I know this is a sore subject for many people. I usually try to avoid getting into subjects like this. Sorry if this starts and argument, however sometimes I have to vent a little. I’m not sure I can really explain this well, but I’ll give it a try.
My cousin is trying to find a new group to game with in person. I’m pretty sure I’ve tried the group he was at last weekend. They describe themselves as 60/40 for RP/action. He likes to work on character backgrounds, intrigue, motivations, etc… So he thought it sounded ideal.
According to him, the introductions for his single new character was over an hour. The next 3 hours were a single conversation to try and convince a smuggler to sneak a noble couple back into town. The only dice rolled for the entire evening was to try and find which tavern the smuggler in.
My cousin was uninvited to come back next week because, “You’re not a role player. We’re not interested in people that just treat it like a video game wanna be.” He was actually fine with that, since he was not planning to come back. He only stayed the night to try and be polite. He had almost left in the first ½ hour.
To me, ROLE PLAYING is having my character behave (as nearly as I can manage) as a real person would in similar circumstances. I don’t use accents or ‘voices’ for my PC’s because I’m bad at it and kind of an introvert. But I don’t mind people that do if they don’t go too overboard with it. I certainly don’t make up an ode to my fallen comrade on the spot, if for no other reason than, because real people don’t do that.
In this new PC into situation it would have been something along the lines of, “Hey guys, I’m John Smith the Marshal sent me along in case some added muscle is needed in this operation. I understand no one trusts the newguy at first. But I’m telling you I can hold up my end. Also I have the Marshal’s confidence. So what’s the plan?”
In real life upon meeting a new person; I have never, would never, have never know anyone else, or heard of anyone else that would spend 30 minutes giving a synopsis of my life, accomplishments, and goals. So to me doing all of that is not role playing because it is not a believable occurrence. But ok, new character intro is often kinda hoakey. Maybe these guys feel they need to have more background on the PC’s motivations and stuff to predict how the PC will react in game later. Still isn’t really believable since they wouldn’t know that stuff about him yet, but ok we’ll go with it.
Ok
Hiring a smuggler. To me this was even worse. I would have gone into this expecting something along the lines of, “Let’s keep this short. I don’t want to be seen with you. How much will it cost me to get 2 adults into the city with no one knowing about it. Remember, I have very powerful friends who want this to happen and don’t take kindly to being crossed.”
I am not going to tell a criminal (nor does he care) who I am, who the 2 people are, why they need to get into the city, what my motivations are, how they got out of the city, or how I think he should go about sneaking them in.
The criminal is not going to tell me who he is, what his back ground is, what his motivations are, what it will really cost him, who his contacts are, how he is going to get them into the city, what protections he has. He also doesn’t want to spend 3 hours in a conversation with potential clients. That increases his risk enormously.
This is not the only group I’ve met that is like this. If every single conversation is not carried on like an extremely verbose and horribly overacted high school play it isn’t really role playing. It’s just a bad excuse for a board game of video game.
I just can’t quite understand people like that. How is it role playing to behave in a completely ridiculous manner?
Have you met very many gamers that are like this or is it just a statistical blip that I seem to have found a bunch of them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haha, I've seen this before, but never to this extreme.
I consider myself an avid roleplayer. When I make a new charactor, I write up a detailed background (usually 3 to 5 pages describing who he/she is, what they look like, and their history/how they got that way.
But then I sit down at the game table and I give the short version. A one minute description explaining a characters appearance and mannerisms and maybe some of the details he'd easily have given out.
Later, I'll go on to act it all out. I wont tell anyone /why/ he was soo freaked out by seeing that weird symbol on the wall, or why he chose to sleep in a tavern rather than get free lodging at the rich family's home. Hopefully, if the GM is actually interested in RP, he'll give me a situation where it'll become appropriate to explore those reasons.
To me: this is how you RP in this type of game: Sit down in advance and figure out the who, what and why's... and then act them out and let people figure it all out from bits and pieces of the story, like a good auther would do when writing a book.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Introducing AM BARBARIAN to this group would be funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people confuse background with roleplaying. Background is there to provide plot hooks, determine motivations, and connect your character to the world and while it can help with roleplaying, it is something separate. Roleplaying is playing the role of your character, getting into the mindset of your character trying to figure out how your character would act in said situation. Roleplaying isn't acting, it's going through the actions; you can even roleplay your character in 3rd person, "My character goes up to the door, puts his ear next to it to try and hear what's being said between the generals on the other side of the door."
