can only appeal to YOU. Because you're the real one.

Yeah, no. Those other things aren't role-playing, not as I read your text.

And, for the bolded part, I can only say, that's the difference that makes Real (TM) roleplayers.

One group tells me that "narrative focus" means that the game is character-driven, and then another group goes on and on about "narrative focus" being "story now" and "exploring premise and theme" and a bunch of other NON-character-driven stuff that almost always ends up treating characters and setting as contrivances, and continuity and coherence and consistency as impediments to "great story!"

That sounds like just about the worst thing ever. At least for me.

Most players lack the ability to accurately simulate an entire other person and their entire lifetime of memories, motivations, emotions, and temptations, too.

Even individuals with Disassociative Identity Disorder (aka "multiple personalities") don't actually have multiple personalities. Assuming an additional identity is a way to "disassociate" from a circumstance or emotion. So yeah, this argument doesn't hold up well. >.>

... That's fair. Most people can't. But it is a skill that can be trained to reach levels where I, at least, have difficulty perceiving the difference. And that's all that matters to me, personally.

[ComradeBear]

Hmmm... I don't have a good definition of role-playing. Closest I can come is this: Role-playing is making choices for the character, as the character. Which is related to but separate from acting.

Remember this. I'm gonna use it in a minute.

Yeah, no. Those other things aren't role-playing, not as I read your text.

Using the above, Actor Stance fits your definition exactly.
So I hope you're not saying NONE of the stances count as roleplaying, because at least 3 touch on or follow your definition above.

Actor Stance is exactly what you call roleplaying.
Director Stance is essentially the same but with greater scene-framing authority lent to you by the GM.
Author Stance is Actor Stance but backwards. We decide what the character does first, and create the fictional reason afterwards. (Many people do this without realizing it.)

And, for the bolded part, I can only say, that's the difference that makes Real (TM) roleplayers.

Everyone who sits at the table playing a roleplaying game is a Roleplayer. *shrug*

I think Pawn Stance has the least level of connectedness to a character, but as I've emphasized several times now, and now do in all-caps:
PEOPLE SWITCH STANCES CONSTANTLY DURING A GAME.
YOU ARE NOT A "X STANCE" ROLEPLAYER. IT MIGHT BE YOUR FAVORITE BUT PEOPLE SWAP CONSTANTLY, AND MAY ENTER ALL 4 IN ONE SESSION.

Also

STANCES ARE NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. THEY JUST DESCRIBE ONE PART OF THE MYRIAD INTRICACIES OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PLAYER, MECHANICS, AND FICTION.

That is all.

... That's fair. Most people can't. But it is a skill that can be trained to reach levels where I, at least, have difficulty perceiving the difference. And that's all that matters to me, personally.

That's acting.
And yet they are still themselves, portraying a person in their own style.
This is why Casting exists. This is why we still watch Hamlet.
Because Leonardo DeCaprio's Hamlet will be different from Patrick Stewart's Hamlet or Adam Sandler's Hamlet even if the lines are all exactly the same. Because they are not 100% separate from the character. They bring their own personal beliefs, expressions, and readings of the lines that change how the character is portrayed and seen by the audience.

I have seen many depictions of the character Shylock from The Merchant of Venice. In some, he is a put-upon man, angry at the cruelty of those surrounding him. In others he is a greedy wretch of a man. Depends on the actor.

In short, even Actors do not fully separate themselves from the character. This is why we like to imagine things like "What if Kurt Russel had played Han Solo instead of Harrison Ford?" Because it makes a difference. A difference that you will notice.

[Quertus]

By your method, there is 0 capacity to use mechanics to enhance natural persuasiveness. It makes it impossible to play socially adept characters if you are not exactly that socially adept. Which is a limitation not placed on physical combat. The ONLY way to fix this without using "mind control" based on rolls is to incentivise the player, rather than the character. Yes, you can think of a million reasons why the halting, cumbersome, and poorly presented words of Mike might not convince you. But by going along with what he's asking, you get this goodie in exchange for ignoring his personal weaknesses and focusing on the skill his character has.
And if we want to have anyone play whatever character they want, we have to make sure that even Mike can have a chance to be convincing.

Hence, RP-based mechanics are not there to make sure Max has a bad time. They're there to help Mike have a good time. If you can convince people without rolls, hooray. Some people can't. And they get to have their fantasy adventure just as much as you do.

