RP


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
To a large extent though, video game RPGs take the form of table top RPGs, but not the actual roleplaying part.

This is where there's a big difference between western RPGs and JRPGs.

In western RPGs, the protagonist is usually little more than an avatar for the player, an outlet through which the player can express themselves. In a sense, there isn't actually a character there for you to make decisions for, it's just the player. In these types of situations, roleplaying (in the sense I've talked about) would require the player to invent a personhood (much like in tabletop, but without any of the mechanics pushing you toward doing so).

In JRPGs, however, the protagonist (or group of protagonists) is a character who already exists in the narrative with their own motivations and quirks. At most, you get to pick their name, but the rest is already determined because it's part of an existing narrative.

The two styles are different enough that they really shouldn't even be considered the same genre.

There's definitely overlap though. Plenty of modern western CRPGs put a good deal of personality and narrative into the main character.

Those closest to TTRPGS tend to leave it more open to the player. These also tend to be the ones with more complex character creation mechanics or in fact character creation mechanics at all.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

No the OP wanted to know why people insisted on 'acting out the scene' in their roleplay.

I guess the real question is "Do they?"

Or were they talking about something else that you interpreted as "acting out the scene"? None of the examples you gave specified that and could be read as any of the other uses of roleplay we've been talking about here. Generally it might just mean "something other than just rolling dice in combat".

My original post was badly worded and had missing words and mis-spelled words.

This is just my impression of things. Alot of people equate 'acting out the scene' as the only way to roleplay.

Is sitting around having a inter-group in-character discussion 'acting out a scene' or is it roleplay? Most likely its both to one extent or another.

But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?


thejeff wrote:
If the player makes the character's motivation known, it doesn't have to be repeated with every action for it to be roleplaying.

So you at least agree with me on this. The player HAS to make the motivation known or it really isn't role play. It still doesn't make the actual combat rolls into role play BUT at least the character IS role playing.

thejeff wrote:
Similarly, for me, even if the player provides a detailed description for every attack, if that's not sourced in the character, it's not roleplaying. If the player just likes graphic descriptions of combat, then it may have nothing to do with the character at all. I get that it's not immediately apparent what's character driven and what isn't, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

I guess I can at least partially concede this point. We both agree already that simply having flowery combat descriptions is not role play... But you claim it can be if done right... if I am correct about your point. I guess if someone combined the role play banter into their combat description then there would indeed be role play there. BUT it still feels like you just end up with something part role play and part not. Oh well I can concede you this simply to avoid over complicating things.

I still won't go as far as Jaelith with his claim that all flowery combat descriptions are role play.

Am I correct in assuming our main disagreement is with my assertion that the internal does not count?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

No the OP wanted to know why people insisted on 'acting out the scene' in their roleplay.

I guess the real question is "Do they?"

Or were they talking about something else that you interpreted as "acting out the scene"? None of the examples you gave specified that and could be read as any of the other uses of roleplay we've been talking about here. Generally it might just mean "something other than just rolling dice in combat".

My original post was badly worded and had missing words and mis-spelled words.

This is just my impression of things. Alot of people equate 'acting out the scene' as the only way to roleplay.

Is sitting around having a inter-group in-character discussion 'acting out a scene' or is it roleplay? Most likely its both to one extent or another.

But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?

As you should be able to guess if you've been following the discussion - some would say definitely yes, others definitely not.

I'd say it depended on whether they were basing the suggestions on their character's persona or on other criteria.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?

To me, if the course you're suggesting was chosen based on what the character would want to do rather than what the player wants, then yes, it's roleplaying (though a bit dry in this example).

To certain others, though, the simple fact that you didn't speak your character's exact words in-character means you weren't roleplaying.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a scene in Firefly where the Alliance questions the crew of the Serenity. Each crew member is questioned alone, so they do a montage of each character's interactions with the official that's questioning them. This does a good job of highlighting differences in personality.