However, every now and then you will have elitists who have their own version of roleplaying, and for them drawn out table-theatre is their thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have heard of groups who "role play" in this manner. In some cases the lack of dice-rolling is used as a measure of how "serious" the "role playing" was.
I dunno how much I would like that. I might like it a lot. I've never really had the chance. I can tell you that the major disappointment I have had in all my years of gaming is the lack of interest in character development, character interaction and real-world style conversations.
In too many cases a "conversation" goes something like this:
Player 1: "My character wants to bluff the guard that he's the cousin of the Duke. I roll a 23 on my bluff check, did he succeed?"
My druid had the same animal companion from level 1 to level 6, a wolf. In a major module-ending Boss fight, we were attacked by a horde of lizardmen and then jumped by giant crocodiles as we fought off the lizardmen. On the crocodile's first turn they snatched and grabbed my druid's AC and the party elf sorcerer. My druid had to decide whether to save the sorcerer or the wolf. This was one of the hardest role-playing decisions I've ever had to make, but in the end she saved the sorcerer, and watched as her faithful companion was chewed to a pulp and swallowed.
After the conclusion of the battle she recovered the body of her wolf and buried him under an oak tree. She composed a song to honor the wolf and to ask the nature goddess to protect his soul.
The rest of the group pretty much ignored all this and mostly spent their time making jokes about how the AC had died and expressed a desire to get back to town to cash in their loot.
I was pretty disappointed by that reaction. Especially from the sorcerer's player.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Style of play issue.
I've been playing this game so long I can usually remember *being* one cliché or another whenever I encounter them.
I remember looking down on people who made effective combat characters, because the game should be about "ambiance" and "drama". In the end, it was just an excuse because I wasn't invested in the rules, and frankly our ambiance and drama were pathetic.
What's going on here is that the group you happened upon enjoys that style of play. They want to get together and tell stories. It's not exactly "roleplaying" by your definition. That's okay. If it's not fun for you, move on. If they're jerks about it, be sure to tell them that before GTFO.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
To each his own. I'd consider myself a pretty heavy roleplayer, but even I get impatient if the party spends 4 hours arguing the fine points of a plan. Paralysis by analysis and all that. I much prefer to come up with a simple plan, make sure everybody knows what they have to cover, and execute violently.
Of course, this is the way the game is meant to be experienced. Not played, mind you, that's for those video game brats that seem to populate the planet lately. *sips tea*
I've heard of groups like that, and I've played with groups sort of like that (briefly).
More power to 'em, but it's not for me. I like rolling dice.
I've met gamers like this, played with them and run them through stuff. In my experience they were the folks from the HS drama club that "really respected the method." In other words they CRAVED recognition for their acting chops.
From your account the game sounds like it involved some degree of stealth and guile - there were smugglers involved and you had to employ them for an act of discretion. That suggests to me that perhaps there were criminal-type characters among the PCs. Maybe they were justified in their interrogation:
"Hey Jimmy; what's with the NEW guy?" "I don't know Gonz...he says the Marshall sent 'em, but I aint too sure. Let's pat 'em down, send Rinee over to Bruno's Pub and see if he's the real deal. In the meantime, keep 'em talking..."
I suppose I could stretch and say the 1 hr intro scene might be warranted (heck I don't know; I wasn't there so I can't judge). But something seems odd about taking the rest of the night to hire the smugglers.
You're right - they don't usually want to know that much about who/what they're dealing with. I mean sure; if the cargo is going to burst into flames, leak toxic waste, or needs to be drugged in transit to avoid the apocalypse then maybe they should ask some questions, but HOURS worth of explanations? That seems...excessive.
But again; I wasn't there and should keep my mouth shut. I will say though in their defense that what they were doing was roleplaying, whether we all like it or not. Maybe its not our style, but then again I'm a jeans and button down kind of guy; that doesn't mean that a 3 piece suit doesn't look good on another dude, just not me.
I would also be a videogame wannabe in their eyes. On the other extreme of the spectrum though are some of my current players who claim they like "a little" roleplaying with their action. Their idea of RP however is to scream the occasional epithet at a BBEG just moments before obliterating it. Honestly; in that group, over SEVEN years, we've had only 1 enemy ever subdued and a handful of what IMO is a good roleplaying session.