This is, to me, an issue that can be solved by the people Mike it's trying to convince being better at role-playing. So... not the only way. Not even the best one, IMO.

Personally I like the idea of rules that interact with a character's personality. Not to say in all cases, or all implementations of it, but I like the idea, here are some reasons why:[*]Stories are about people (or at least the ones I like are) and people are defined in part by there personalities. So I like bringing that into the game with mechanics. (Referencing ideas like "proportion of rules is relates to proportion of play time".)

[*]Without mechanics, personalities can influence decisions, but they can't influence ability. If I want my character to be better at things that require waiting because she is patent, in most systems I have to buy up each skill individually.

Hmmm... I think I like this. Off hand, I see no way that applying "crunchy" adjectives to my characters would hinder my role-playing. Quertus is "specialized", Armus is "paranoid", etc.

[*]People say that social things are too complex to represent accurately in rules. But so is every other thing the rules cover (and even if they aren't I haven't seen true-to-life combat system ever) and we get by with approximations there. So I don't feel that using approximations hurts here.[*]Loss of control, this may sound odd but the fact I don't have complete control is part of the draw of an RPG system. The surprise and the occasional unwanted outcome give the experience something I can't get in writing, where I have complete control.*

And here's where we, if not disagree, at least have different things we care about.

While you may not care, I, personally, am hampered by role-playing "approximations". Combat... I like to have the tactical level, say, 3e D&D has. But that's me.

[*]Encoding things in the system can serve as a communication tool (as well as an incentive) to help show what the game being played with the system is about. And given the amount of bad gaming stories that come from bad communication, I think that is good.

I can see this helping those who aren't in a group that is able to have good, open, positive discussions about these things, true. And I can see the value to those who cannot express their desires. Assuming, of course, that they can find a game that meets their desires in the first place.

And, yes, communicating "theme" in this manner, while not impacting role-playing, would be of benefit to those who game with me, but care about theme.

[ComradeBear]

This is, to me, an issue that can be solved by the people Mike it's trying to convince being better at role-playing. So... not the only way. Not even the best one, IMO.

This option is basically "Instead of supporting Mike, just have everyone else let him win."

That's not just a non-solution, it's pretty much patronizing. "Everyone else step up and pretend to be convinced by Mike because he's not persuasive." Most similar stories involve kids with physical/developmental problems doing sports things. It will not go unnoticed. It will come across as patronizing. Mike's victories will feel hollow.

[Quertus]

Using the above, Actor Stance fits your definition exactly.
So I hope you're not saying NONE of the stances count as roleplaying, because at least 3 touch on or follow your definition above.

Actor Stance is exactly what you call roleplaying.

It comes close. Which is why I said "none of the other", as opposed to "none".

Author Stance is Actor Stance but backwards. We decide what the character does first, and create the fictional reason afterwards. (Many people do this without realizing it.)

Your example of this occurred during character creation, IIRC. And it's kinda the opposite of what I consider role-playing.

Everyone who sits at the table playing a roleplaying game is a Roleplayer. *shrug*

Everyone who gets drafted into a war is a warrior? Everyone who has sat at a table and had lunch with me is a programmer? Not by my definitions.

Nor do I define everyone who has sat at the table and gamed with me as a Roleplayer, tactician, rules lawyer, actor, munchkin, DM/GM, riddle solver, mapper, artist, or anything else you could describe some players as.

But that's how I use my words.

I have thus gamed with several people who have never in their lives Roleplayed - and most of them will admit as much.

I think Pawn Stance has the least level of connectedness to a character, but as I've emphasized several times now, and now do in all-caps:
PEOPLE SWITCH STANCES CONSTANTLY DURING A GAME.
YOU ARE NOT A "X STANCE" ROLEPLAYER. IT MIGHT BE YOUR FAVORITE BUT PEOPLE SWAP CONSTANTLY, AND MAY ENTER ALL 4 IN ONE SESSION.

I'll have to think about it more, but, from your initial descriptions, I did not recognize all four as something I'd seen, and certainly don't consider at least one of them to constitute "role-playing" any more than it constitutes "munchkin behavior" or "railroading". Actually, it probably qualifies as those better than it qualifies as roleplay, IMO.