For instance, Zoe is giving short, minimalistic answers to the questions she's asked. She comments that she and her husband are "very private people". We then immediately cut to her husband saying "Her legs, definitely her legs; oh man, have you ever been with a warrior woman?"

And so forth.

One of the characters, Jayne Cobb, is sort of the "dumb muscle" of the crew. He gets one clip in the montage: leaning back, arms folded, glaring silently at the questioner. He does not speak a word. Now, some folks in this thread would contend that as long as you made it clear that this is the scene that's unfolding, you're roleplaying. Others, however, seem to be of the opinion that since you didn't speak any lines of dialogue, you did not roleplay.

I disagree strongly with the latter position.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?

Yes that is indeed role play. No prequalifiers. The only true judge of your character's internal motivation IS you. By suggesting this would only be role play if "they were basing the suggestions on their character's persona" creates a scenario where a GM for example can rule it not to be role play regardless of your own input. It makes others into authorities over not just how you play your character but whether you are playing him at all. And personally I feel that authority belongs only to the player. Others should only react to your persona not dictate it.


Aranna wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?
Yes that is indeed role play. No prequalifiers. The only true judge of your character's internal motivation IS you. By suggesting this would only be role play if "they were basing the suggestions on their character's persona" creates a scenario where a GM for example can rule it not to be role play regardless of your own input. It makes others into authorities over not just how you play your character but whether you are playing him at all. And personally I feel that authority belongs only to the player. Others should only react to your persona not dictate it.

I'll just reiterate that when I talk about this, I'm not talking about the GM enforcing or dictating anything. I suppose the GM could rule it not roleplay, but that doesn't need to have any effect.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
a GM for example can rule it not to be role play

I think you and I are playing very different games. Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?


Jiggy wrote:
Aranna wrote:
a GM for example can rule it not to be role play
I think you and I are playing very different games. Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Experience for roleplay maybe?

Though generally it's still only given for good roleplay, not just a binary yes or no. And Good is still subjective.


thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Aranna wrote:
a GM for example can rule it not to be role play
I think you and I are playing very different games. Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Experience for roleplay maybe?

Though generally it's still only given for good roleplay, not just a binary yes or no. And Good is still subjective.

No it's perks for role play that Mr Perfect came up with. But same concept tangible benefits for role playing. The thing is the only two people benefiting from this are lovable munchkin and myself... week after week I watch the less outgoing people get passed over for rewards.

Shadow Lodge

Morzadian wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

The creator of the first commercially available role-playing game didn't use mathematical logic to define role-playing games.

AD&D 1e:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have.

Details as to your appearance your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment).

You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!

The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

So have you become an 'artful thespian' yet?

Edit: I know after 30yrs I havent yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

The creator of the first commercially available role-playing game didn't use mathematical logic to define role-playing games.

AD&D 1e:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have.

Details as to your appearance your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment).

You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!

The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

So have you become an 'artful thespian' yet?

Edit: I know after 30yrs I havent yet.

I did, but it may have had to do with way too many high school and college theater classes. ;)


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

No the OP wanted to know why people insisted on 'acting out the scene' in their roleplay.

But what you said was: "How much RP is required in your groups? Not everyone is comfortable RPing"

You were (I presume) using RP in the same way Hama does, to mean 'acting out the scene' - which somewhat undermines your case as it implies acting is, by definition, integral to RPGs.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

The creator of the first commercially available role-playing game didn't use mathematical logic to define role-playing games.

AD&D 1e:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have.

Details as to your appearance your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment).

You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!

The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

So have you become an 'artful thespian' yet?

Edit: I know after 30yrs I havent yet.

I come from a visual arts background so expressing myself in different ways comes quite naturally to me. And I do love to read and post on roleplaying threads.

Not as much as an artful thespian as Knightnday, but I'm working at it.