Lets at least agree to respect all these other styles, even if we don't like 'em.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, good comment there.
I view gaming as a social endeavor where I get to be with friends for a few hours and not have to worry about work, bills, car repair, college bills, etc... My REAL goal as a gamer, perhaps paradoxically, has very little to do with the actual game. The game is a vehicle to allow me to be creative and do something totally divorced from the responsibilities and duties of "real life."
So I'm pretty flexible about the actual gaming activity. As I said above, I might enjoy that sort of session. I know I enjoy blasting the heck out of monsters. I know I enjoy "light roleplaying" where I get to pretend to be some exotic magical being. Would I enjoy "heavy roleplaying?" I probably would. I used to be in an acting troupe and have done some acting, and I liked that too.
The bottom line to me would be "do I enjoy being with this group of people? Do they treat each other with respect and generally behave like adults? Are there snacks?
I'm easy to please.
As I said, part of that was just needing to vent.
I understand that different people like different things. I would not tell them that they were wrong or insult them. (Even though they felt free to tell other they were doing it wrong and dish out insults.)
I can understand the speaking in voices, accents, and costumes even if I don't do any of that.
I guess it does irk me that they would tell us that we're not role players. Even though our characters behave in a reasonable manner and theirs do not.
... In my experience they were the folks from the HS drama club that "really respected the method." In other words they CRAVED recognition for their acting chops ...
Now that you mention it, this seems to fit VERY well.
Venting aside, it is only a matter of time until the wheels come off on this topic. Then it slides over a cliff in a shower of sparks. Then it explodes. Then it explodes again. Then it hits the bottom.
Then it falls off another cliff.
Subjective topic mixed with right/wrong equals pain and a lot of temple-rubbing.
Actually Lamontius, I think this particular angle on the question is pretty tame and non-controversial.
Now, if the OP had asked "Is it role playing if you act as if your cha 5 barbarian half-orc can charm the pants off the barmaid" THAT would get the juices flowing I think...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Venting aside, it is only a matter of time until the wheels come off on this topic. Then it slides over a cliff in a shower of sparks. Then it explodes. Then it explodes again. Then it hits the bottom.
You missed the flaming wheel rolling off into the distance. There are rules on this sort of thing you know :)
"Charm" means "hit her over the head with the greatclub and take her up to the rented room" right? ;)
Now that would be role playing.
|
You missed the flaming wheel rolling off into the distance. There are rules on this sort of thing you know :)
Venting aside, it is only a matter of time until the wheels come off on this topic. Then it slides over a cliff in a shower of sparks. Then it explodes. Then it explodes again. Then it hits the bottom.
Another Terry Pratchett fan, methinks ...
You missed the flaming wheel rolling off into the distance. There are rules on this sort of thing you know :)
It has to bounce (usually twice) before either rolling out of frame, falling over, or spinning down like a spun coin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The next 3 hours were a single conversation to try and convince a smuggler to sneak a noble couple back into town.
Some people either don't get or *HATE* that the diplomacy skill is an abstraction for a lot of "roleplaying".
Some GMs will penalize your diplomacy check if you aren't convincing enough acting out your character's negotiation. Because the player is actually the character, right? Some GMs simply won't let you make a diplomacy check at all. It's OK to make attack rolls to see if your character has the ability to hit things. . . but it's not OK to make a diplomacy check to see if *the character* can convince a smuggler to sneak a noble couple back into town.
What an abysmal game. I feel sorry for your cousin for having to endure that.
|
|
I guess it does irk me that they would tell us that we're not role players. Even though our characters behave in a reasonable manner and theirs do not.
That's what would get me, too. If they want to spend 3 hours roleplaying out a conversation with a smuggler, fine. But the quality of a piece of roleplaying is not determined by its length, and it's not the mark of a poor roleplayer to get bored with a 3 hours conversation. Even if you have no combat and few dice rolls, stuff can still happen.
... Even if you have no combat and few dice rolls, stuff can still happen.
I have played where almost an entire evening happened with it all being what I call role playing type stuff. Conversations, plans, background, investigations, etc... Like you said, stuff happened and things were accomplished. But 3 hours for an unbelievable and unimportant conversation with a tertiary NPC? To me that was just ridiculous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, and I thought it was role playing for my Sarenite to a)drag a dead, pregnant manticore out of the swamp, b)roll to see if the baby was still alive and far enough along to live, c)save said baby manticore, and d)raise the baby manticore to be a good magical beastie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, and I thought it was role playing for my Sarenite to a)drag a dead, pregnant manticore out of the swamp, b)roll to see if the baby was still alive and far enough along to live, c)save said baby manticore, and d)raise the baby manticore to be a good magical beastie.
