Roleplay vs Rollplay


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 699 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
You might want to throw that critique at the poster I replied to, who seemed to be saying that any deviation from the sandbox (like a Schrodinger's encounter with the farmwife's kidnapping) leads inexorably to the PCs realising that "the world does revolve around them, and so will take every opportunity to toss around,...<snip> "

I won't say it's inexorable, but in my experience, there's a strong correlation.

And it's not hard to spot, if my group takes on a player, or when I join a group, who've been accustomed to having their encounters scripted too tightly.
There's a complete lack of urgency, in anything they do.

[CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING MAY SEEM LIKE OBVIOUS HYPERBOLE AHEAD, BUT SERIOUSLY ISN'T. I HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED WITH THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE. IF YOU HAVEN'T, THEN THINK YOURSELF LUCKY.]

It's not just the big picture, strategic planning, but the daily, minute-by-minute, round-by-round tactics.
These are the types who explore three rooms of a massive complex, then roll out their sleeping bags, in an undefendable room just off a main corridor, leaving a score of dead bodies, and a trail of bloody footprints up to the door. Because what difference does it make?
They are the ones who look at me like an idiot, when I push through six attacks of opportunity, to reach the guard next to the giant brass gong. 'What an idiot' they're thinking, 'Why would anyone do such a dumb thing?'. And if I explain that I was trying to stop them ringing the gong, the reply is 'What difference does it make?'.

Because in the games they're accustomed to, these things don't make a difference. The GMs have the NPCs held in stasis, until the PCs happen across them.
The boxed text states that the guards in room B6 are playing cards, and will continue to do so, unless you prevent them. The orc cook in room B7 will be beating a goblin potboy, and will still be beating the same goblin, if you shut the door and come back tomorrow. The hobgoblins in the dining hall B8 will be chewing their gruel at all hours of the day or night, and won't look up from their bowls, even if there's a pitched battle in room B5, right outside their door. Even if a PC kicks the gong down the stairs, and another summons a swarm of howler monkeys to run hooting through the castle, stealing and smashing everything not nailed down, none of these people will open their doors to see what's going on.
That's some damn good gruel.

I want to play in games where the gong matters.


"Rub-Eta[/QUOTE wrote:
I'm curious, how do you run an unprepped game?

I know this question was directed at TOZ but it's my preferred (albeit currently dormant) style so I will answer it as anyway.

You do it by laying some heavy groundwork at the start of the campaign.

Who is each of your PCs?
What is their character (as in morals and principles and such.
Where are they going in life, their goals and objectives and dreams, their purpose.
How did they get to where they are today? Their origins and critical life experiences.

Armed with all this (including a bit of data you and players created regarding their hometown(s) anx saif hometown's situation within the greater geopolitical world, fabricate a starting location and -if the party isn't already formed via backstory- help motivate the party to form up.

From there it's just a matter of flipping through bestiaries [even better sorting through digital content] keeping an eye open for interesting encounters while weaving what's going on in the world into a living breathing entity with thousands of wheels turning.

Have fun, be creative, be fair and enjoy the world and story unfold alongside your players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

The boxed text states that the guards in room B6 are playing cards, and will continue to do so, unless you prevent them. The orc cook in room B7 will be beating a goblin potboy, and will still be beating the same goblin, if you shut the door and come back tomorrow. The hobgoblins in the dining hall B8 will be chewing their gruel at all hours of the day or night, and won't look up from their bowls, even if there's a pitched battle in room B5, right outside their door. Even if a PC kicks the gong down the stairs, and another summons a swarm of howler monkeys to run hooting through the castle, stealing and smashing everything not nailed down, none of these people will open their doors to see what's going on. ....

I want to play in games where the gong matters.

Even good APs aren't written this way, and can often describe how the dungeon creatures may react when they become aware of the intrusion (often at the start of the section for the dungeon). Also, every creature in the dungeon gets its normal Perception checks.

If you're engaged in battle, that's a Perception DC of -10. If there's a creature 120 feet away through two closed doors, that only amounts to a Perception DC of 12, which most creatures will make. Killin's mighty noisy. Creatures should react to these sounds, if they hear them. If not, they may stay in the kitchen beating that goblin potboy.

And in my opinion at least, you're totally within your rights to have a dungeon react significantly if PCs kill a bunch of monsters, and then retreat until the next day. Even as a player, rather than a GM, I would expect that this behavior would cause the denizens of said dungeon to harden their defenses as much as possible. More likely, I'd expect some sort of attack during the night, if they could track us down.

That's not a matter of Sandbox vs. Pre-planned; it's just nonreactive DMing, which is, in my opinion, a separate problem.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

One of the biggest things I have seen is that often people are the most upset with being labeled roll player as it in some way impact there game or style. If you do not agree with the label;e then ask why they think so? And How, You can change it in the eyes of the GM or group? That is if you want to stay and if they want you to stay.

