Roleplay vs Rollplay


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 699 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

mastermarshmellow wrote:
The definition and designation of roll-play vs. role-play is the topic of the thread, and Stormwind is a part of that, but not the focus.

he phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here.

The complaint there pretty much IS the stormwind fallacy.


IMHO a good player can make even a poor PC shine.
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter how skillful the player is, if the PC lacks the required CPU or RAM you're not going to be able to play that game.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
It doesn't matter how skillful the player is, if the PC lacks the required CPU or RAM you're not going to be able to play that game.

Maybe he's referring to players with the ability and knowledge to optimize their hardware.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO a good player can make even a poor PC shine.

MDC

The ability of player cannot overcome basic mechanical problems of a poorly designed character. Ways people list to do this simply do not provide an appreciable advantage past level 3 or so.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO a good player can make even a poor PC shine.

MDC

Been there, done that :)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
mastermarshmellow wrote:
The definition and designation of roll-play vs. role-play is the topic of the thread, and Stormwind is a part of that, but not the focus.

he phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here.

The complaint there pretty much IS the stormwind fallacy.

The point of the Stormwind Fallacy, so far as I understand it, is that role-playing and roll-playing are equally encompassing aspects of the game and that one's ability to succeed at one neither varies directly nor indirectly with the other.

I am stating that the designation of roll playing or role playing is itself variable, based on mode of play and medium of conflict.

Stormwind is entirely connected, for certain, but the actual objects that Stormwind observes are variable and one may perceive Stormwind as true or false if they assume the premise of Stormwind also assumes mode of play.

That's all I'm saying. A player who dynamically describes the actions taken tied to die rolls-"I heft my greatsword high above my head and swing down with all my strength" and damage dealt-"I rolled a critical, my blade smashed directly into the enemy's head, splitting his skull and killing him instantly" is just as valid a form of role playing as "my character is X of house Y whose background in Z makes me better at task ABC."

The die rolls are irrelevant in that respect, which is how I understand Stormwind to work.


master marshmellow: no one else is using the words that way, so using the like that does nothing but confuse people as to what you're saying. What you're talking about is description.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
master marshmellow: no one else is using the words that way, so using the like that does nothing but confuse people as to what you're saying. What you're talking about is description.

So I'm roleplaying wrong?

That's what it sounds like you're implying. Please correct me and inform me of the proper way to role play. (no sarcasm) I'm genuinely curious because we've largely covered what "roll playing" is but we really don't have a description of what "role playing" is and I genuinely thought that vividly describing what your character is doing is a valid form of role playing.


master_marshmallow wrote:

So I'm roleplaying wrong?

No, you're having a conversation wrong. The entire point of words is to accurate express ideas and a reality, and that doesn't happen when you don't use the words the same way as other people mean them.


The two terms are just used by one playing style to make another look bad because it doesn't suit them in an way/is just making them look bad.

Frankly imo, one is just as bad as the other and I try to avoid/ignore the players on both extremities of the divide.

Just an example of each to think about using the more common occurrences of each.

'Roleplayer' expects that the rollplayer takes suboptimal options the latter wouldn't. Or expects that the he "has his time to shine" just because he is roleplaying. Or expects more benefits for something his PC would otherwise be unable to do just because he 'roleplayed' well.

The fact is, if you want to make an ineffective PC, logically and if he was truly being roleplayed, he wouldn't even be adventuring because the experience would be too unsafe/unsuitable for him, and he'd know it after his umpteenth brush with death.

At the same time the rollplayer would be roleplaying more appropriately than you, because if you are throwing in your lot with someone, especially in life and death situations, you are expecting them to be reliable and not useless. And given those same situations, there shouldn't be any reason why someone who doesn't contribute still gets a share of that hard earned treasure.

And 'roleplaying' is not equal to your character as an entity in the game. The stats/mechanics are what determines your PCs capabilities and weaknesses. If it is something your PC is good at, he should be doing it. If it isn't he shouldn't be. Simple as that.