STANCES ARE NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. THEY JUST DESCRIBE ONE PART OF THE MYRIAD INTRICACIES OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PLAYER, MECHANICS, AND FICTION.

That is all.

I interact with the fiction by rolling dice, but that doesn't make the act of rolling dice role-playing. This is where I'm having problems with your definitions.

EDIT:

This option is basically "Instead of supporting Mike, just have everyone else let him win."

That's not just a non-solution, it's pretty much patronizing. "Everyone else step up and pretend to be convinced by Mike because he's not persuasive." Most similar stories involve kids with physical/developmental problems doing sports things. It will not go unnoticed. It will come across as patronizing. Mike's victories will feel hollow.

No, it's, "everyone act like you're scared of the cardboard dragon, because it is supposed to be scary". That's acting.

Roleplay like your character finds Mike's character convincing, because Mike's character is convincing (even though Mike isn't) is role-playing.

In the right group, it isn't patronizing or hollow.

[Floret]

Hmmm... I don't have a good definition of role-playing. Closest I can come is this: Role-playing is making choices for the character, as the character. Which is related to but separate from acting.

Any other definition is of no use to me, as this definition (approximately) matches what I care about when I say I enjoy role-playing.

If I am provably wrong in my definition, and there exists a more precise word that I should be using instead, then I will happily adopt the new terminology. Until then, I will continue to describe my major sources of enjoyment in playing RPGs as role-playing, tactical combat, solving puzzles, exploration, and rules lawyering, and my minor sources of enjoyment as "having magic" and "rolling dice". With "consistency" as a requirement.

You might not be wrong in defining it that way, but: That is, imho, a terrible way to design definitions. You define the sort of role-playing you like, and then turn around and say "The rest isn't roleplaying". That is akin to me defining what food I like, and turning around and defining everything else as "not food". (Are fish food? Aubergines? Stinky cheeses? Is beer a beverage? I mean, certainly. I would never touch any of them to my mouth lest I have the misfortune of tasting them, but that does not make them not food.) So excluding everything else does nothing to help communicating, and you really should (as you already say) use a different word for what you mean. "Roleplaying I enjoy", for example. I mean, I think I do somewhat get what you mean by Role-playing, and I am aware that it is a definition used not only by you, I just find it a terrible and confusing way to phrase what you want to convey. (I am pretty sure you mean the same thing rulebooks talk about when they suggest giving out extra XP for "Good Roleplaying". Which, at least in those vague terms, is a mechanic I am highly against, but digressing...)
There is a reason scientists go ahead and differentiate Implications and Implicatures. To talk about things a layperson might refer to with the same term, but to better communicate the nuances.
To be honest, I don't have a perfect replacement term myself. Maybe something like Character-acting. Or Role-acting. Now just hope it catches on

Well, World of Darkness games seem a good example. IIRC, they only require you to push the button for cheese one per session for the role-playing reward. More often for regaining willpower.

It's been a while... I remember gaming the system for willpower being an issue, but don't remember having significant problem with the role-playing reward. No, I take that back: it was difficult to convince people to roleplay better than the minimalistic way that the system encouraged - more difficult than if there had been no system. So, yeah, I really can't say that it was "better than nothing".

Which is different from my ceiling complaint. The ceiling in such a game would be in how often one has to contrive a reason to earn the cheese, or how often one acts out of character in order to earn the cheese.

Uhm... how does this provide a ceiling? Just because you don't HAVE to do more than the requirement (The floor), doesn't make that a ceiling. A floor is created by giving incentive for going at least up to a certain level, or punishing staying under it. For there to actually be a ceiling, there has to be some incentive to stay below a certain level, or punishment for crossing over it. And I just don't see how the second derives from having the first?
I mean, sure, players might go with "meh, good enough, I fullfill the requirements", but that does not constitute a mechanical ceiling, but is player-internal. (Also, one could argue that player would probably not gone much above that (or even to that level) if the floor was not there.)
And was it really more difficult? How do you measure that? Also, again, this does not consitute a ceiling. Which you do agree. I still don't understand where the ceiling comes from, though

You're absolutely right - that definition has nothing to do with whether a group could profit from a guideline-system for roleplaying. That definition defines my guess as to what group would profit more by sitting down and rolling their own role-playing encouragement cheese. One which matches their themes, their preferences, their biases, their blind spots.