If you are unwilling or unable to change or they are unwilling or unable to change then it is best for everyone to move on. This can suck in no uncertain terms for a variety of reasons but often it makes better RP'ers and gamer's out of people.

Better still, why not skip over the completely unhelpful and unproductive first stage, of sticking them with a label that's so vague it's impossible to know what's being said?

If someone's play style bothers you, why not address the specifics of that playstyle? Save everyone a lot of time?

And you may find the problem isn't actually due to the person you thought.

"I've noticed you always play a big dumb melee brute. Why is that?"
"Because Jim and Carol freak out, if anyone but them tries to play a caster. They call dibs on those roles every game, and told me if I don't play exactly like they tell me, they'll kill my PC."

"I've noticed your contributions are very flat and lifeless, whenever there's a diplomacy scene. It's almost like you're just playing yourself all the time."
"That's because I get teased, if I try to speak in a voice any different than normal. I want to be dramatic, but not if it means I get picked on by the others."

"I've noticed you pick a fight with every creature you meet. Why is that?'
"Because every creature we meet is out to get us. Every time we befriend anyone, it's a bait and switch."

"I noticed you don't seem to take much interest in the setting."
"Maybe because it's a really uninteresting setting?"


Snorter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You might want to throw that critique at the poster I replied to, who seemed to be saying that any deviation from the sandbox (like a Schrodinger's encounter with the farmwife's kidnapping) leads inexorably to the PCs realising that "the world does revolve around them, and so will take every opportunity to toss around,...<snip> "

I won't say it's inexorable, but in my experience, there's a strong correlation.

And it's not hard to spot, if my group takes on a player, or when I join a group, who've been accustomed to having their encounters scripted too tightly.
There's a complete lack of urgency, in anything they do.

[CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING MAY SEEM LIKE OBVIOUS HYPERBOLE AHEAD, BUT SERIOUSLY ISN'T. I HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED WITH THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE. IF YOU HAVEN'T, THEN THINK YOURSELF LUCKY.]

It may not be hyperbole, but that doesn't mean it automatically follows either. I've only rarely played in sandbox style, but I've never seen a group like that either. Plenty of other problems, but not that one.

As Cheburn said, it seems like a separate issue to me. Very loosely related to how you present plot hooks.

Scarab Sages

It has been rather a tangent, but it is related to the main thread, in that it all began, when people were saying that 'rollplaying' was disrespectful to other players who were trying to inject some roleplaying into their game, and to their GM who puts work into setting the game up, prepping and running it.

And I do believe GMs deserve credit for putting more effort into the game than the typical player. Not to mention some of the real monetary costs involved, for rules, scenarios, printing and props.

It's understandable that people want to be appreciated for the time and effort they put into something, especially when a lot of it is for others' benefit.
And the more time and effort put in, the greater the annoyance when it seems as if that effort is being taken for granted.

The point of showing how excessive prep isn't required, and can be made easier using some simple tricks, is not to belittle the GMs who prep, but to offer them some relief, if they're feeling burned out.
And if this reduces the burden they're feeling, they may be more able to relax, chill out, and not fret that some of their group aren't seemingly getting deeply immersed as others.


I admit that I didn't read every single post so my view has probably already been expressed.

My take is that, this is a Role Playing Game. If you refuse to put any effort into roleplaying, then what you want to play is another genre of game. If you refuse to learn the rules of the game then you don't really want to play the game.

It's a big game with a lot to learn. My personal philosophy is if you are making an effort to improve in whatever areas you are weak, you are playing the game. Some will lean more one way or the other. I play in a group that represents a wide spectrum and nobody steps on each others' toes. The rollplayers don't force their weaker roleplaying skills into every scenario and the roleplayers don't steamroll the rules in favour of moments they feel should happen in-game storywise.

We all have fun. Including the GM.

I fall more in "roleplay" spectrum. So I make an extra effort to know my character's mechanics, to read more about rules and ask lots of rules oriented questions.

Regarding the pejorative connotation of rollplay: big deal, get over it. It's the internet. People say things. Who cares? Just play the game. Everything will turn out fine.


Rub-Eta wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Indeed, as I said, if you practice doing the prep, you can run a really great prepped game.

And if you practice at NOT doing the prep, you can run a really great unprepped game.

I wonder why everyone thinks you shouldn't practice one option.

I'm curious, how do you run an unprepped game?

With this book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ulyssesjn wrote:
I fall more in "roleplay" spectrum

This. is. the problem.

It is not a spectrum. Its like assuming that because you are lawful you are good and that's NOT how it works.

At the extremes yes, there are times where you may need to bend a concept a little to make the mechanics work, or make a slightly different mechanical opportunity to fit a concept, but that only happens on the bleeding edge of optimization.

you do not make your roll playing better by role playing less
You do not make your role play better by making your roll play worse.