Of course not! You would have had to compose a poem to honor the dead manticore, explained to the world why it was a tragedy, then acted out everything you were doing raising the manticore (preferably using a live cat as a prop).
... Venting aside, it is only a matter of time until the wheels come off on this topic. Then it slides over a cliff in a shower of sparks. Then it explodes. Then it explodes again. Then it hits the bottom.
Then it falls off another cliff.
Subjective topic mixed with right/wrong equals pain and a lot of temple-rubbing...
I realize that is a possibility. Or maybe even likely result. I'm sorry if I've created another one of 'those' topics.
Gee, and I thought it was role playing for my Sarenite to a)drag a dead, pregnant manticore out of the swamp, b)roll to see if the baby was still alive and far enough along to live, c)save said baby manticore, and d)raise the baby manticore to be a good magical beastie.Of course not! You would have had to compose a poem to honor the dead manticore, explained to the world why it was a tragedy, then acted out everything you were doing raising the manticore (preferably using a live cat as a prop).
The poem would only be appropriate if the dead pregnant manticore was a companion, familiar or mount. Otherwise just dragging and spitting it is fine.
It sounds to me like this group didn't really want another gamer at the table, but wanted some excuse to exclude the new guy.
I mean... three hours? Really? With "Smuggler Number One?"
Sheesh.
I'm not above conversing with NPCs, even minor ones... but there are limits to my interest in that sort of thing.
If they LIKE that style of gaming, well... MMDV (my mileage does vary).
Hope your cousin finds a better match.
It sounds to me like this group didn't really want another gamer at the table, but wanted some excuse to exclude the new guy...
You could be correct. The whole "well we tried but there's just no one up to our level since we are so wonderful" type of thing.
But when I met them, they really seemed like they were trying to expand their group.I'm sure I will never really know.
... Hope your cousin finds a better match.
Yeah actually is trying to get in a more RP type of group. The last one he was in was just a constant combat dungeon crawl. It was ok for a while, but then got kind of boring with the sameness. He will probably find something eventually.
I actually just had a conversation about this with one of my RL players 2 weekends ago. We were both expressing concern over our current GM's (we take turns each chapter of Rise of the Runelords) play style. To the current GM, it's all battle after battle and tactical prowess. Which was fun for a while. But I do crave the story. The player I was conversing with was GM of Chapter 3 (I did Chapter 4), and I loved his style. There was some heavy RP elements, but it never got bogged down with itself. There were multiple battles that only got bogged by our rules tactician (the current GM).
All we could really say at the end was, "Well, we'll be switching again soon enough".
I love story and RP, but every play has to progress. 3 hours of talking to Smuggler One, well...that's like the intro song of a musical taking 3 hours. Good lord the first act would be 10 hours!
Kinda torn here.
I am currently running Call of Cthulhu.
Until the last two game we averaged about 1 roll/ 1h 30m across the six games before that point. The plot barely advanced in that time, but a great deal of high quality inter PC roleplaying took place, their personal story arcs developed in interesting ways and I was able to build upon the themes of Hasturian Weirdness running through the game, slowly de-solving the characters(and I hope the players) trust in themselves as consistent narrators in their shared story.
In short I entirely believe that a game can be at its best when rules, dice and action stay the hell out of the way.
That said, the description of the game given above sounds like it does it badly wrong. If it where me, I wouldn't be handling the specific examples that way. But I wasn't their. It could as easily be poster bias.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
It could as easily be poster bias.
Technically, the OP seems to be recounting a story he heard from someone else. So it's not his bias, if bias is present.
The poem would only be appropriate if the dead pregnant manticore was a companion, familiar or mount. Otherwise just dragging and spitting it is fine.Gee, and I thought it was role playing for my Sarenite to a)drag a dead, pregnant manticore out of the swamp, b)roll to see if the baby was still alive and far enough along to live, c)save said baby manticore, and d)raise the baby manticore to be a good magical beastie.Of course not! You would have had to compose a poem to honor the dead manticore, explained to the world why it was a tragedy, then acted out everything you were doing raising the manticore (preferably using a live cat as a prop).
