| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think expecting only first-person RP is a little too heavy-handed. It can be very difficult to pull it off well. Meanwhile something like: "I tell them that we just got attacked by a dragon, it's probably somewhere close by still, Jeremy our cleric is bleeding out and is probably dead on the ground, we are in a really bad spot here and we could really use some help!" is 100% legit.
Some people can do first-person really well, but third-person like the above is totally fine, and shouldn't be discouraged or looked down upon.
I think expecting only first-person RP is a little too heavy-handed. It can be very difficult to pull it off well. Meanwhile something like: "I tell them that we just got attacked by a dragon, it's probably somewhere close by still, Jeremy our cleric is bleeding out and is probably dead on the ground, we are in a really bad spot here and we could really use some help!" is 100% legit.
Some people can do first-person really well, but third-person like the above is totally fine, and shouldn't be discouraged or looked down upon.
Also, depends on the game-location.
One of the most grating things I've seen in PbP is someone consistently typing their actions in first-person. Feels like they're 'forcing' me to do their actions, and that I'm playing *their* character.
At a table or over R20? Again, situational, depending on the circumstance. Sometimes third-person is a much better way of communicating quickly, effectively, and on-task...
Regardless of whether you like "I rolled a 35" or more descriptive language, do people think that setting the convention or expectation for the game fits within the DM's role? (Like it's part of the mood/story they're trying to portray?)
For me, I think I'd leave it entirely to the player - whether they wanted the social interaction to be purely mechanical ("I try to persuade the guard to let us in - I roll a 35") or accompanied by some degree of in-character speech would fall more in the player's realm than the DM's I think.
The "I roll diplomacy 35" was probably far more like "I go and talk to this guy, 35 on diplomacy. What do I learn?" Or the GM said "Okay, you need to go talk to this guy/get info from this guy" and the player was like, "Ok, diplomacy 35."
Both of those scenarios and the scenarios like those, are much more likely to be what actually happened, but all LasarX remembers after the YEARS it's been since then was the player said "diplo 35" and not much else about what he was saying.
@LaxarX I know you've said you've left and I respect that. But yes, I wanted the actual words to be able to get a benchmark on what "actually give a minimal effort" means to you. Because for me the two examples I gave in this post are perfectly fine and good for roleplaying a character. But I don't know if that is enough for you. Hence why I was wanting an actually example of a character talking to an NPC that met your minimum bar for "roleplaying" instead of "rollplaying"
|
I've been on the end when I was supposed to talk, couldn't find anything to say. Give me a bit of time, I could probably come up with something to say, ask me to make things up on the fly, I have a problem. Sadly, time at a game table is a precious commodity.
Does that mean I should never play charisma based classes because I don't have the gift of the gab?
And it would not be good "roleplay" if I just gave the GM my diplo roll? Yet I would be considered as being a jerk by the group, if I did not try to use diplo when I have the best ranks in the party?
Sometimes you just don't get anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is probably a valid argument somewhere in here for what amount of descriptive language is required for one roll (like diplomacy) versus what's required for another roll. To me, this is just conflating a situational issue with a universal one.
"Roleplay" is contributing to the narrative, to the shared story we are all creating. I have certainly been guilty of making the "I swing at the nearest orc" attack action, so I will not condemn someone for taking the "I make nicey-nice with the NPC" diplomacy check. But, if that is your common practice across the length and breadth of our shared game time, then I can't call what you are doing "Roleplay".
You say "Roll Play" is pejorative, and doesn't carry the same definition it used to, anyway. Fine. So, what can I call it?
. . . I go and talk to this guy, 35 on diplomacy. What do I learn?" Or the GM said "Okay, you need to go talk to this guy/get info from this guy" and the player was like, "Ok, diplomacy 35." . . .
Because for me the two examples I gave in this post are perfectly fine and good for roleplaying a character.
For me, these would never be good enough for 'roleplaying' a character. There's literally no information in your examples that's not 'I talk to x and roll a 35.'
Even a:
"I go talk to x. I remind him of that time I saved his puppy that was in a burning house [examples may vary] and that I wouldn't be asking for y if it weren't important," would be sufficient. Just saying, "I go talk to the guard. I roll Diplomacy," is clearly phoning it in.
Hence why when these discussions come up I like people to give examples of what "minimum roleplaying" means to them. Otherwise we're talking past each other instead of with each other.