On the flipside, the rollplayer has difficulties of a different nature. Most times their PC, even to the player itself, is seen as nothing more than a mess of stats. It is harder in these instances to get attached to them, and therefore it is harder to actually interact with them in the game. PCs and the world.

It is also these mess of stats which make it harder to accept certain scenarios. While we are all playing the game, and having a baseline which applies to all is important, there may be some situations which the rules may need to be ignored. I am not supporting the idea it is done all the time (hell I hate it when it happens to be, although I accept the rare instance or two if explained properly) but sometimes it is just needed.

And when the rollplayer thinks he is being cheated that is when the game starts to devolve into rule lawyering and stuff. Me? I normally just extort from the gm at some latter date. Works well for me, unless the GM is seeking to maim/kill my PC, then they don't get to change the rules on the fly.

In the end it comes down to how extreme a person is in one of these two ideologies. I've played with many people which come strongly under the two (apparently their consensus is I am none and both at the same time, being an infamous troll but that is a different story) and for those super rollplayers and munchkins I play with, I have no issue with because they still know how to have fun. For the roleplayers, they don't try to drag down the game by being special snowflakes.

And that is just how it is. Sure I meet some people who go to the extremes sometimes but we are all reasonable adults (I hope) and normally after explaining my thoughts to them they become much more moderate. If not I normally just adopt the stance of ignoring them and doing what I think is right. Otherwise there is no loss in leaving the table.


Omnitricks wrote:
In the end it comes down to how extreme a person is in one of these two ideologies.

You. This is the stormwind fallacy.

You are not balancing your role and roll play by being better or worse at one or the other. That's the entire point. They are 2 independant axis' from each other, NOT a spectrum. There is no middle. They are not mutually exclusive terms.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:
In the end it comes down to how extreme a person is in one of these two ideologies.

You. This is the stormwind fallacy.

You are not balancing your role and roll play by being better or worse at one or the other. That's the entire point. They are 2 independant axis' from each other, NOT a spectrum. There is no middle. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Perhaps you are right in my expressing something akin to the Stormwind fallacy. But then again I am speaking from personal experience wherein I am describing the types of people I have met which fall into these two extremes into such a level I never want to play with them again.

Then again I've been playing a country (when I started PFS it was in a place I went to for over a year for studies) where their entire culture is considered to be based off rollplaying/munchkining/powergaming but they were some of the best damn people in actually being able to make me love their characters despite being overly optimized because they knew how to have fun and how to actually play their PCs at their peak. And I don't even mean mechanics/tactics wise. They knew the fitting personalities to play to each of their PCs.

Whereas back home, those 'roleplayers' (e.g. the ones which take the really terrible choices cumulatively and expects the GM to bail them out, with 20+ pages of backstory) are still unable to accomplish or add any value to the party or game as a whole to frustrating levels, most times pulling the party back by throwing their weight around. Fortunately those are still considered rare and far in between because there are those while still being true to their character are able to make the best out of what they got, or at least do not go out of the way in choosing to roleplay people you don't want to have anything to do with.

Which as I pointed out, are normally considered the extremes. Which is likely why the fallacy is a thing. Because we only notice the extremes and not the ones which don't cause us grief.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Omnitricks -

That just sounds like one group was good at optimizing, and one was really bad at it.

Why would you think that you love their characters "despite" being "overly optimized"?

The entire idea of the Stormwind Fallacy is that optimizing is in no way related to how good you are at roleplaying... which your examples seem to only confirm.

The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't say that people don't vary in how good they are at each one - they obviously do. But nothing prevents the same person from being either very good or very bad at both.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

This claim always amuses me. You (and people who make similar claims as you) purport to be concerned with censorship and support "free speech." Yet, somehow, free speech seems to be a right that only you have. You can say whatever offensive thing you can think of, but if someone else dares to exercise their free speech and tells you its offensive, suddenly they are the Thought Police trampling all over your Constitutional rights?