In my gaming group, I encourage roleplaying, not rigidly enforce it. Some people in my gaming group do have difficulties with roleplaying but we are not judgmental about it. And because we have long game sessions 12-16 hrs, we have time for fighting and roleplaying.

It's a blind assumption but most Pathfinder players play with a good mix of both roleplaying and combat.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

No the OP wanted to know why people insisted on 'acting out the scene' in their roleplay.

But what you said was: "How much RP is required in your groups? Not everyone is comfortable RPing"

You were (I presume) using RP in the same way Hama does, to mean 'acting out the scene' - which somewhat undermines your case as it implies acting is, by definition, integral to RPGs.

As I said the original post was badly worded. It is my impression that ALOT of players/GMs, at least on these boards from alot of threads and posts I've read, believed that 'acting out the scene' was the only way to roleplay. Maybe I'm wrong but like I said that is the impression I am getting.

Shadow Lodge

Morzadian wrote:


It's a blind assumption but most Pathfinder players play with a good mix of both roleplaying and combat.

I can agree with this. You can see posts where people talk about going entire session without rolling dice and posts about how combat bogs down the game meaning less time for roleplay.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


It's a blind assumption but most Pathfinder players play with a good mix of both roleplaying and combat.
I can agree with this. You can see posts where people talk about going entire session without rolling dice and posts about how combat bogs down the game meaning less time for roleplay.

What type of Pathfinder game plays a huge role in the level and amount of roleplaying that's involved.

PFS is 4 hour sessions?

Online games are totally different to playing in the real world. Typing compensates for lack of facial expressions, human contact etc., and combat is slower to resolve and has less involvement.

Playing with people who you have been friends with for 20 yrs is much different when you play with strangers.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My last group met mid-week and most worked before the game so we only had 4-ish hours once a week. This wasnt bad for me since I work nights and weekends so mid-week was great. 4-ish hours a week doesnt bother me because just being able to play makes me happy. I dont need to fit as much as possible into one session so long combats dont effect my fun since I like the combat part of the game as much as the story thats unfolding and a little roleplay.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?

As it happens, how much fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying. Thus, the two notions are not as entirely independent as you make them out to be.

Part of the reason I'm not playing PFS anymore is that the folks who believe in how the game was meant to be played were gaining both presence and influence in the campaign, both globally and in my local area.

"Who cares?" and "Did you have fun?" ended up being kinda connected. :/


Aranna wrote:
I still won't go as far as Jaelith[e] with his claim that all flowery combat descriptions are role play.

Describing a combat scene puts a particular spin on the manner in which your character delivers blows—that is, conveying his or her style and sensibility. Therefore, it's role-play. Again, it can be diluted, crappy role-play ... but it's role-play, nevertheless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?

As it happens, how much fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying. Thus, the two notions are not as entirely independent as you make them out to be.

Part of the reason I'm not playing PFS anymore is that the folks who believe in how the game was meant to be played were gaining both presence and influence in the campaign, both globally and in my local area.

"Who cares?" and "Did you have fun?" ended up being kinda connected. :/

Wait a minute! Didn't you just post the exact opposite stance?

Jiggy wrote:
Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Yup you posted that supporting thejeff's argument that it didn't matter whether others thought people were role playing or not.

Shadow Lodge

I've just been offered a spot in new group starting up this thursday. The GM said he'll be running a DCC funnel to strat. Sounds messy and chaotic, might be fun. Doesnt look like much roleplay to start, that could be good thing, maybe.

Edit: If nothing else it will be a game to play.

Sovereign Court

Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?

As it happens, how much fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying. Thus, the two notions are not as entirely independent as you make them out to be.

Part of the reason I'm not playing PFS anymore is that the folks who believe in how the game was meant to be played were gaining both presence and influence in the campaign, both globally and in my local area.