This thinking isn't just "get over it" it has a number of consequences.

The role player sees this dichotomy and doesn't put any thought into their characters mechanics and then fails to meet their story goals: the best swordsman in taldor keeps getting their but kicked by kobolds because the 18 charisma on a fighter doesn't work.

The roll player sees the role players with terrible characters and won't try to role play at all because correlation is probably causation right?

Quote:
Regarding the pejorative connotation of rollplay: big deal, get over it. It's the internet. People say things. Who cares? Just play the game. Everything will turn out fine.

A phrase that is used at least 9 times out of ten to mean "you suck" is going to be taken to mean "you suck" every time. If you don't want to tell people "you suck" use something else or expect the response to match what you're saying.


Ulyssesjn wrote:
I fall more in "roleplay" spectrum. So I make an extra effort to know my character's mechanics, to read more about rules and ask lots of rules oriented questions.

Quite frequently the bolded point would have people labeling you as a 'Rollplayer.'

'If you'd get your head out of the rules and actually learn to ROLEPLAY a bit we might have more fun!'


I just want to commend those that are still showing people that this is a bad thing and needs to be addressed. I got to tired to try since everyone that says it's okay is using a special definition and blames everyone else saying the problem is that they aren't using their special definition that isn't offensive.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:
I fall more in "roleplay" spectrum

This. is. the problem.

It is not a spectrum. Its like assuming that because you are lawful you are good and that's NOT how it works.

At the extremes yes, there are times where you may need to bend a concept a little to make the mechanics work, or make a slightly different mechanical opportunity to fit a concept, but that only happens on the bleeding edge of optimization.

I see it as a spectrum of preference relating to what players like to do during gameplay and during prep.

I spend time and energy understanding and using mechanics. But I spend more energy creating a background for my character and embodying who that person is. My decision at the gaming table are dictationg firstly by my character's beliefs. And the type of build I construct is informed prinarily by the same force. It's what I enjoy doing. I will gladly pass on a great feat or spell because it doesn't conform to my character's beliefs.


I enjoy roleplaying more than I enjoy the mechanics. I suppose the proper thing to do is focus more on what I don't enjoy and spend less time on what I do?

Seems strange for an entertainment.

*Obligatory disclaimer: This does not mean I completely ignore the mechanics. I do not build deliberately crippled characters. I try to avoid using "I'm roleplaying" to do stupid things in game.
I agree they are not opposed axes, but that does not mean I need to split my time and energy equally between them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ulyssesjn wrote:


I see it as a spectrum of preference relating to what players like to do during gameplay and during prep.

It isn't. Objectively. Actually. Reality. This is not a valid opinion this is factually wrong.

Nothing prevents you from spending

30 seconds on background/personality and 10 hours on mechanics.
10 hours on background/personality and 30 seconds on mechanics.
5 hours on background and personality and 5 hours on mechanics
10 hours on mechanics and 10 hours on personality.

You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


I see it as a spectrum of preference relating to what players like to do during gameplay and during prep.

It isn't. Objectively. Actually. Reality. This is not a valid opinion this is factually wrong.

Nothing prevents you from spending

30 seconds on background/personality and 10 hours on mechanics.
10 hours on background/personality and 30 seconds on mechanics.
5 hours on background and personality and 5 hours on mechanics
10 hours on mechanics and 10 hours on personality.

You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.

Some people also have differing talents and might spend 10 minutes on background/personality and 10 hours on mechanics... and come up with a character and playstyle that still leans towards roleplaying despite being a serious optimizer.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


I see it as a spectrum of preference relating to what players like to do during gameplay and during prep.

It isn't. Objectively. Actually. Reality. This is not a valid opinion this is factually wrong.

Nothing prevents you from spending

30 seconds on background/personality and 10 hours on mechanics.
10 hours on background/personality and 30 seconds on mechanics.
5 hours on background and personality and 5 hours on mechanics
10 hours on mechanics and 10 hours on personality.

You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.

Yeah? We agree? "I have been saying nothing else for an hour."

But if I do the second isn't that likely to trigger "doesn't put any thought into their characters mechanics and then fails to meet their story goals: the best swordsman in taldor keeps getting their but kicked by kobolds because the 18 charisma on a fighter doesn't work."

Even if it's not quite that bad, that amount of effort is likely to leave you underoptimized - unless you're really brilliant at it (or copying a build from somewhere.)

Though I'd also say that I see the distinction as more of an in-game thing than a character build thing. Possibly because I learned the terms back in the days when there was a lot less of the build game around. There was certainly still fuss over "rollplayers" vs "roleplayers" though.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
and come up with a character and playstyle that

Lets not nitpick the larger point usiing vague terms ok?


thejeff wrote:

You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.

Yeah? We agree? "I have been saying nothing else for an hour."

*headscratch* Not sure if the painkillers are kicking in, you didn't see that this was a response to Ulyssesjn, or didn't see that I was writing it...