I think the two are mostly orthogonal to each other. I think that a functional group is a group that should meet to Roleplay together, and a dysfunctional one should disband. Seriously, there is no fun to be had there, and it would be better for all involved. Inside a functional group, if you go and say "We take this system" or "we write up this system" is a difference of preferrence.

Yeah, no. Those other things aren't role-playing, not as I read your text.

And, for the bolded part, I can only say, that's the difference that makes Real (TM) roleplayers.

You mean role-actors? (Seriously, the terms as you are using them now makes you seem like an elitist ****.)

... That's fair. Most people can't. But it is a skill that can be trained to reach levels where I, at least, have difficulty perceiving the difference. And that's all that matters to me, personally.

As can fighting, crafting, and all other things (Except maybe magic, but holy **** there are some great Larpmages out there where you start doubting reality). A completely off-topic suggestion: Have you tried Larping? Cause at least for me (in Germany, different scene, I know), it scratches those itches roleplaying seems to scratch for you just way better. Leaving me room for enjoying massive dicepools, having characters capable of stuff you never would be and such similar things in TRPGs. And the best thing: In rule-less Larp, noone will argue with your definition of Roleplaying, as it is the default assumption But that might not exist where you live. I dunno. Back to the thread.

No, it's, "everyone act like you're scared of the cardboard dragon, because it is supposed to be scary". That's acting.

Roleplay like your character finds Mike's character convincing, because Mike's character is convincing (even though Mike isn't) is role-playing.

In the right group, it isn't patronizing or hollow.

Problem is: Everyone else had to invest hard currency (XP, or whatever the system calls it) into the things their character is good at, but they are not.
But Mike now is excempt. And at that point, if we act like Mike is supposed to be convincing, but not rolling dice for it because the mechanics aren't there: How do we differenciate between someone who is bad at being convincing and has a character that is convincing, and someone who is bad at being convincing and playing a character that is also bad at convincing? With your method, the second will suddenly be convincing as well. And nuances of convincing (Being able to convince the farmer, but not the hardened veteran, the king, but not his advisor, etc.) kinda... fly out the window if you just act, without any mechanical involvement to judge. Since the real-world representation is no longer in any way accurate.
(Also, if, at the table, the GM literally went ahead and said "this is a scary dragon, act like it", I would have exactly the same problem. Unless he made me roll against a Fear-Effect of the creature, and I failed that. THEN I would go ahead and be scared - and not just because someone said so, but because while comparing the skills of our characters (The dragon being one in this case) the GM/dragon came out on top. The same thing applies for me in Social situations. If there is a win, whether by actually being convincing IRL (Which I do in TRPGs only give bonuses for, and still expect a roll, tbh, to prevent the problem of "wait, this is legitimate character power without investment") or by the dice falling that way - great! That feels like a win. But if not... that does, at least for me, ring very hollow. We can't talk our way through a fight by "acting like Martin is a great fighter and will just deal with the goblins". No, we either (Reserved pretty much for Larping) have a "real" fight, or we roll the dice. So why should social situations/being convinced be any different? As your example is ALSO equivalating stuff inside and outside the social arena )

[Cluedrew]

Hmmm... I think I like this. Off hand, I see no way that applying "crunchy" adjectives to my characters would hinder my role-playing. Quertus is "specialized", Armus is "paranoid", etc.

I'm glad I'm making some sense. It can be done well or not, but in my experience systems with detail tend to do it better, if only because the designers but thought into it.

And here's where we, if not disagree, at least have different things we care about.

While you may not care, I, personally, am hampered by role-playing "approximations". Combat... I like to have the tactical level, say, 3e D&D has. But that's me.

It is fine that we disagree or similar, but I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph. By approximations I meant things like HP, which approximates your physical health into a single number.

Or broader categories, for instance "paranoid" could mean is actually paranoid and sees danger everywhere, are very aware of the situation and the dangers in it, or is a former Secret Service agent and has all sorts of checks and double-checks as part of their routine, even though it is just habit at this point. Sure you could have a different trait for each of these but the effects of these are about the same so group them together and let flavour decide the differences.