"Who cares?" and "Did you have fun?" ended up being kinda connected. :/

PFS is out of your control you have to temper expectations. Home games however can be tailored to your exact preference. I'd say its more important to know your preference and play that way, then to prove its the right way.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

I've just been offered a spot in new group starting up this thursday. The GM said he'll be running a DCC funnel to strat. Sounds messy and chaotic, might be fun. Doesnt look like much roleplay to start, that could be good thing, maybe.

Edit: If nothing else it will be a game to play.

That's good news Jacob, hope it works out well for you.

There is nothing worse then not being able to play rpgs.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
PFS is out of your control you have to temper expectations.

I'm not sure "putting up with public shaming and open derision of myself and others" is a reasonable form of "tempering expectations". :/


Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
PFS is out of your control you have to temper expectations.
I'm not sure "putting up with public shaming and open derision of myself and others" is a reasonable form of "tempering expectations". :/

That sucks.

There's also a big difference between that and "The GM ruling on whether you're roleplaying". Or, more accurately, they're different aspects of the same thing. One just worse than the other.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

/snip

Was I roleplaying?

Who cares, did you have fun?

As it happens, how much fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying. Thus, the two notions are not as entirely independent as you make them out to be.

Part of the reason I'm not playing PFS anymore is that the folks who believe in how the game was meant to be played were gaining both presence and influence in the campaign, both globally and in my local area.

"Who cares?" and "Did you have fun?" ended up being kinda connected. :/

Wait a minute! Didn't you just post the exact opposite stance?

Jiggy wrote:
Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Yup you posted that supporting thejeff's argument that it didn't matter whether others thought people were role playing or not.

Two things:

1) No, that second quote (about the GM ruling on roleplaying) was not "supporting thejeff's argument that it didn't matter whether others thought people were role playing or not", it was a reply to you and you alone. That's why, in the post you pulled that quote from, I had included a quote directly from you about the GM ruling on roleplay. How in the world did you interpret a direct quote-reply to your post was somehow related to someone else's post?

2) Questioning whether roleplay is something the GM needs to make rulings about is NOT the "opposite" of having had an experience where some of my tablemates would publicly berate anyone whose roleplaying they didn't like. They're two very different things. How did you manage to come to the conclusion that one post about GMs making rulings and another post about social shaming could be so related to each other as to be contradictory?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In fairness, your earlier post said "fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying."

Which I didn't initially read as "because they'd publicly shame me if they didn't like it", but more as "It's hard to have fun unless everyone's on board with the way we're all roleplaying."

That post wasn't at all clear to me. I can see how Aranna took it that way. Your next one on the subject of course made it obvious that was wrong.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thejeff wrote:

In fairness, your earlier post said "fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying."

Which I didn't initially read as "because they'd publicly shame me if they didn't like it", but more as "It's hard to have fun unless everyone's on board with the way we're all roleplaying."

That post wasn't at all clear to me. I can see how Aranna took it that way. Your next one on the subject of course made it obvious that was wrong.

Hrm. I thought it was implied that the reason having other people not like my roleplaying could impact my fun was that they would, you know, take some sort of action about it, but perhaps that wasn't so clear.

Sorry for the confusion.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
PFS is out of your control you have to temper expectations.
I'm not sure "putting up with public shaming and open derision of myself and others" is a reasonable form of "tempering expectations". :/

Sorry to hear that Jig. I have never experienced anything like this in PFS, but honestly my PFS has been very limited. I think this has less to do with role play definitions and more to do with not being a rude ahole in public games.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
I think this has less to do with role play definitions and more to do with not being a rude ahole in public games.

Well, when some people's trigger to "be a rude ahole in public games" is seeing someone violate their roleplay definitions...

Well, anyway, enough with the downer derail. I'm currently having lots of fun with some 5E PbP, and that's what counts. :)


I feel like I'm roleplaying right now, participating in this thread.


Mark Hoover wrote:
I feel like I'm roleplaying right now, participating in this thread.

And you're playing ... ?