Nope. Admittedly, we were the cause of death. Note: baby manticore later was gained by leadership feat, gained some class levels, and became my character's mount. She was allowed to choose her own name and still has not told us.
I like roleplaying, I also like rolling dice and killing folks via my character.
As a dm, I can write the long and lengthy political dispute stuff, but there has to be some heroism in there, some adventure! Luckily it is easy to put in.
What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
I'm not arguing with you, Iron, I'd just like a little clarification of what you mean when you say, "and action."
I don't think anyone should get full encounter XP for one roll, whether it's a Str check to climb a cliff, or a Cha check to get invited to the Duke's garden party; you get full XP for fighting off the Mind Flayers you find at the top of the cliff/the Duke's garden party. (Edit: going by the OP's example, I guess RP is when the characters argue for hours and hours over what to do about the Mind Flayers.)
I super-duper don't think anyone should get XP for hamming it up; that's just cheap. The other side of that is, tables where hamming it up is common currency aren't usually concerned with experience points.
It could as easily be poster bias.Technically, the OP seems to be recounting a story he heard from someone else. So it's not his bias, if bias is present.
Well it is his cousin, i assume he/she likes him/her. Bias can slip in in the retelling as well as the telling ;)
What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
They do not do so innately, but sincerely doubt that breaking up the floor of the heart to heart discussion between husband and wife about the miscarriage of their baby, would have been improved as a moment of drama, storytelling or roleplaying by rules for consoling ones partner, dice rolls to attempt it, or an attack by cultists.
The six five hour sessions of play in with relatively little plot advancement took place was my players choice, as they developed the relationships between their characters, developed connections with NPCs and generally enjoyed exploring the Alienation of their characters from society, experiencing the Surreal events that have been invading their lives, expressing their characters creativity, and drinking in the aesthetics of the Hastur Mythos.
If that is what they want to do with their Saturday afternoon as we have a pint of beer and roleplay, I will happily indulgent them, and if the rules arn't needed to set up a frame work of understanding about their shared imagained space they wont get mentioned, and if their are no disputes over who has the rights to do what the dice won't get roled, and if the story and what they are finding interesting about it doesn't call for violence or daring do then I won't spoil what they are finding interesting for no good reason.
It should also be mentioned that the last two session, they have moved the campaign on, their has been action, their has been rules, and they have all added to the story, cause it was the right time for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kydeem, it sounds like that group needs to learn the storytelling concept of "Show, Don't Tell".
Thank you. I wanted to say something along those lines.
I recently quit an online campaign where almost every non-combat posting of the other players was a f@$+ing wall of text filled with exposition. I mainly left because of time constraints, but trying to read that stuff every day was becoming a time issue, as well.
And they had the gall to criticize me for my short posts, which contained only my character's actions and spoken words.
I'm not arguing with you, Iron, I'd just like a little clarification of what you mean when you say, "and action."What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
Combat. Combat should be part of the story, not a pause or break in the story. It should be intimately woven into it.
What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
They do not do so innately, but sincerely doubt that breaking up the floor of the heart to heart discussion between husband and wife about the miscarriage of their baby, would have been improved as a moment of drama, storytelling or roleplaying by rules for consoling ones partner, dice rolls to attempt it, or an attack by cultists.
The six five hour sessions of play in with relatively little plot advancement took place was my players choice, as they developed the relationships between their characters, developed connections with NPCs and generally enjoyed exploring the Alienation of their characters from society, experiencing the Surreal events that have been invading their lives, expressing their characters creativity, and drinking in the aesthetics of the Mastur Mythos.
If that is what they want to do with their Saturday afternoon as we have a pint of beer and roleplay, I will happily indulgent them, and if the rules arn't needed to set up a frame work of understanding about their shared imagained space they wont get mentioned, and if their are no disputes over who has the rights to do what the dice won't get roled, and if the story and what they are finding interesting about it doesn't call for violence or daring do then I won't spoil what they are finding interesting for no good reason.
It should also be mentioned that the last two session, they have moved the campaign on, their has been action, their has been rules, and they have all added to the story, cause it was the right time for them.
Notice the part where I said "that doesn't mean they're required", what do you think I meant by that?
In truth, I missed that statement, it is late, I am tired and I have been providing learning support to a group of learning disabled young adults most of the day.
With that taken into account, my answer should have been.