The truth is, if someone else expresses disgust in your words, or your behavior, then that is not censorship. It is not them trampling over your inalienable right to be a complete @$$hole to everyone. In reality, that person is exercising their right to free speech, just as you have exercised yours. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to you: it applies to everyone, including people who may disagree with you, and including whoever you decide to offend. You can belittle, insult, and offend whoever the hell you want. And anyone you offend can call you out on your offensive rhetoric. Because that's what freedom of expression is.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The two aren't separate processes, they're intimately connected to each other and doing one in a vacuum from the other makes basically no sense.

I agree. Didn't say otherwise.

That being said, often when making characters I start with the build and the fluff comes to me during the play. So it's not that nonsensical to me.

Quote:
I mean, how do you even come up with any detailed backstory absent the character's stats so you know what their capabilities are?

I don't. Not always, at least. As said above, I generally start with the build.

Quote:
And how do you come up with stats without knowing who you want to play?

I know what I want to play. Mechanically, that is. The fluff is developed during the gameplay.


I do find it funny that some people seem to equate florid descriptions with roleplaying when that is almost as divorced from roleplaying skill as mechanical optimization (I personally find it pretty tedious and melodramatic). How you describe your characters actions is part of your roleplaying style, not roleplaying skill. If you have grandiose passages about what your character does, but are arbitrary and inconsistent in the character's persona, you are still roleplaying poorly.


137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

This claim always amuses me. You (and people who make similar claims as you) purport to be concerned with censorship and support "free speech." Yet, somehow, free speech seems to be a right that only you have. You can say whatever offensive thing you can think of, but if someone else dares to exercise their free speech and tells you its offensive, suddenly they are the Thought Police trampling all over your Constitutional rights?

The truth is, if someone else expresses disgust in your words, or your behavior, then that is not censorship. It is not them trampling over your inalienable right to be a complete @$$hole to everyone. In reality, that person is exercising their right to free speech, just as you have exercised yours. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to you: it applies to everyone, including people who may disagree with you, and including whoever you decide to offend. You can belittle, insult, and offend whoever the hell you want. And anyone you offend can call you out on your offensive rhetoric. Because that's what freedom of expression is.

Ignoring half a sentence in a reply Is generally dirty pool.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

So I'm roleplaying wrong?

No, you're having a conversation wrong. The entire point of words is to accurate express ideas and a reality, and that doesn't happen when you don't use the words the same way as other people mean them.

Okay now I'm not using the English language properly?

Can you point out what confused you?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO a good player can make even a poor PC shine.

MDC
The ability of player cannot overcome basic mechanical problems of a poorly designed character. Ways people list to do this simply do not provide an appreciable advantage past level 3 or so.

IMHO, it really depends as to the group, GM and game. I played a poor stat PC who did the best he could with what they had and the rest of the group really helped out. It was good RP and since I was ok with not being the best at anything or often even close to it it was fine.

Would this work in every game? No. Would this work in most roll-games/hack-n-slash/murder hobo games? maybe depending on the GM and group.

Also "poor PC" could mean different things in various situations, ie I play a fighter in an all arcane game because of poor GM instruction or I play a cleric in a game where the access to gods is going to be cut off, etc.

Poor PC choice often does not mean poor RP choice and lots of fun can be had in games that are not so combat oriented.
MDC


I also just realized that a roll-player might think a poor PC was one who had bad stats, etc where as a role-player might prefer it as they get more chance to act and be a part of things not involving dice rolls.
Is there anything necessary wrong whit one or the other? IMHO no. But it might reduce the fun of others if they expect things to be done a specific way.
MDC


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I also just realized that a roll-player might think a poor PC was one who had bad stats, etc where as a role-player might prefer it as they get more chance to act and be a part of things not involving dice rolls.

Is there anything necessary wrong whit one or the other? IMHO no. But it might reduce the fun of others if they expect things to be done a specific way.
MDC

Honestly there isn't depending on mode of play.

If you're in a game with puzzle challenges and problem solving challenges (knowing what characters to talk to, fetch quests, etc) and that game isn't heavily reliant on die rolls then typically any character can do well.