Quote:
Even if it's not quite that bad, that amount of effort is likely to leave you underoptimized - unless you're really brilliant at it (or copying a build from somewhere.)

You can replace "time spent on" with "how much I like" or "squeee factor" or "number of woots" or level of talent at: the point remains that it is not a zero sum game, which is what a spectrum is.

Quote:
Possibly because I learned the terms back in the days when there was a lot less of the build game around. There was certainly still fuss over "rollplayers" vs "roleplayers" though.

And there's always been better mechanical options. Elves were just better, Multi classing was incredibly overpowered (half your xp meant you were 1 level down, Dart specialists were absolutely terrifying....


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


I see it as a spectrum of preference relating to what players like to do during gameplay and during prep.

It isn't. Objectively. Actually. Reality. This is not a valid opinion this is factually wrong.

Nothing prevents you from spending

30 seconds on background/personality and 10 hours on mechanics.
10 hours on background/personality and 30 seconds on mechanics.
5 hours on background and personality and 5 hours on mechanics
10 hours on mechanics and 10 hours on personality.

You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.

I think I get what you are driving at. But I can't help but be amused at you calling a perspective factually wrong. It's a way of looking at things. Plus, the way you lay out time wise looks pretty spectrumy to me. You seem to be describing points on a spectrum.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's not a spectrum. Those are quantities. You would have to describe how they fit on a spectrum, which I don't believe you can.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.
Yeah? We agree? "I have been saying nothing else for an hour."
*headscratch* Not sure if the painkillers are kicking in, you didn't see that this was a response to Ulyssesjn, or didn't see that I was writing it...
Quote:
Even if it's not quite that bad, that amount of effort is likely to leave you underoptimized - unless you're really brilliant at it (or copying a build from somewhere.)

You can replace "time spent on" with "how much I like" or "squeee factor" or "number of woots" or level of talent at: the point remains that it is not a zero sum game, which is what a spectrum is.

Quote:
Possibly because I learned the terms back in the days when there was a lot less of the build game around. There was certainly still fuss over "rollplayers" vs "roleplayers" though.
And there's always been better mechanical options. Elves were just better, Multi classing was incredibly overpowered (half your xp meant you were 1 level down, Dart specialists were absolutely terrifying....

I know you weren't directly replying to me, but it seems to me you have been saying that since it's not a zero-sum game or a spectrum, more of both is always better. Even if you don't like one of them, doing more of it always makes the game better. That's why I was surprised to see "10 hours on one, 10 minutes on the other" as an apparently valid option.

I disagree strongly with that.

As for AD&D, let's say "Much less so then 3.x". I could quibble with those points, but it's not really my point.


Ulyssesjn wrote:


Plus, the way you lay out time wise looks pretty spectrumy to me. You seem to be describing points on a spectrum.

No. I do not.

It is not "how you see it"
It is not "a certain way of looking at it"

That description simply is not there. If you see that description there you have a comprehension failure, pure and simple. Even with a simplified terminology I am clearly describing 2 axes, not a spectrum.


are you a basketball player or a golfer?
You spend 1 hour 5 days a week on basketball and 4 hours playing golf 1 different day. Does the answer change if you're more okay with skipping a basketball one day than skipping golf? Does it change if you're really really good at basketball but still are okay missing it more than golf, which you're quite poor at?
Is this a spectrum?
Would you rather identify as, "I play golf and basketball" or "I'm both"

Would you feel bad if someone said, "If you were a "BASKETBALL PLAYER" and not a "GOLFER" then problem X wouldn't matter. Or vice versa.


Ulyssesjn wrote:


Regarding the pejorative connotation of rollplay: big deal, get over it. It's the internet. People say things. Who cares? Just play the game. Everything will turn out fine.

I've seen this idea quite a few times in the topic. What is so special about the internet that it's ok to say mean things and we should all just ignore it? Yes, it's going to happen, and no, we can't keep it from happening completely, but we can point out that something is a problem and try to fix it in small ways. That's the only way to a better internet.

And this hobby is hard enough to keep functional groups playing together. Groups are notorious for breaking apart over subtle little things like using a term others find offensive without realizing they find it offensive. So I argue that no, things will not necessarily turn out fine, but they have a higher chance of turning out fine if you take a tiny little step and don't use a word that is often used in a mean spirited way to label people.

Yes, the term "rollplaying" is an ultimately minor thing that is being blown out of proportion due to being the subject of an entire topic, but it's also such an easy thing to fix. Just don't use the word. Or, use it, but be aware that misunderstandings may happen and when they do, you may be at fault.


thejeff wrote:
]I know you weren't directly replying to me, but it seems to me you have been saying that since it's not a zero-sum game or a spectrum, more of both is always better. Even if you don't like one of them, doing more of it always makes the game better. That's why I was surprised to see "10 hours on one, 10 minutes on the other" as an apparently valid option.