I can see this helping those who aren't in a group that is able to have good, open, positive discussions about these things, true. And I can see the value to those who cannot express their desires. Assuming, of course, that they can find a game that meets their desires in the first place.

And, yes, communicating "theme" in this manner, while not impacting role-playing, would be of benefit to those who game with me, but care about theme.

It is only necessary in groups where they can't have that sort of discussion, I think it can still be a useful tool in those discussions (which you should probably have regardless). This is comes from my particular history of starting with relatively generic systems (D&D level) and then joining a group where they play specialized systems where the system itself is the entirety of the pitch. Which is why I don't play some games with them.

What do you mean by theme?

[ComradeBear]

It comes close. Which is why I said "none of the other", as opposed to "none".

You'll need to explain the qualitative difference between "make decisions based on the character's personality" and "make decisions based on the character's personality" that makes it close but still different.

Your example of this occurred during character creation, IIRC. And it's kinda the opposite of what I consider role-playing.

You actually described yourself doing this with Quertus, your own character, earlier. You described having the mechanical/metagame motivation of not wanting to have him outshine everyone else by virtue of being a wizard. And so he "holds the idiot ball" during combat. I'm sure you gave him the personality for that, too.
You made a mechanical decision, and applied a fictional reason to it.
Author Stance.
So unless you want to strip yourself of being a roleplayer, Author Stance is a perfectly valid way to roleplay a character. And most will likely never notice if you do it.

For instance, I had a player create a character and play that character for an entire session, and only after they had some established behaviors/mechanics/equipment for that character did they answer the "why" questions about them. And that character probably now has the most complete and compelling backstory in the group.

Author Stance.

You can also do that in the middle of a game. I do it a lot while playing (not GMing.) And basically nobody notices because I don't advertise it. I had a character who ended up going out of his way to take a little girl back to the continent she came from, because instead of abandoning her to her fate, as was expected, I as a player wasn't comfortable with that outcome. So I internally decided that he had a soft spot for children and tended to help them out, even though otherwise he only ever looked out for #1.

Everyone who gets drafted into a war is a warrior?

Warrior, Noun:
a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict

Lemme know when your definition gets into the dictionary on that one. Because until then, the answer is YES.

Everyone who has sat at a table and had lunch with me is a programmer?

Of course not. Because that's pants-on-head logic and assumes no one but programmers eat lunch while at tables occupied by Mr. Quertus. However, they could be considered Lunch-eaters.

Nor do I define everyone who has sat at the table and gamed with me as a Roleplayer, tactician, rules lawyer, actor, munchkin, DM/GM, riddle solver, mapper, artist, or anything else you could describe some players as.

The second definition of roleplaying if you google it is "participating in a roleplaying game."
So... there's precedent for your definition not being the generally accepted one, at least.

But that's how I use my words.

You may use your Peanuts however you jingle.

I'll have to think about it more, but, from your initial descriptions, I did not recognize all four as something I'd seen, and certainly don't consider at least one of them to constitute "role-playing" any more than it constitutes "munchkin behavior" or "railroading". Actually, it probably qualifies as those better than it qualifies as roleplay, IMO.

It's still a stance you can take at the table. A player who spends all day in Actor Stance can switch to Pawn Stance for a variety of reasons related to one particular scene or situation. (Such as if their barbarian has been dominated and the GM is giving them instructions via notes.)

Once again, since it seems to get missed, anyone can do any stance at any time for various reasons .

I interact with the fiction by rolling dice, but that doesn't make the act of rolling dice role-playing. This is where I'm having problems with your definitions.

Rolling dice is another one of the myriad ways of interacting with the fiction, but not one of the ones Stances seeks to describe.

Perhaps it is better to describe the Stances as various named states and positions from which you can control your character at any given moment.

No, it's, "everyone act like you're scared of the cardboard dragon, because it is supposed to be scary". That's acting.

That's not letting someone win. Your example is explicitly allowing someone to win because they have no chance of doing so on their own.

Roleplay like your character finds Mike's character convincing, because Mike's character is convincing (even though Mike isn't) is role-playing.

We signal that Mike'w character is convincing through mechanics that he invests points in. Because, as Floret brilliantly put it, otherwise he gets something for nothing. And this all collapses once he's interacting with NPCs.
You need rules.

In the right group, it isn't patronizing or hollow.