Gonna throw out some anecdotes here:

On long driving vacations, I DM for my family. I am the DM because I know the rules better than anybody else. We are not very invested in our characters. "Whoops, forgot the sheets, let's just start over" has happened more than once. I make mechanically interesting encounters, not narratively interesting ones.

I stopped trying to have a plot after the following exchange:
"You've finally found Black Fang's lair" (I wanted to try adding racial HD, dragons seemed like a good starting spot)
"Who?"
"From the first dungeon, which we've played 2 or 3 times?"
"..."
"There's a dragon in this swamp."

It is a low-RP, informal-RP game, but it would collapse if it wasn't*. I have fun, I think my family as fun (they ask for more occasionally), and it works for us.

*two reasons: I wouldn't be able to keep track of all the NPCs' personalities, etc; one of the players has had poor experiences with a high-RP game where the players would complain if something bad ever happened to their character


master_marshmallow wrote:

Can you point out what confused you?

You're apparently using the phrase "role play" to mean "adding description to combat". Since no one else uses that phrase to have that meaning it confuses people when you use it that way AND you have the wrong meaning when you read people's words that way.

Role play is:

Taking actions that your character would take
Talking as though your character would talk
Acting as though they would act.

The last one is a bit limited at tabletop as you can't really move or gesture TOO much without clocking people next to you on the nose but you can do some.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Can you point out what confused you?

You're apparently using the phrase "role play" to mean "adding description to combat". Since no one else uses that phrase to have that meaning it confuses people when you use it that way AND you have the wrong meaning when you read people's words that way.

Role play is:

Taking actions that your character would take
Talking as though your character would talk
Acting as though they would act.

The last one is a bit limited at tabletop as you can't really move or gesture TOO much without clocking people next to you on the nose but you can do some.

That's pretty constraining, and I'm fairly certain that one cannot describe their character's actions without doing at least one or two of those things.

Also, I was citing an example of someone who is called a 'roll-player' role-playing a character who is focused on combat and numbers. I'm just saying that doing so is a form of role playing and should be treated as such. I am also (as a DM) willing to accept a description of a character's actions and general summary of speech (as if the player were narrating their character rather than playing them in first person) as a valid form of role playing.

Never meant to confuse anyone.


master marshmellow wrote:
That's pretty constraining

No. It is not. It is (as intended) a very broad definition. This objection makes absolutely no sense, particularly in light of..

Quote:
and I'm fairly certain that one cannot describe their character's actions without doing at least one or two of those things.

So I had a constraining definition that just happened to include what you were saying role playing is as a part of it... on accident?

We're talking about mammals. You're using the word mammal to mean red wolves.


To make things even more confusing I know a GM who gives you bonuses to your roll (or even just lets you succeed) if you can describe what you do well enough. Yes even in PF he does this as one of the players likes this style of play.
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am in the "roleplay" and "rollplay" are purely descriptive camp.

ANY word can be used as an insult, even your own name. You could throw away all the world's languages and still I am sure people would find a way to insult each other. It is pure folly to ask people to stop using a descriptive word simply because some people used it to insult you. I will continue to use such words in their intended descriptive role. If you get offended over description rather than insult then the source of the offense is you.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
master marshmellow wrote:
That's pretty constraining

No. It is not. It is (as intended) a very broad definition. This objection makes absolutely no sense, particularly in light of..

Quote:
and I'm fairly certain that one cannot describe their character's actions without doing at least one or two of those things.

So I had a constraining definition that just happened to include what you were saying role playing is as a part of it... on accident?

We're talking about mammals. You're using the word mammal to mean red wolves.

Okay, I get what you're saying now.

Apologies for the confusion, I am not implying that the examples I give are the only ways to role play, but rather I would consider someone who exclusively performs in game the way I described as role-playing completely and successfully.


Labels are reductive. People have all sorts of motivations for their activities, including Pathfinder.


Aranna wrote:

I am in the "roleplay" and "rollplay" are purely descriptive camp.