"i think you've answered your own point. They can be useful storytelling tools, but they can also get in the way when the story doesn't need them."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat. Combat should be part of the story, not a pause or break in the story. It should be intimately woven into it.
This is why I don't like random encounters to be truly random. Every encounter should support the story, even if it just builds on the atmosphere of the locale.
You shouldn't have a T-Rex just suddenly appear after a screen dissolve and battle fanfare. It should be an 'oh crap, THAT is what ruined those velociraptors we found a mile back!' moment.
One good one I read was a party exploring a dungeon, and noticing that the bodies of their foes were disappearing when they retraced their steps. Then the gelatinous cube found them and the 'aha' moment strengthened their understanding of the place.
Yar.
IronTruth's comment
What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
... seemed to me to be in response to Zombieneighbours's comment
In short I entirely believe that a game can be at its best when rules, dice and action stay the hell out of the way.
Zombieneighbours: that statement of yours would seem to indicate that most - if not all - of the time, dice, game rules, and action (combat) are bad for the game. For some games that may be true, but as a response to this, IronTruth's comment makes perfect sense to me.
i think you've answered your own point. They can be useful storytelling tools, but they can also get in the way when the story doesn't need them
This response seems at odds with your previous statement. Here you are saying that at times it can be good, but at other times (such as when it is inappropriate) is isn't. That seems to be very much common sense. However, that is not what you originally said, nor what you appeared to imply with the statement IronTruth was responding to. The clarification of "that doesn't mean they're required" does not negate his point, because his point was based off of your original statement of "In short I entirely believe that a game can be at its best when rules, dice and action stay the hell out of the way." - which as I've said, seems to imply a more draconic exclusion of these aspects of the game that can (and possibly even should) be used as further means to develop and advance plot/story/roleplaying.
Just my thoughts.
~P
Well it is his cousin, i assume he/she likes him/her. Bias can slip in in the retelling as well as the telling ;)It could as easily be poster bias.Technically, the OP seems to be recounting a story he heard from someone else. So it's not his bias, if bias is present.
It is pretty difficult to relate an experience without any bias. So I'm sure it is present. But I do make an effort to keep it minimal. =)
This recent event was my cousin's experience last weekend. But I'm pretty sure from the description and location that I had tried that group a few years ago when I still lived in the same town. We complained about them and their derogatory attitude for a while on the phone. That got me thinking about it enough that I felt like posting about it here.
I guess I should say in all honesty, that my cousin does tend to exaggerate a bit. So the intro may have been closer to 45 minutes, the smuggler conversation may have only been 2.5 hours, and they may have rolled the dice a few times.
But he was honestly amazed at how long they were able to drag out everything. The level of piciune (sp?) detail they went into. And the way they had to make sure every real or imagined person had to know all about them completely.
Yar.
IronTruth's comment
What I've never gotten is this concept that rules, dice and action take away from the story. Combats should be part of the plot, otherwise you're really playing two different games simultaneously.
Rules, dice and action are there to be used to enhance the story. That doesn't mean they are required, but they aren't anti-story elements, unless you only use them in a way that detracts from the story.
... seemed to me to be in response to Zombieneighbours's comment
In short I entirely believe that a game can be at its best when rules, dice and action stay the hell out of the way.Zombieneighbours: that statement of yours would seem to indicate that most - if not all - of the time, dice, game rules, and action (combat) are bad for the game. For some games that may be true, but as a response to this, IronTruth's comment makes perfect sense to me.
i think you've answered your own point. They can be useful storytelling tools, but they can also get in the way when the story doesn't need themThis response seems at odds with your previous statement. Here you are saying that at times it can be good, but at other times (such as when it is inappropriate) is isn't. That seems to be very much common sense. However, that is not what you originally said, nor what you appeared to imply with the statement IronTruth was responding to. The clarification of "that doesn't mean they're required" does not negate his point, because his point was based off of your original statement of "In short I entirely believe that a game can be at its best when rules, dice and action stay the hell out of the way." - which as I've said, seems to imply a more draconic exclusion of these aspects of the game that can (and possibly even should) be used as further means to develop and advance plot/story/roleplaying.
Just my thoughts.
~P
Way to late to be doing this but i guess i must
can
c —used to indicate possibility <do you think he can still be alive> <those things can happen> ; sometimes used interchangeably with may
I think your reading something into the language that isn't there, any hardness to the edge of that comment is a result of the rather negative attitude in the thread at large to games that are low on said action, rules and rolls.