I don't know how valid it is but i know that it's certainly POSSIBLE....

How much you should be doing mostly comes down to being within one standard deviation of the rest of your group. I'm still working on the concept of an x and Y axis here...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


Plus, the way you lay out time wise looks pretty spectrumy to me. You seem to be describing points on a spectrum.

No. I do not.

It is not "how you see it"
It is not "a certain way of looking at it"

Dang, you're an intense individual.

What I see is on one end is a "person who dedicates all their time/energy to roleplay none to mechanics. On the other end, person who dedicates all their time/energy to game mechanics none to roleplay. And infinite number of points in between.

You can describe that with axes also.

Same result. Some people like some things, others don't.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]I know you weren't directly replying to me, but it seems to me you have been saying that since it's not a zero-sum game or a spectrum, more of both is always better. Even if you don't like one of them, doing more of it always makes the game better. That's why I was surprised to see "10 hours on one, 10 minutes on the other" as an apparently valid option.

I don't know how valid it is but i know that it's certainly POSSIBLE....

How much you should be doing mostly comes down to being within one standard deviation of the rest of your group. I'm still working on the concept of an x and Y axis here...

I presented one possible version on the first page. Basically a two-coordinate system where the first represents how much you like to roleplay your character and come up with backstories/etc. and the second represents how much you use mechanics to gain a comparative advantage.*

The circles for 'roleplay' and 'rollplay' were just examples of how you could define the terms -- I don't claim they're perfectly accurate, or that everyone would agree with where I put them.

Since a quantitative representation of people's playstyles would probably have very high dimensionality (let's ignore the problem of actually measuring it for now), attempting to represent it on two axes will always lose significant information. Even a qualitative representation in two dimensions, however, is an improvement over using a single axis ("rollplay vs. roleplay"), and is not terribly difficult to visualize or understand.

FWIW, the axis Ulyssesjn is describing would be along the antidiagonal line (x1 + x2 = c) between the blue and red circles.

--

*"Exploitation" in this case DOES NOT REPRESENT USING EXPLOITS OR GAMING THE SYSTEM, but rather just how much you use the mechanics to build a stronger character. I'm not going to bother remaking the graph, but feel free to if it really bothers you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ulyssesjn wrote:


Dang, you're an intense individual.

I'm usually pretty laid back with most things. Oh look, snake on my lap. Hey, a raccoon is hugging my leg. Well drat i just got cut with a chainsaw...

What i do not like is malarkey, and what I absolutely hate with the passion of a thousand suns is the epistemic nihilism that prevents the examination of flaws in malarky by trying to treat all ideas as equally valid. Some ideas are wrong.

Case in point...

Quote:
What I see is on one end is a "person who dedicates all their time/energy to roleplay none to mechanics. On the other end, person who dedicates all their time/energy to game mechanics none to roleplay. And infinite number of points in between.

And you completely leave out someone that spends ALOT of time and energy to role play and someone that spends a lot of time and energy to roll play. You CANNOT describe such a person on a spectrum because like their characters they are at least 2 dimensional.

This is the stormwind fallacy, which if you want to be technical is a gamer specific form of the either or fallacy. Logical fallacies are a polite and specific way of pointing out that something is malarkey and WHY it's malarkey.


Cheburn wrote:


FWIW, the axis Ulyssesjn is describing would be along the antidiagonal line (x1 + x2 = c) between the blue and red circles.

No. His entire line is (x+y=10)

The entire point of having 2 axes is that you can deviate from that line. Ulyssesjn 's spectrum doesn't allow a concept that doesn't fit on that line.


I see. You are using the word "spectrum" in its ontological sense. I'm using it in its "hermeneutical" sense.

Speaking your language, I see the spectrum as a sphere. With the outer edge being all roll, the inner point all role. The point a player occupies can encompass differing area sizes within that sphere.

I'm trying to tell you I'm on your side.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cheburn wrote:


FWIW, the axis Ulyssesjn is describing would be along the antidiagonal line (x1 + x2 = c) between the blue and red circles.

No. His entire line is (x+y=10)

The entire point of having 2 axes is that you can deviate from that line. Ulyssesjn 's spectrum doesn't allow a concept that doesn't fit on that line.

That's exactly what I said. You just replaced an arbitrary constant (c) with a specific value (10). So I don't think we disagree here.


Cheburn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cheburn wrote:


FWIW, the axis Ulyssesjn is describing would be along the antidiagonal line (x1 + x2 = c) between the blue and red circles.

No. His entire line is (x+y=10)

The entire point of having 2 axes is that you can deviate from that line. Ulyssesjn 's spectrum doesn't allow a concept that doesn't fit on that line.

That's exactly what I said. You just replaced an arbitrary constant (c) with a specific value (10). So I don't think we disagree here.

You do. He's describing Ulyssesin's line, not his understanding.