ANY word can be used as an insult, even your own name. You could throw away all the world's languages and still I am sure people would find a way to insult each other. It is pure folly to ask people to stop using a descriptive word simply because some people used it to insult you. I will continue to use such words in their intended descriptive role. If you get offended over description rather than insult then the source of the offense is you.

Okay so if I said a whole bunch of words that are often bleeped out and would cause a mod to remove my post for offensive language that are descriptive of a person, it's the readers and mod that are the source of the offense?

As shown rollplayer isn't a descriptive word because we're over a dozen different "meanings" of the word. So if you're not sure how someone will recievee this highly sudjective word why not use different words to convey your meaning? That way it's more clear to everyone and not offensive to a good chunk of people


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

This claim always amuses me. You (and people who make similar claims as you) purport to be concerned with censorship and support "free speech." Yet, somehow, free speech seems to be a right that only you have. You can say whatever offensive thing you can think of, but if someone else dares to exercise their free speech and tells you its offensive, suddenly they are the Thought Police trampling all over your Constitutional rights?

The truth is, if someone else expresses disgust in your words, or your behavior, then that is not censorship. It is not them trampling over your inalienable right to be a complete @$$hole to everyone. In reality, that person is exercising their right to free speech, just as you have exercised yours. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to you: it applies to everyone, including people who may disagree with you, and including whoever you decide to offend. You can belittle, insult, and offend whoever the hell you want. And anyone you offend can call you out on your offensive rhetoric. Because that's what freedom of expression is.

Ignoring half a sentence in a reply Is generally dirty pool.

Your post was only two sentences long, and I replied to the whole thing. You just didn't like that someone had the gall to disagree with you.

Liberty's Edge

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:

I agree. Didn't say otherwise.

That being said, often when making characters I start with the build and the fluff comes to me during the play. So it's not that nonsensical to me.

That's not quite where I was going with that. I mean, those two statements are sorta contradictory.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
I don't. Not always, at least. As said above, I generally start with the build.

Sure, but it wasn't directed at you alone, it was directed at everyone who sees those two processes as separate.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
I know what I want to play. Mechanically, that is. The fluff is developed during the gameplay.

See, this still doesn't quite make sense to me. How do you decide what Favored Enemy to have as a Ranger, what skills to invest in, what Traits to take, and so on?

And heck, even if you pick all of those purely on an optimization basis don't they inherently suggest a certain amount of backstory? I mean, Traits explicitly note a particular background element, and all the rest sort of beg the question of where they got that particular skill or ability.

I've certainly begun with a particular build, but by the time I've finished character creation I always have at least the germ of a backstory in mind. And it sorta boggles my mind how anyone can manage to not develop something similar in the course of doing so.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:

I agree. Didn't say otherwise.

That being said, often when making characters I start with the build and the fluff comes to me during the play. So it's not that nonsensical to me.

That's not quite where I was going with that. I mean, those two statements are sorta contradictory.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
I don't. Not always, at least. As said above, I generally start with the build.

Sure, but it wasn't directed at you alone, it was directed at everyone who sees those two processes as separate.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
I know what I want to play. Mechanically, that is. The fluff is developed during the gameplay.

See, this still doesn't quite make sense to me. How do you decide what Favored Enemy to have as a Ranger, what skills to invest in, what Traits to take, and so on?

And heck, even if you pick all of those purely on an optimization basis don't they inherently suggest a certain amount of backstory? I mean, Traits explicitly note a particular background element, and all the rest sort of beg the question of where they got that particular skill or ability.

I've certainly begun with a particular build, but by the time I've finished character creation I always have at least the germ of a backstory in mind. And it sorta boggles my mind how anyone can manage to not develop something similar in the course of doing so.