(Come on, Mark. You don't get a setup like this every day.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5th level sales analyst. I have the feats Arcane Analysis, Create Wondrous Data and Weapon Focus: Spreadsheet. I'm mostly the party face though, with some battlefield control spells like Obscuring Numbers and Create Margin Pit.

Shadow Lodge

Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Aranna wrote:
a GM for example can rule it not to be role play
I think you and I are playing very different games. Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Experience for roleplay maybe?

Though generally it's still only given for good roleplay, not just a binary yes or no. And Good is still subjective.

No it's perks for role play that Mr Perfect came up with. But same concept tangible benefits for role playing. The thing is the only two people benefiting from this are lovable munchkin and myself... week after week I watch the less outgoing people get passed over for rewards.

I never understood the concept of rewarding 'roleplay' because, to me, it seemed like the GM is rewarding an outgoing confident person for Being outgoing and confident.


If they're playing a secretive, grasping type, and are normally gregarious and pushy, well ... that, too, is good roleplaying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, *pffft* it's like giving the faster runner a trophy for winning the race, or the prettiest girl a crown - um, wait, what?

See I've always thought that rewarding role play, at the table, when you reward those who easily get into character, it sort of encourages those who do not to try to do so, you know, because they see that it will be rewarded.

I think that's the purpose of rewards in the first place.

But that's just me


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Aranna wrote:
a GM for example can rule it not to be role play
I think you and I are playing very different games. Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Experience for roleplay maybe?

Though generally it's still only given for good roleplay, not just a binary yes or no. And Good is still subjective.
No it's perks for role play that Mr Perfect came up with. But same concept tangible benefits for role playing. The thing is the only two people benefiting from this are lovable munchkin and myself... week after week I watch the less outgoing people get passed over for rewards.
I never understood the concept of rewarding 'roleplay' because, to me, it seemed like the GM is rewarding an outgoing confident person for Being outgoing and confident.

In theory it's not, since roleplay isn't directly related to being outgoing and confident. It's not acting.

In practice it often is, since that kind of flamboyance is usually the easiest both to notice and remember.

Part of why I've never been fond of mechanically rewarding roleplay.

Shadow Lodge

Terquem wrote:

Yeah, *pffft* it's like giving the faster runner a trophy for winning the race, or the prettiest girl a crown - um, wait, what?

See I've always thought that rewarding role play, at the table, when you reward those who easily get into character, it sort of encourages those who do not to try to do so, you know, because they see that it will be rewarded.

I think that's the purpose of rewards in the first place.

But that's just me

If it was a competition that might work but its supposed to be a cooperative game.

Trying to get people to 'roleplay' how you think 'roleplay' should be done is kind of arrogant and narrow minded.

There are MANY ways to roleplay and the game should be about letting people be who they are and have fun playing the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Yeah, *pffft* it's like giving the faster runner a trophy for winning the race, or the prettiest girl a crown - um, wait, what?

See I've always thought that rewarding role play, at the table, when you reward those who easily get into character, it sort of encourages those who do not to try to do so, you know, because they see that it will be rewarded.

I think that's the purpose of rewards in the first place.

But that's just me

If it was a competition that might work but its supposed to be a cooperative game.

Trying to get people to 'roleplay' how you think 'roleplay' should be done is kind of arrogant and narrow minded.

There are MANY ways to roleplay and the game should be about letting people be who they are and have fun playing the game.

Player's need to role play my way, *sheesh* I have an entire thread dedicated to the premise

I will reward any game play behavior that elevates the experience of getting together at the table for a evening of fun, whether that is dramatically, humorously, or even if I am hungry enough, gastronomically.

Shadow Lodge

Terquem wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Yeah, *pffft* it's like giving the faster runner a trophy for winning the race, or the prettiest girl a crown - um, wait, what?

See I've always thought that rewarding role play, at the table, when you reward those who easily get into character, it sort of encourages those who do not to try to do so, you know, because they see that it will be rewarded.

I think that's the purpose of rewards in the first place.