With either (x+y=10) or (x1 + x2 = c), if one term increases the other must decrease. It doesn't allow for someone who does a lot of both or someone who does very little of either.


Sorry, not used to 2 X's.... my degree is in trees


thejeff wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cheburn wrote:


FWIW, the axis Ulyssesjn is describing would be along the antidiagonal line (x1 + x2 = c) between the blue and red circles.

No. His entire line is (x+y=10)

The entire point of having 2 axes is that you can deviate from that line. Ulyssesjn 's spectrum doesn't allow a concept that doesn't fit on that line.

That's exactly what I said. You just replaced an arbitrary constant (c) with a specific value (10). So I don't think we disagree here.

You do. He's describing Ulyssesin's line, not his understanding.

With either (x+y=10) or (x1 + x2 = c), if one term increases the other must decrease. It doesn't allow for someone who does a lot of both or someone who does very little of either.

Since he and I were both describing where Ullyssesjn's "single axis rollplay/roleplay" line would be on my plot, and came up with the same formula, I'd say we agree.

It (Ulyssesjn's axis) is the Stormwind Fallacy people love to talk about. You're correct, it doesn't allow for someone who loves to do both or who does very little of either.

My plot does give both degrees of freedom, however. You could have someone who doesn't do either (bottom left corner), someone who does a lot of both (top right corner), or any combination of the two.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sorry, not used to 2 X's.... my degree is in trees

I think everyone knew what you meant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Indeed, as I said, if you practice doing the prep, you can run a really great prepped game.

And if you practice at NOT doing the prep, you can run a really great unprepped game.

I wonder why everyone thinks you shouldn't practice one option.

I'm curious, how do you run an unprepped game?

The first thing to understand is that running a game off the cuff requires prep in the form of experience. You should be an experienced role-player, know the system well and understand the genre of game you're running. The last thing you need is players who are excited to play in your game. If they're grumpy and require you to drag them along, it won't work.

Player: Tell me why my character should care about this story.
Me: No, you tell me.

For me personally, I off-load part of the creative process onto my players. I'm not the only one at the table, the story shouldn't just reflect my sensibilities, it should reflect them as well. It's also how I fix that motivation issue. I ask my players questions, based on things I know about their character and my ideas for the story.

"Why did you agree to steal the painting?"
"You left someone for dead a long time ago, they just walked into the tavern. Who was it and why are you scared?"
"How did [NPC] get the thieves guild to leave you alone? They've come to collect on the favor."

BTW: If you don't like these kinds of techniques... cool. We probably don't need to debate that. In fact, I'd love it if you just ignore me for the fool I am and pretend like I'm not here, instead of trying to debate who likes what more.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Boy, I turn around and there are 67 posts to read.

Bandw2,
So if we call them by some other name, how long will it take until they find that offensive?

somewhere between the first calling and when society starts using it.

here's the point, you're not labeling anything that actually exists, you're mislabeling a bunch of people, and that's why it's inherently offensive. using the term just means you're completely out of touch with the other side and are making no attempt to further understand how or why they play.

like i said, earlier, what you call red pine trees aren't just red pine trees, but everything to yellow to bright purple.

It is a definable term (even if there are 2-3 definitions), with most of those falling within the defined term offended that their play style has been defined.

yes they have definitions, extremely open and vague ones. you definitely can't put hard numbers on who is and is not either.

and no, people are offended because they are labeled as something they are not.

or have you not noticed that the general response to rollplaying is "rollplaying and roleplaying are mutually exclusive?"


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


I see it as a spectrum of preference relating to what players like to do during gameplay and during prep.

It isn't. Objectively. Actually. Reality. This is not a valid opinion this is factually wrong.

Nothing prevents you from spending

30 seconds on background/personality and 10 hours on mechanics.
10 hours on background/personality and 30 seconds on mechanics.
5 hours on background and personality and 5 hours on mechanics
10 hours on mechanics and 10 hours on personality.

You can do a lot or a little on both and they're not mutually exclusive.

Yeah? We agree? "I have been saying nothing else for an hour."

But if I do the second isn't that likely to trigger "doesn't put any thought into their characters mechanics and then fails to meet their story goals: the best swordsman in taldor keeps getting their but kicked by kobolds because the 18 charisma on a fighter doesn't work."

Even if it's not quite that bad, that amount of effort is likely to leave you underoptimized - unless you're really brilliant at it (or copying a build from somewhere.)

Though I'd also say that I see the distinction as more of an in-game thing than a character build thing. Possibly because I learned the terms back in the days when there was a lot less of the build game around. There was certainly still fuss over "rollplayers" vs "roleplayers" though.

good, then you should also agree that the word has no argumentative or discusive merit, since the word can't be used to accurately describe anyone. no one gains anything when this word is used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ulyssesjn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ulyssesjn wrote:


Plus, the way you lay out time wise looks pretty spectrumy to me. You seem to be describing points on a spectrum.