For me if you've conveyed what you're wanting your character to try and accomplish then you've roleplayed. And remember, what I listed is the minimum for roleplay. I prefer, I want to go make that guard my friend. Or I want to get info from that guard about X.
|
|
I always state my purpose in whatever I'm rolling diplo/bluff for. The problem is in PFS there's limited background that you can find out about NPCs, since your party may not have someone who can make knowledge checks.
Also you can't go, hey, I helped you rescue your kitten out of the tree last week, etc, because in PFS, thats probably the first and last time you'll ever meet that particular NPC.
"the acting out or performance of a particular role..."
... is not being accomplished.
Rolling dice and declaring success or failure is not the same as contributing to the narrative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of making Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Etc into skills with rules and mechanics (as opposed to leaving the results of social interaction wholly up to the GM) is so that a non-charismatic player can play a charismatic character, and so that a charismatic player must still invest some in-game resources to play a charismatic character. It would make no sense for the game to have a Charisma stat and not have it govern social interactions. There are no (and could never be) rules for what governs sufficient roleplaying.
I'll also add for some of the people in this thread, as someone who is generally "on your side" on this debate: Complaining about a term like "rollplayer" being offensive, or bigoted, or objectifying, or whatever, does nothing to address the point being argued. At best you're responding to tone. At worst you're whining for the debate to be shut down because feelings were hurt.
Upon updating myself with the new posts in here, I realize just HOW silly the original question here really is.
It's like asking if people who like food are fat, or if all men like beer.
Just because the two groups (rollplayers/roleplayers) can exist in the same community does not mean that they are in ANY way related.
My earlier post stating that you could basically assign a value to each seems more relevant to me now.
Everyone who plays this game has a 'rollplay' and 'roleplay' score.
All of us.
We are all rollplayers.
We are all roleplayers.
How we judge this differs from person to person, but we have to respect the fact that some people are offended by being called one or the other.
So, OP, to answer your question...
Absolutely not. They can exist side by side, but it seems that a lot of people use one of them as a very insulting term, so we probably shouldn't use it.
Upon updating myself with the new posts in here, I realize just HOW silly the original question here really is.
It's like asking if people who like food are fat, or if all men like beer.
Just because the two groups (rollplayers/roleplayers) can exist in the same community does not mean that they are in ANY way related.
My earlier post stating that you could basically assign a value to each seems more relevant to me now.
Everyone who plays this game has a 'rollplay' and 'roleplay' score.
All of us.
We are all rollplayers.
We are all roleplayers.
How we judge this differs from person to person, but we have to respect the fact that some people are offended by being called one or the other.
So, OP, to answer your question...
Absolutely not. They can exist side by side, but it seems that a lot of people use one of them as a very insulting term, so we probably shouldn't use it.
To some extent I see them that way. From a different perspective, I see them as the ends of a continuum, with most people somewhere in the middle.
It depends on what we mean by the terms. I don't even think we have a good consensus definition, which is probably most of the source of argument here.
Agreed with your last point, but not with it being ends of a continuum.
I'm a _great_ 'rollplayer' at times (I keep my head down, just declare my actions and roll my dice, giving the newer players a chance to shine/speak up), but also enjoy 'roleplaying' (building backstory, engaging NPCs in 'non-relevant' conversations, having character quirks etc etc).
I don't see myself as sacrificing one type of behavior to perform more of the other...
I think I'm good at BOTH, you just can't DO both at the same time...
So I'm gonna stick with my model of using stats.
Kinda like INT and WIS aren't the same stat, but you can have both at 12 (or 18, or whatever)-you don't have to lower one to increase the other.
There is probably a valid argument somewhere in here for what amount of descriptive language is required for one roll (like diplomacy) versus what's required for another roll. To me, this is just conflating a situational issue with a universal one.
"Roleplay" is contributing to the narrative, to the shared story we are all creating. I have certainly been guilty of making the "I swing at the nearest orc" attack action, so I will not condemn someone for taking the "I make nicey-nice with the NPC" diplomacy check. But, if that is your common practice across the length and breadth of our shared game time, then I can't call what you are doing "Roleplay".
You say "Roll Play" is pejorative, and doesn't carry the same definition it used to, anyway. Fine. So, what can I call it?
If you would like a suggestion, simply say something along the lines of "I do not feel that simply rolling dice is sufficient engagement with the narrative and would like to see more for my own fulfillment. Perhaps we/you/they could do XYZ."
If you and the person/people you are conversing with cannot agree after a cordial pejorative free discussion based on logic and reason, simply part amicably.
If in PFS I would recommend to simply grin and bear it or to excuse yourself from the table if you find it unbearable.
If the behavior in question is disturbing you could also try reporting it to your VC or VL.