I don't quite understand it myself. To me character creation is an organic and somewhat mysterious process of guided evolution. I have some ideas before I start and then I and see how it feels as I go and I'm integrating things. Then of course different ideas suggest themselves and the character evolves in unexpected ways as the game develops. I don't understand doing this in a compartmentalized way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what to tell you. I do things differently than you and it works for me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, there are rare times where I feel roleplaying gets in the way of the game. Purple prose, arguing over their character's story, poor attempts at complex characters, players fighting over spotlight. It can get tiring after awhile as a GM and a player. It's why whenever I feel a bit winded from GMing, I just run a murderhobo one shot. No story, no arguing, no whining. Just a bunch of us gathered together to kill orcs and take their pie. It's simple, but fun and gets to the game quicker. And eventually we all feel refreshed and get back to more roleplayng in our games.

That's one good thing about the munchkin (in small doses at least). Reminds us it's a game and not to take it so seriously sometimes. Sit back, grab a beer, and have some fun while we can.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I am in the "roleplay" and "rollplay" are purely descriptive camp.

ANY word can be used as an insult, even your own name. You could throw away all the world's languages and still I am sure people would find a way to insult each other. It is pure folly to ask people to stop using a descriptive word simply because some people used it to insult you. I will continue to use such words in their intended descriptive role. If you get offended over description rather than insult then the source of the offense is you.

Okay so if I said a whole bunch of words that are often bleeped out and would cause a mod to remove my post for offensive language that are descriptive of a person, it's the readers and mod that are the source of the offense?

As shown rollplayer isn't a descriptive word because we're over a dozen different "meanings" of the word. So if you're not sure how someone will recievee this highly sudjective word why not use different words to convey your meaning? That way it's more clear to everyone and not offensive to a good chunk of people

I) Words that get moderator attention were never descriptive to begin with and were created as insults from the start; "rollplay" is NOT one of those words.

II) Are you trying to be Bill Clinton now?

Bill Clinton wrote:
"That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rollplay is one of those words similar to WAAC in warhammer* playing circles. It is explicitly a label by those outside of group for those inside of a group. The vast majority of uses are insulting and the vast majority of people who it is applied to consider it insulting. It is now and always will be a way to say "you are having fun the wrong way". It doesn't matter that you try to clean it up by saying "I didn't mean it to be insulting" anymore than South Park can turn a slur into a word to describe jerks who like Harleys.

*I was considering saying wargaming circles but really only warhammer has this particular toxic attitude. Most wargames are well enough designed that playing to win isn't seen as a sin.


Aranna wrote:
I) Words that get moderator attention were never descriptive to begin with and were created as insults from the start; "rollplay" is NOT one of those words.

I'm not going to give any examples, but there are plenty of words that wasn't created as insults or to be used as derogatory terms, but are still used as such. This also extends beyond words and insults. So even if you can provide a source of where the term "rollplay" was coined in a none derogatory manner, that is not proof of the word's current meaning.

The word "rollplay" is an insult and a derogatory term because it is used to label people as stereotypes (this is a bad thing, even if the stereotype isn't viewed (or valued) as a negative trait).

Aranna wrote:
It is pure folly to ask people to stop using a descriptive word simply because some people used it to insult you. I will continue to use such words in their intended descriptive role. If you get offended over description rather than insult then the source of the offense is you.

Again, I won't make any examples. But I'm guessing that you're probably not a person who is (at least not very often) the victim of this. It is not up to you to tell others what they should and should not be okay with. If you can't respect others, that's on you.


If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me. I'm not the one getting offended by a slight you imagined all in your own head. Since your the one upset it is by definition your problem.

The foolishness of avoiding a word which might be used at some point as an insult is perhaps better illustrated with another word. How about "man" There are plenty of women offended by the use of man in a misogynistic fashion such as in "man up" or "be a man about it" so are you going to NEVER use that word again? Or are you going to admit it is foolish to avoid words completely just because someone used it as an insult at you?


137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.

This claim always amuses me. You (and people who make similar claims as you) purport to be concerned with censorship and support "free speech." Yet, somehow, free speech seems to be a right that only you have. You can say whatever offensive thing you can think of, but if someone else dares to exercise their free speech and tells you its offensive, suddenly they are the Thought Police trampling all over your Constitutional rights?