No. I do not.

It is not "how you see it"
It is not "a certain way of looking at it"

Dang, you're an intense individual.

What I see is on one end is a "person who dedicates all their time/energy to roleplay none to mechanics. On the other end, person who dedicates all their time/energy to game mechanics none to roleplay. And infinite number of points in between.

You can describe that with axes also.

Same result. Some people like some things, others don't.

here's the point.

the two are as correlated to each other as how much money i spend on toilet paper and how much money i spend on gas.

sure, I can make a graph showing that people have varrying amount of gas and toilet paper spendage, but in the end, it's going to mostly be a vague blob of dots. hell, there might even be some patterns in there, like richer people spend more on gas and toilet paper, etc, but all in all these 2 values aren't directly related to each other.


Ok since people don't seem to fully grasp what a rollplayer is or a roleplayer for that matter I can see why some people might be mislead into thinking it's an insult.

At it's heart it's a category. People want very different things from RPGs. While they ALL do all the activities, the real reason people love RPGs can be boiled down to a set a categories. There are MANY different category systems each looking at different things but for the sake of THIS thread we are examining just two 'rollplayer' and by contrast it's counterpart 'roleplayer'.

Rollplayer's are players who derive the greatest enjoyment from the game from it's MECHANICAL challenges. They rush back to the table to experience the next epic boss fight, to slay minions with their lovingly chosen mechanical abilities, to push the next skill challenge to even higher numbers, to achieve victory over anything the GM (or sometimes each other) throw at them. They are the vital force driving the party toward lofty goals and achievements.

If you view THIS as an insult then you are belittling one of the most active and engaging parts of the RPG experience.

Roleplayer's in contrast are players who derive the greatest enjoyment from the game from it's CHARACTER INTERACTION opportunities. They are glued to the game to experience epic social events, opportunities to interact with NPCs and PCs via in depth conversations and character moments, to feel like they actually LIVE in the game world, that they can stand on the Icy Peak of Crystal Mist Mountain and watch with unfolding horror as Mount Doom in the spectacular distance explodes sending lava and ash into the helpless villages below. They want to express that horror to their traveling companions to rush down to the devastation below and help(or take advantage of) the NPCs to interact with them on this momentous event. They are the beating heart of RPGs they give great depth and meaning to the make believe worlds they live in.

These categories are better viewed as compliments NOT insults if you are DRIVEN to attach emotional baggage to them.


Snorter wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

One of the biggest things I have seen is that often people are the most upset with being labeled roll player as it in some way impact there game or style. If you do not agree with the label;e then ask why they think so? And How, You can change it in the eyes of the GM or group? That is if you want to stay and if they want you to stay.

If you are unwilling or unable to change or they are unwilling or unable to change then it is best for everyone to move on. This can suck in no uncertain terms for a variety of reasons but often it makes better RP'ers and gamer's out of people.

Better still, why not skip over the completely unhelpful and unproductive first stage, of sticking them with a label that's so vague it's impossible to know what's being said?

If someone's play style bothers you, why not address the specifics of that playstyle? Save everyone a lot of time?

And you may find the problem isn't actually due to the person you thought.

"I've noticed you always play a big dumb melee brute. Why is that?"
"Because Jim and Carol freak out, if anyone but them tries to play a caster. They call dibs on those roles every game, and told me if I don't play exactly like they tell me, they'll kill my PC."

"I've noticed your contributions are very flat and lifeless, whenever there's a diplomacy scene. It's almost like you're just playing yourself all the time."
"That's because I get teased, if I try to speak in a voice any different than normal. I want to be dramatic, but not if it means I get picked on by the others."

"I've noticed you pick a fight with every creature you meet. Why is that?'
"Because every creature we meet is out to get us. Every time we befriend anyone, it's a bait and switch."

"I noticed you don't seem to take much interest in the setting."
"Maybe because it's a really uninteresting setting?"

I agree talking it out is generally the best way to go but there are times when that does not happen.

Some people get so stressed they just lash out with various words phrases and terms because that is how they can remove the stress. It dos not make it right but it does happen.

Again it just shows that every player is not right for every game.
MDC


Chess Pwn wrote:
I just want to commend those that are still showing people that this is a bad thing and needs to be addressed. I got to tired to try since everyone that says it's okay is using a special definition and blames everyone else saying the problem is that they aren't using their special definition that isn't offensive.

Can not this cut both ways?

For example in the USA if you ask for a F*% and your from the UK. You tend to get strange looks and some might find that offensive, But in the UK they are asking for a cigarette and in the USA it is a negative term.

Also if someone is using the term "good" in a negative connotation all the time with you, then you tend to think of the term "good" as being negative.

Also as I said optimization is not IMHO roll play as you can optimize pure acting and rules only/fluff-less PC's.

MDC

Scarab Sages

I agree not every player is right for every game.
But often, the blame is aimed at the wrong player.