But that's just me

If it was a competition that might work but its supposed to be a cooperative game.

Trying to get people to 'roleplay' how you think 'roleplay' should be done is kind of arrogant and narrow minded.

There are MANY ways to roleplay and the game should be about letting people be who they are and have fun playing the game.

Player's need to role play my way, *sheesh* I have an entire thread dedicated to the premise

I will reward any game play behavior that elevates the experience of getting together at the table for a evening of fun, whether that is dramatically, humorously, or even if I am hungry enough, gastronomically.

Do as you plese in your games.

But you should understand that giving a reward for something can tell people that THIS way is the RIGHT way to do things, and if there are no rewards for doing things a different way, your also saying THIS is the ONLY way to do things.

At least this is the impression I get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Yeah, *pffft* it's like giving the faster runner a trophy for winning the race, or the prettiest girl a crown - um, wait, what?

See I've always thought that rewarding role play, at the table, when you reward those who easily get into character, it sort of encourages those who do not to try to do so, you know, because they see that it will be rewarded.

I think that's the purpose of rewards in the first place.

But that's just me

If it was a competition that might work but its supposed to be a cooperative game.

Trying to get people to 'roleplay' how you think 'roleplay' should be done is kind of arrogant and narrow minded.

There are MANY ways to roleplay and the game should be about letting people be who they are and have fun playing the game.

Player's need to role play my way, *sheesh* I have an entire thread dedicated to the premise

I will reward any game play behavior that elevates the experience of getting together at the table for a evening of fun, whether that is dramatically, humorously, or even if I am hungry enough, gastronomically.

Do as you plese in your games.

But you should understand that giving a reward for something can tell people that THIS way is the RIGHT way to do things, and if there are no rewards for doing things a different way, your also saying THIS is the ONLY way to do things.

At least this is the impression I get.

Well, "any game play behavior that elevates the experience of getting together at the table for a evening of fun" is a lot broader than "THIS way is the RIGHT way to do things" or even "role play my way".

Shadow Lodge

Any GM that rewards players for 'roleplay' is saying "'roleplay' the way I think 'roleplay' should be, or you dont get the reward."

Now, what each GM thinks 'roleplay' is.....

Terquem seems to a fairly broad view of what acceptable 'roleplay' is.

Other seem to have a fairly narrow view of acceptable "roleplay'.

Just the way I see things.

Sovereign Court

I think Jacob has the right of it. Some groups have a lot of problems getting out of their shell. A narrow view might be good in this case because it encourages the familiar and gets players into it. However, some groups want a wider birth when it comes to playing their character so the broader view helps, if not is necessary. Problems arise when you mismatch expectations and needs.

My group tends to have a problem with rewards. They stop getting into their characters and the game and start focusing on maximizing rewards. In this case, neither the narrow or broad view of role play will work. I ended up solving this by completely ditching XP and now the players don't feel the pressure or desire to do what they think they should and instead do as they feel. YMMV.


I think most people play competitively. If they didn't then builds would look VERY different. I still remember all the flack I got on here about having a group creation session prior to a campaign. Most people seem to want to build on their own and take their chances with group dynamics or group role play. This is a solid indicator of competitive play.

Sovereign Court

I don't get people who play a teamwork game competitively.


What teamwork game? How competitively?

I do not consider RPGs to be a teamwork game, though ironically most of my characters are support or teamwork oriented. I don't play RPG's as a sport to win, but as a roleplaying game to experience.

(Pathfinder Society however seems to dictate a team-vibe, which works within the prameters of that scenario/milieu.)

Competing against other players is even more ridiculous.


That isn't the point of competitive game play. You aren't working against each other at all. In fact it is even possible to have strong teamwork in a competitive game, it's kind of like storm wind in that regard. No you are competing to capture the largest share of game time. The lime light is on the character who dominates combat in a combat game, or who has the best skill set in a skill driven game, or who can be center of attention in a role play game.

151 to 200 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / RP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.