It will always be patronizing to be the only guy who gets to skip convincing everyone else because they have to be convinced by you X times per session.

Victories you didn't roll for and were softballed to make you happy will always be hollow.

[Talakeal]

Uhm... how does this provide a ceiling? Just because you don't HAVE to do more than the requirement (The floor), doesn't make that a ceiling. A floor is created by giving incentive for going at least up to a certain level, or punishing staying under it. For there to actually be a ceiling, there has to be some incentive to stay below a certain level, or punishment for crossing over it. And I just don't see how the second derives from having the first?
I mean, sure, players might go with "meh, good enough, I fullfill the requirements", but that does not constitute a mechanical ceiling, but is player-internal. (Also, one could argue that player would probably not gone much above that (or even to that level) if the floor was not there.)
And was it really more difficult? How do you measure that? Also, again, this does not consitute a ceiling. Which you do agree. I still don't understand where the ceiling comes from, though

The rules won't have the granularity to award really deep RP. They will forbid / punish / withhold rewards from people who go beyond what the game rewards. They also encourage you to act out of character to get the rewards, and stunt character growth.

For example, if my character trait is "alcoholic" most games will reward me every time I get drunk or go out of my way to get booze. But they will actively punish me (or at the very least withhold rewards) if my character works to overcome their addiction, goes out of their way to avoid alcohol entirely (because they know they can't stop at just one drink), or even play a long con where they avoid drinking now so that they can get more alcohol in the future.

Heck, just look at the 3.5 RAW for playing a paladin. Going by the book really limits your options; you have to act like a ridiculous caricature in certain situations and the rules like to provide a clear black and white answer to what could be an interesting moral dilemma with no clear right answer.

Warrior, Noun:
a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict

In my experience quoting the dictionary in an argument rarely ends well. It lacks the verbosity to really get into the specifics of the matter, has multiple definitions, and many things are subjective.

A lot of words that the dictionary lists as synonymous actually have subtly (but very important) distinctions between them which you can't explore if you can't get past the brief summary the dictionary offers.

It also tends to derail actual conversation into semantic arguments or excercises in talking past one another.

Just my experience though, YMMV.

As can fighting, crafting, and all other things (Except maybe magic, but holy **** there are some great Larpmages out there where you start doubting reality). A completely off-topic suggestion: Have you tried Larping? Cause at least for me (in Germany, different scene, I know), it scratches those itches roleplaying seems to scratch for you just way better. Leaving me room for enjoying massive dicepools, having characters capable of stuff you never would be and such similar things in TRPGs. And the best thing: In rule-less Larp, noone will argue with your definition of Roleplaying, as it is the default assumption But that might not exist where you live. I dunno. Back to the thread.

I don't know about Quertus, but in my experience LARPING and free form gaming are the opposite of what I consider RPing. When I RP I try and get into the head of someone I am not, while in a LARP I am always going to be bound by my own physical limitations, and it is really hard for anyone to picture my character as anyone but "me".

Also, working within the characters limits are essential, something that can't really be done in free-form or rules-less games unless the group is incredibly in-sync.

How does LARPING handle the exploration elements? The fantastic monsters, the epic vistas, and strange and alien magic?

[georgie_leech]

The rules won't have the granularity to award really deep RP. They will forbid / punish / withhold rewards from people who go beyond what the game rewards. They also encourage you to act out of character to get the rewards, and stunt character growth.

For example, if my character trait is "alcoholic" most games will reward me every time I get drunk or go out of my way to get booze. But they will actively punish me (or at the very least withhold rewards) if my character works to overcome their addiction, goes out of their way to avoid alcohol entirely (because they know they can't stop at just one drink), or even play a long con where they avoid drinking now so that they can get more alcohol in the future.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing this as an obstacle, per se. Making a deliberate choice to change who you are as a person or to overcome your addictions is hard.

[Keltest]

No, it's, "everyone act like you're scared of the cardboard dragon, because it is supposed to be scary". That's acting.

Roleplay like your character finds Mike's character convincing, because Mike's character is convincing (even though Mike isn't) is role-playing.

In the right group, it isn't patronizing or hollow.

I've been on Mike's end of the gaming table a couple times. I can confirm from personal experience that it is both patronizing and hollow, and you are better off just letting mike abstract the persuasion.