The truth is, if someone else expresses disgust in your words, or your behavior, then that is not censorship. It is not them trampling over your inalienable right to be a complete @$$hole to everyone. In reality, that person is exercising their right to free speech, just as you have exercised yours. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to you: it applies to everyone, including people who may disagree with you, and including whoever you decide to offend. You can belittle, insult, and offend whoever the hell you want. And anyone you offend can call you out on your offensive rhetoric. Because that's what freedom of expression is.

Ignoring half a sentence in a reply Is generally dirty pool.
Your post was only two sentences long, and I replied to the whole thing. You just didn't like that someone had the gall to disagree with you.

Nooo ... you pretty thoroughly ignored the second half of the sentence.


This is odd...I have always used the term 'rollplayer' not in the way this thread supposes. I used it to describe players who don't role play, roll a dice to make in character decisions, if given a choice always will roll a dice than to actually Role-play, meta games everything etc.

The person's skills at optimizing their character often has no bearing on this.


master_marshmallow wrote:


Apologies for the confusion, I am not implying that the examples I give are the only ways to role play, but rather I would consider someone who exclusively performs in game the way I described as role-playing completely and successfully.

I think you can tell a lot about someone from their fighting style: a more straightforward barbarian might make reckless brutal cuts right down the enemies body while a fighter might slash the blade about dragging as large of a surface area over the opponent as they can. . but i don't think you're going to get enough out of that to qualify as really role playing.

You don't know what's motivating the character
You don't know their hopes, dreams, and aspirations
You don't know much about their background...


Aranna wrote:

If you can't tell the difference between an insult and a descriptive use of a word like "rollplayer" then it really isn't on me.

...
Or are you going to admit it is foolish to avoid words completely just because someone used it as an insult at you?

You see, insults and descriptive words can be one and the same thing. They often are, in fact.

I'm not saying "never ever in any context should you use the [insert] word". And I'm not just talking about small slights and insults that hurts someone's pride. This goes far beyond that.

I'm not going to tell you how you should talk to people. But if you can't be bothered to even attempt to avoid hurting people when you talk, "because this is an adjective"; it's a problem and it has to do with you.
I am, however, going to tell you to not talk to people like that here on the messageboards, since it is against the community guidelines, as pointed out in the OP.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


Apologies for the confusion, I am not implying that the examples I give are the only ways to role play, but rather I would consider someone who exclusively performs in game the way I described as role-playing completely and successfully.

I think you can tell a lot about someone from their fighting style: a more straightforward barbarian might make reckless brutal cuts right down the enemies body while a fighter might slash the blade about dragging as large of a surface area over the opponent as they can. . but i don't think you're going to get enough out of that to qualify as really role playing.

You don't know what's motivating the character
You don't know their hopes, dreams, and aspirations
You don't know much about their background...

Respectfully, it is 100% possible that a player might want to play a character that is underdeveloped and serves as a "flat" character in contrast to the more developed characters at the table.

I would respect any level of role playing tbh.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Respectfully, it is 100% possible that a player might want to play a character that is underdeveloped and serves as a "flat" character in contrast to the more developed characters at the table.

Though, it's entirely possible to have a character who is taciturn and not especially outgoing that is, in fact, a well-realized character. Particularly when I'm unfamiliar with the setting of a game, I regularly play characters who are primarily defined by being quiet, reserved, observant until they get some sense of what's going on. There's no reason you can't come up with a complex set of motivations and values for someone who would prefer watch to observe before offering input, while simultaneously offering a stark contrast to the players who want to chew scenery.

That is to say, just because your character does not intend to have many lines, does not mean that you can't do everything in your power to make those lines you do have land really well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still reading the thread, but here are my thoughts on the debate.

First of all, "roll players" in my experience tend to view the game solely as a board game. And that's not inherently a bad thing. Hero Quest was a fun board game, and my introduction to the world of roleplaying. Decent is also a fun game to play now and then. This game pretty much personifies "roll playing". There was little story to any given session because it was a GM vs The Players style board game. The GM wasn't there to tell a story. They were there to try killing the players off.