In the first two examples above, it's the quiet player, who rarely speaks in character, who is tagged as the problem rollplayer.
He wants to make more of a contribution, but fears ridicule and PvP repercussions, if he tries to break out of the Big Dumb Brute rut he's been forced into.

It's Jim and Carol who are the stifling influence on the group, and need to be told to knock it off. And booting them from the group (or 'forgetting' to invite them to the next game) would probably bring the largest benefit to the remaining players, and encourage the quiet ones to bloom.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Ok since people don't seem to fully grasp what a rollplayer is or a roleplayer for that matter I can see why some people might be mislead into thinking it's an insult.

At it's heart it's a category. People want very different things from RPGs. While they ALL do all the activities, the real reason people love RPGs can be boiled down to a set a categories. There are MANY different category systems each looking at different things but for the sake of THIS thread we are examining just two 'rollplayer' and by contrast it's counterpart 'roleplayer'.

Rollplayer's are players who derive the greatest enjoyment from the game from it's MECHANICAL challenges. They rush back to the table to experience the next epic boss fight, to slay minions with their lovingly chosen mechanical abilities, to push the next skill challenge to even higher numbers, to achieve victory over anything the GM (or sometimes each other) throw at them. They are the vital force driving the party toward lofty goals and achievements.

If you view THIS as an insult then you are belittling one of the most active and engaging parts of the RPG experience.

Roleplayer's in contrast are players who derive the greatest enjoyment from the game from it's CHARACTER INTERACTION opportunities. They are glued to the game to experience epic social events, opportunities to interact with NPCs and PCs via in depth conversations and character moments, to feel like they actually LIVE in the game world, that they can stand on the Icy Peak of Crystal Mist Mountain and watch with unfolding horror as Mount Doom in the spectacular distance explodes sending lava and ash into the helpless villages below. They want to express that horror to their traveling companions to rush down to the devastation below and help(or take advantage of) the NPCs to interact with them on this momentous event. They are the beating heart of RPGs they give great depth and meaning to the make believe worlds they live in.

These categories are better viewed as compliments NOT insults if...

In the 6 years I've been on the boards, I've never seen someone use "rollplayer" as a compliment. It's always been a derogatory term used to describe a style of play that the writer doesn't like.

So, you can try to define it this way if you want, but it doesn't jive with my experience of how the word is used. And you should realize, that when you do use it, you are bringing along baggage that you aren't intending. It doesn't matter how pure YOUR intentions are, when you use the term, you are bringing with it the baggage added by dozens and dozens of other posters who have used the term as an insult.

Remember, your definition can't change the past 6 years of my experience. Your problem isn't with the people who find the term offensive, your problem is with the people who use it in an offensive way. I personally never use the term, cause well... I find it offensive. Debating with me on this is pointless, because I won't change my mind until I see other people change how they use it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It really doesn't matter what your personal definition is, Aranna. Or what my personal definition is, for that matter. The problem isn't in what it means, REALLY, it's in how people use the term.

And people use it offensively.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
These categories are better viewed as compliments NOT insults if you are DRIVEN to attach emotional baggage to them.

Not once have I ever seen them used in a complimentary way. Unless you think "It would be better if you roleplayed more and rollplayed less" is a compliment.


Irontruth you say you won't accept any other use of the word "until I see other people change how they use it". Well here is a girl using it a different way right in front of you. There are others using it in a different way too or this topic wouldn't still be raging. context is far more important than the word itself when literally ANY word can be used as an insult.

Do you strike down a girl who offers you flowers? Even if you don't like the flowers?


PK the Dragon wrote:

It really doesn't matter what your personal definition is, Aranna. Or what my personal definition is, for that matter. The problem isn't in what it means, REALLY, it's in how people use the term.

And people use it offensively.

Some do many don't CONTEXT is king. Don't react to an insult unless it really is one.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
These categories are better viewed as compliments NOT insults if you are DRIVEN to attach emotional baggage to them.
Not once have I ever seen them used in a complimentary way. Unless you think "It would be better if you roleplayed more and rollplayed less" is a compliment.

I know people don't use it as a compliment I was saying they should. People either use it as a descriptor or as an insult. The key in understanding people is context.


Aranna wrote:
PK the Dragon wrote:

It really doesn't matter what your personal definition is, Aranna. Or what my personal definition is, for that matter. The problem isn't in what it means, REALLY, it's in how people use the term.

And people use it offensively.

Some do many don't CONTEXT is king. Don't react to an insult unless it really is one.

Most use it as an insult. The fact that some people don't use it as an insult doesn't change the fact that it usually is used as an insult, and that's what's important here.

Again, unless you don't see anything insulting about

"Looking for ROLEplayers not ROLLplayers" (and never, ever the reverse). Because yes, it is insulting when used in that manner.

301 to 350 of 699 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Roleplay vs Rollplay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.