If everyone agrees that this is the goal, Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 can work very well as a board game. But honestly, that's not why I GM. These days I'm here to tell a story. One of heroes and villains, might and magic. To do this, I need players who are willing to go beyond the idea of playing a board game. I need players who are willing to become actors in this tale. The rules are there to determine if what you're trying to do works or not. But the who and why matter just as much as the what, when, and where.

Ideally your character is more then just a collection of numbers and systems. It's a living breathing person within the game's world setting. And people have opinions. They have emotions. They have wants and desires. And they have these things because they aren't mindless robots. Give me the heartbroken warrior scholar who laments that they are forced to kill instead of reason with their foe. Give me the noble barbarian who's only noble because he's honestly too stupid to actually do evil. Give me the revenge driven sorcerer who's revenge quest is misguided.

Give me these things, and I'll do more then just arbitrate a board game for you. I'll tell you a story. One where you are the main characters. This to me is the heart of what being a roleplayer is. And yes the occasional Hero Quest style dungeon crawl with no deeper backstory then "here's a dungeon, wander through it and kill every monster while looting the treasure" can be a lot of fun. But to be honest, I roleplay these days for the story being told, not the battles being fought.

I don't always have all these details fleshed out for my character at the start. Kahel Stormbender started life as just "this is a kineticist". There was no deeper backstory or personality involved. The personality evolved as I played the character. And the backstory got added to piece by piece. I had decided Kahel's parents were traveling merchants after one game session. When I made a human spiritualist I decided they were brothers. Well, brother and sister I guess. But the spiritualist is human, so how was this possible? A bit more backstory got created to explain that. Realized I accidentally changed Kahel's gender during my level 2 rebuild. So I added a bit more backstory to explain that too. And over time what started as a one dimensional collection of stats and systems became a fully fleshed out character.


Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Still reading the thread, but here are my thoughts on the debate...

Thank you; my already-professed sentiments exactly.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Respectfully, it is 100% possible that a player might want to play a character that is underdeveloped and serves as a "flat" character in contrast to the more developed characters at the table.

Though, it's entirely possible to have a character who is taciturn and not especially outgoing that is, in fact, a well-realized character. Particularly when I'm unfamiliar with the setting of a game, I regularly play characters who are primarily defined by being quiet, reserved, observant until they get some sense of what's going on. There's no reason you can't come up with a complex set of motivations and values for someone who would prefer watch to observe before offering input, while simultaneously offering a stark contrast to the players who want to chew scenery.

That is to say, just because your character does not intend to have many lines, does not mean that you can't do everything in your power to make those lines you do have land really well.

Just be careful too often when someone plays "the quiet type" everyone else at the table just thinks they aren't role playing. That actually makes it a lot harder to get across "your character" to the others to facilitate role play. Best probably to work it out with the others before play so they are on the same page as you.


Rub-Eta wrote:
You see, insults and descriptive words can be one and the same thing. They often are, in fact.

No no they really aren't.

Quote:


I'm not saying "never ever in any context should you use the [insert] word".

Good that's what...

Quote:


And I'm not just talking about small slights and insults that hurts someone's pride. This goes far beyond that.

Oh dear... and then you go off the deep end. Because that is all insults are "hurting someone's pride". I have no idea how you even get to "way beyond that"?

Quote:


I'm not going to tell you how you should talk to people.

Good cause you don't have any right to dictate that to me.

Quote:
But if you can't be bothered to even attempt to avoid hurting people when you talk, "because this is an adjective"; it's a problem and it has to do with you.

No if I use "rollplayer" as a descriptive term for a play preference and you take offense then it IS purely in your head.

Quote:


I am, however, going to tell you to not talk to people like that here on the messageboards, since it is against the community guidelines, as pointed out in the OP.

And yet that seems to be exactly what you are trying to do; telling me how I should talk. THAT is rude. If I wanted to insult you I am probably going to use a real insult NOT "roll player".

151 to 200 of 699 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Roleplay vs Rollplay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.